And with the housing market like it is... perhaps we should encourage new housing development where we can get it.

perhaps we should encourage new housing development where we can get it.

Definitely. CI is very sparsely populated.

Maybe because the people interested in developing CI are interested in using most of the current amusement area. If development and the boardwalk are mutually exclusive, this blog post is in a bit of a pickle.

Several of the plans don't touch the amusement area. I said that I side with the hipsters on the amusement park, but they're saying "no" condos in CI, not "less" condos in CI.

we care but we dont want to take the b train all the way down there...cooommeee onnn

I might go to a save Little Italy event in Park Slope, but Williamsburg is a poor man's Greenpoint ;-) I agree regenerating the area would be a good thing, as long as they don't mess with the Cyclone's death trap vibe.

C'mon, that's the best part of The Cyclone!

You feel like you've stepped into a time machine.

A rickety, anachronistic time machine that's comprised of wood and feels like it'll collapse at any moment.

:)

Obviously you are misinformed. The issue is condos within the Amusement c7 zoned area. Build as many condos outside of it but protect and preserve what is left of that small last remaining amusement zone in all of New York City.

How are we supposed to save the amusement parks if they are not economically viable? Tax subsidies? Ownership by NYC? Look at how Westchester County continues to sink money into the rathole of Rye Playland!

Let the Cyclone be scrapped. Let the condo construction commence.

chsw

You're not going to believe this is me talking, but here goes...

Most of Coney is a hellhole, and has been for as long as I'm alive (and I suspect that is much longer than most of you)...

The Cyclone, nostalgia or not, is a wreck and will only last for so much longer. Most of the kiddie rides are DANGEROUS, not "Whee!"-dangerous, but "irresponsible to put your kids on 'em"-dangerous, for lack of maintenance and pervs lurking about, who have easy access to the subway, BTW...

I'd like Nathan's to be saved, but the last time I was there, the structure didn't look too long for this world either. So build another! And place a smaller, safer, well-supervised amusement/rec center immediately adjacent to it, and sell off the rest!

You know, there is talk of two of the projects being converted to rental/coop housing and in this case, as well as Far Rockaway, this might be wise.

Who ever thought it was rational to put project upon project upon prime shorefront land? The least among us should not be HIDDEN, the area is devoid of shopping, services, and places of employment, and if it is allowed to stay the way it is, it will NEVER recover because there's no incentive to invest there...and it's not a proud old area that has deterioriated.

Build and the Russians will come, the Hasidim will come, even the brokers who like the sea and long subway rides will come. When I was a kid, Brighton was getting slummy because everyone the city wanted to hide was dumped out there.

I watched the Russians come and it got better, than the developers and I can't even recognize it.

Did I miss Mrs. Stahl's and the crazies at the Brighton Beach Baths? Yes, but I got over it when I saw the new houses (even though I cannot afford them, they are still nice and good for the area).

Let the hipsters move the Mermaid Parade to Bedford Avenue in Willy!

They don't like that long-ass train ride any more than Not Dawn does, even though they'd never admit it...

Does anyone agree?