Dept of Sanitation Garage in Hudson Square

[lofter1]

At the urging of city officials, the Republican leadership of the State Senate has introduced a bill that would amend the Hudson River Park Act, which is required to place the facility at the Gansevoort site. City officials say the amendment is the final hurdle to implementing the full plan.
If the Hudson River Park Act is amended then that could open a can of worms ...

[CBTwo]

http://www.downtownexpress.com/inside_dt_logo.gif (http://www.downtownexpress.com/index.html)


downtownexpress.com


Volume 20 Issue 3 | June 1 -7, 2007

Dorkey says goodbye to Hudson River Park agency
By Josh Rogers

Trip Dorkey rattled off four years worth of accomplishments as chairperson of the Hudson River Park Trust last week and said his goodbyes. But he doesn’t know when Gov. Eliot Spitzer will name his successor, so he said there’s still a chance he’ll lead the Trust’s next meeting. The only thing he could say for sure was he would not make another farewell speech if he ever comes back.

The riverside park’s financial future is uncertain with a construction budget shortfall of at least $200 million, but Dorkey pointed to the many piers and park sections that opened in the Village, Chelsea and Midtown during his reign, as well as last year’s groundbreaking in the Tribeca section.

“It’s been a great four years,” he said at the May 24 board meeting. “This is a remarkable, remarkable project….I’m a great lover of parks. They are one of the greatest things you can have, but one of the problems is they are often the first thing to be cut.”

All of the board members present at the meeting of the state-city authority were appointees of former Gov. Pataki (like Dorkey), Mayor Bloomberg or Borough President Scott Stringer. Spitzer’s commissioners of Parks and Environmental Conservation, Carol Ash and Pete Grannis, are automatic members of the board, but neither appeared at the meeting, where small park contracts were awarded or amended.

Dorkey looked at the two commissioners’ deputies sitting in for their bosses and said “those of you in the new administration – I hope you end up being advocates for us up there [in Albany].”

Jennifer Givner, a Spitzer spokesperson, said the commissioners have responsibilities across the state and their absence was not meant to send a message. As for Dorkey’s replacement, she said the governor’s policy is not to comment on appointments before they are made.

Several Trust board members and Connie Fishman, the Trust’s president, praised Dorkey for his park leadership. City Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said Dorkey deserved to have part of the park named after him. Henry Stern, a Trust member and also a city appointee, said “there hasn’t been the slightest political interference” on the Trust’s board.

Over the last four years and outside the Trust’s board room, the agency has been criticized by some waterfront advocates for things like giving preferential treatment to a river study organization with close ties to Pataki, using strong-arm tactics to evict the historic Yankee Ferry out of the park, and demolishing the Tribeca piers without ensuring the park section could be rebuilt.

One of Stringer’s appointees to the Trust, former State Sen. Franz Leichter, 76, said he is interested in replacing Dorkey. He said securing city, state and federal funding to build the rest of the park is the Trust’s top priority.

“I have been involved with this as long if not longer than anyone else,” he told Downtown Express after the meeting. He said he has spoken to Lieut. Gov. David Paterson, and has the support of Assemblymember Dick Gottfried, who co-wrote the 1998 legislation creating the park with Leichter, State Sen. Tom Duane and others.

However, Julie Nadel, a former Gottfried aide and another Stringer appointee to the Trust, is not supporting Leichter. The pair have served together on the Trust since 1998. Nadel did not criticize Leichter, but when asked if she thought he’d be a good chairperson said, “I’d like someone as chair engaged and committed to open processes…A fresh new voice.”

Nadel, one of the Trust’s chief critics, said the agency needs a major overhaul.

It’s not clear how seriously Spitzer is considering Leichter or the other mentioned candidates, since people close to the governor aren’t talking. Developer Douglas Durst’s name had been tossed in the ring to replace Dorkey, but he has since taken himself out of the running. Michael Del Guidice, a member of the West Side Task Force waterfront group 20 years ago, has also been bandied about.


Josh@DowntownExpress.com

And I ask again, if they can't afford what they have, why do they need to extend their debt load with Gansevoort Peninsula? Other than of course it would be great for the community. Or should I have posted this at the Pier 40 forum?

[BrooklynRider]

I have to agree that a lot of progress was made during Dorkey's reign. Whether this progress was his accomplishment or not is up for debate.

[bigkdc]

So it sounds like the dept of sanitation has made a few adjustments to their plan:

- fuel storage will now by at north end of current UPS lot (about 300 ft from tunnel)
- salt storage will now be at the current garage/washing facility (south side of spring st) so they do not need to buy the building at clarkson that is a parking garage

That helps the safety issue a bit although seems like it is still pretty close. Obviously these changes do nothing to help the environmental impact.

[CBTwo]

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicholas_confessore/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 20, 2007
ALBANY, June 19 — A group of assemblymen from Upper Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn sharply criticized several colleagues on Tuesday for blocking a recycling station planned for the West Side of Manhattan, saying any delay would prolong the health risks their mostly low-income black and Hispanic constituents face.
“We have some of the highest rates of asthma, which is no surprise,” said Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV, who represents East Harlem. “We have some of the lowest life-expectancy rates, which is no surprise. We have some of the highest infant-mortality rates, which is no surprise. Some people call this environmental injustice. I call it racism.”
The criticism — harsh and personal for the usually sedate Assembly — was aimed at three Assembly members who have blocked a bill that must be approved for the recycling station to be built: Deborah J. Glick, Richard N. Gottfried and Linda B. Rosenthal.
All of them represent parts of the West Side. Ms. Glick’s district abuts the proposed site, on a waterfront patch near Gansevoort Street, just south of West 14th Street, that housed a waste station in years past.
The three are urging the city to reconsider a different site, on 36th Street, that it has rejected.
“I’m really sorry that it’s devolved into personal attacks,” Ms. Rosenthal said in an interview. “It seems like perhaps it’s a misunderstanding of what we’re trying to accomplish. Dick and Deborah and I for years have been sensitive to issues like this in minority communities. We’ve been working on air pollution and diesel fumes and all the other bad environmental consequences of the city and state’s siting facilities in minority neighborhoods.”
The Gansevoort station is part of an ambitious citywide waste-management plan under which each borough would be responsible for handling all of its own garbage, a break with past practice. For years, most of the city’s dumps and waste-transfer stations were placed in poor neighborhoods in the boroughs outside Manhattan, and truck traffic to and from those stations has been linked to higher levels of asthma and other illnesses there.
Over years of tumultuous and at times acrimonious debate, the plan has won the support of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the New York City Council, Gov. Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and — as of Monday night — the Republican-controlled State Senate.
The Senate passed a bill that would allow the station at the Gansevoort site, which was scheduled to become part of the Hudson River Park. City officials say passage of the bill is the final hurdle to implementing the full plan. But the legislation remains bottled up in committee in the Democratic-controlled Assembly, a fact lamented by some of the legislators at Tuesday’s news conference.
“We don’t want the Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) being better environmentalists than we are,” said Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. of the Bronx.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sheldon_silver/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who is from Lower Manhattan, seemed to support the Gansevoort station’s opponents. “This is not a Nimby case, this is not ‘not in my backyard;’ this is a Wimby case, ‘where in my backyard?’ ” Mr. Silver said in an interview. “There is a big difference between the two.”
City officials said on Tuesday that they had amply studied the 36th Street site and several other alternatives, and had concluded that Gansevoort was the best and most cost-effective choice.
“We briefed Assembly members Glick, Gottfried and Rosenthal last week and today provided them with the follow-up information they requested,” said Farrell Sklerov, a mayoral spokesman in Albany.
The legislators at the news conference are all members of the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus, which has not yet taken an official position on the plan. But on Tuesday, 33 of the caucus’s 44 members signed a letter to Mr. Silver urging him to allow a vote on the Gansevoort legislation, signaling, they said, that a majority of the Legislature’s black and Hispanic members support the bill. The legislative session is scheduled to end on Thursday.
“In the fine tradition of Albany, lots of things get done in the last two days,” said Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat of Upper Manhattan, who has been organizing support for the bill that would create the Gansevoort station.
“I think that when that bill comes to the floor, it will get a majority of us, the vast majority of us, of the members of the State Legislature.”

[ZippyTheChimp]

To clear up any confusion:

The above article refers to the construction of a marine solid waste transfer station in Manhattan, part of the Solid Waste Management Plan that was passed by the City Council last summer. Instead of trucking garbage, it will be transported by barge. Four stations are to be built - two in Brooklyn, one in Queens, and one in Manhattan.

The current debate is about the Gansevoort site selected by the city and another site at pier 76. The size would be about 2/3 of an acre.

It has nothing to do with the proposed truck garage.

[CBTwo]

I believe the aforementioned article does have bearing on the sanitation garage relocation because it has the potential to use the Gansevoort property for a sanitation facility which previously was not allowed unless there was an amendment to the Hudson River Park Act.

A garbage transfer station is different than a sanitation garage granted, but if you are going to allow a transfer station how far behind that is a sanitation garage?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
You can believe that if you'd like, but the transfer station is an implementation of a city law, and by its nature, must be at the shoreline. Even with that reality, it's already a battle getting that approved.

The garage site (or sites if you want to include W30th) have already been determined. The garage does not have to be on the water. The proposed transfer station at 2/3 acre is a small part of the total area of Gansevoort. Including the garage would result in what's there now.

Even before they were mandated to move the garage off Gansevoort, the DSNY (and City Hall) were aware that that they needed an amendment to the HRPA to build the transfer station.

Nothing new here except the debate over the alternate site at pier 76.

[bigkdc]

Here is a link (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/guides/finalscope12n5.pdf) to the new scoping document from the department of sanitation. You will see that incorporates some of the changes previously discussed here (moved fueling station, not taking over the current residential garage)

[CBTwo]

Once again Chimp defines the political boundaries and has no solutions or alternatives to a bad situation. When are the clowns being released in his circus?

[ASchwarz]

IMO the only circus is being generated by the opposition.

I think both the marine transfer station and the sanitation garage are reasonable projects. It is imperitive that Manhattan contributes to the city's solid waste plan. This is localized and reflexive opposition that without fail responds with a fight when any sizable project is considered for the area.

[lofter1]

North Village and Chelsea have their highline park so why do they need another one on the river? It would be just another place to spread AIDS.

I've refrained from saying it -- but now I won't ...

You're an idiot.

And no one here really gives two cents about your opinions or your snide comments. If anyone feels otherwise I'm sure they'll let me know. But if I were you I woudn't count on it.

People like you make me wish I had become a moderator. You'd be gone forever.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
CBTwo's posts here and at the Pier 40 thread have been removed. He was advised that such remarks will not be tolerated.

[bigkdc]

I will never understand why people make offensive comments when trying to make a point - totally undermines all credibility.

In the end, I feel like this is a horrendous use of prime real estate. It has got to be one of the most valuable open lots in the city so to put a garbage truck station there seems nutty to me. I know this is a very simple way of looking at things.

If this does get built hopefully it will at least look nice.

[bigkdc]

Hudson where? Trying to shape a new identity for Hudson Square

Villager photo by Jefferson Siegel

David Reck, right, Ann Arlen, left, and others on the Hudson Square tour at Greenwich and Charlton Sts. opposite the UPS building.

By Lucas Mann

Erin Roeder, a Trinity Real Estate representative, sat on a panel of developers on the stage at Don Hill’s bar, on the corner of Spring and Greenwich Sts., trying to envision Hudson Square. She was looking for a way to explain the difficulties of that task.

“Let me just say this,” Roeder said. “In our research we’ve found that there’s 1.3 million Google searches a year for ‘Soho’ and 1.2 million a year for ‘Tribeca.’ There are 25,000 searches for ‘Hudson Square.’”

And that is a very key point of the all-day “Envision Hudson Square” charrette hosted by the Friends of Hudson Square on July 17: Before good change in the neighborhood can be fostered or bad change rooted out, the neighborhood of Hudson Square must build an identity. That identity is being geographically defined as West St. to Hudson St. and Leroy St. to Canal St., but there are many issues to mull over within those boundaries. One issue uniting all players involved was the Department of Sanitation’s proposal to create a 400,000-square-foot sanitation garage at the currently UPS-owned open parking lot between Spring and Charlton Sts. and Washington and West Sts. to house three sanitation districts’ worth of garbage trucks. For once, developers and longtime residents were up in arms at the same time on the same side over the same issue.

The first presentation on the menu was the “Developers’ Roundtable.”

“We feel this area has been changing very positively,” said Abe Shnay, developer of the Urban Glass House at 330 Spring St. “What the city is proposing across the street [the sanitation garage] will have a huge impact on its appeal. There’s no question that this area needs rezoning with an eye on residential/commercial.”

The city has rezoned the southern part of Hudson Square to code C6-2A,, which permits residential and commercial uses, opening up developments like Urban Glass House to incorporate luxury living spaces with various office and retail spaces. Still, the huge UPS lot, as well as the FedEx building a few blocks north at Leroy St., and other structures, like the enormous St. John’s Center along Route 9A, are zoned as manufacturing areas.

“I think what would be helpful is trying to rezone the UPS building for residential, to continue progress,” Shnay said. “The more people that come in, the more you improve the neighborhood.”

Peter Moore of Peter Moore Associates, who has been developing in the Hudson Square area for 15 years and who spearheaded the charrette, echoed the criticism of the neighborhood’s zoning.

“The city has missed so many opportunities to take advantage of this incredible real estate environment,” he said. “Around here, there’s 2 maybe 3 million square feet of developable space. The B.S.A. did a huge discredit to the neighborhood with its random zoning assignments. Landmarks, which could play a much more positive role, is dumbly silent.”

According to developers, the area around their luxury buildings is currently at somewhat of a stalemate.

“We have all these new, hip, creative tenants like WNYC Radio, Viacom, and Harvey Weinstein’s company, and they want creative, hip retail,” Roeder said. “The retailers we talk to say, ‘We’ll move in when there’s more residents.’ The key issue is mixed use.”

The charrette fostered discussions over a plethora of issues facing the development of Hudson Square.

Richard Barrett, a founding member of the Canal West Coalition, which successfully fought to restore Canal Park on the traffic island at Canal and West Sts., laid out what the organization of neighborhood groups is requesting.

“We’re here because we want comprehensive rezoning,” he said. “There are some key issues to look at in our neighborhood that City Planning has failed to do their job on: We are a distinct neighborhood and should be zoned with an eye to specific streets and areas. Also, we have an enormous traffic problem. Canal and Varick have shown some of the worst levels of asthma in the city. The city has a responsibility to address the traffic and pollution issue. And finally, we have the lowest ratio of parks and open space. We had to sue the city just to get Canal Park returned.”

Tobi Bergman, president of the Pier Park and Playground organization and a Community Board 2 member, pointed out the value of fighting to keep park space in the neighborhood.

“Friends of Hudson River Park has done a study on the impact of the park on property values of the adjacent neighborhoods,” he said. “They’ve increased at a rate that far outstrips any other area in Manhattan.”

At a meeting including only developers, this statement may have been met with a solely positive response, but the purpose of this charrette was to bring neighbors’ voices into the picture as well.

Katie Bordonaro, co-chairperson of the Greenwich Village Community Task Force, said, “I’m concerned about the issue of affordability; that’s the other side of the increasing property value. I raised my kids here and so did these people,” she said, pointing to the panel of neighbors around her. “We moved here because of the old sense of community.”

Other neighborhood activists brought different issues to the table.

“We have some issues that we have simply assumed that we have to live with,” said Ann Arlen, former chairperson of C.B. 2’s Environment Committee. “We are living in a mecca of diesel power fumes. Now we are supposed to have diesel garbage truck fumes come in. We have the opportunity here to question this. We have a mayor who calls himself ‘the environmental mayor.’ ”

It was a day geared toward voicing as many different issues as possible and then moving forward to define Hudson Square. The charrette included the developers’ roundtable, a technical roundtable, a community roundtable and a tour of the neighborhood with David Reck, chairperson of the C.B. 2 Zoning Committee, leading the way and pointing out newly bought properties awaiting development, as well as examples of park space. At one point in the tour, Reck pointed to what is, for the time being, at least, the UPS building, on the east side of Washington St. between Spring and Houston Sts.

“There’s 80,000 square feet of office space on top of the UPS lot that hasn’t been used in 20 years,” he said of the building.

The event was not just an exercise in discussion, however. There was a specific, much-coveted audience: three top landscape architectural firms, each of which will be commissioned to come up with their own plan to define and propel Hudson Square into the future.

“The companies are LTL Architecture, SPaN and Arquitectonica Geo,” explained Michael Kramer, project manager of the charrette, who is also a member of the Friends of Hudson Square Sanitation Steering Committee. “The purpose of the charrette is to give the companies background and perspective on the character of the neighborhood and what we need. Each will have 60 days to come up with a plan for the neighborhood.”

And so, over seven hours, representatives from all three companies were barraged with various opinions on the important future of Pier 40 at W. Houston St., the need for increased residential and commercial appeal and, of course, the potential disaster in the Department of Sanitation’s proposed garage.

“What has been proposed, under threat of condemnation, to UPS, is a plan where they would hold their trucks in the ground floor and above would be the sanitation garage,” Kramer explained to the architects. “Sanitation would put up a 136-foot-high structure. The community has opposed. The impact of the trucks will bring the overall quality of life down, there will be vermin, odor, the issue of fuel storing, and [B]we are not comfortable with the way UPS has handled their business. UPS wants to maximize their air rights there, but they don’t necessarily want to give them for sanitation. They’ve been approached by a number of developers and there’s been discussion of offices or residential space above the UPS [parking lot] site. There may even be a possibility for a 60,000-square-foot green, public space on top.”

The architects are not being asked to find solutions for where to put the entirety of the Department of Sanitation’s proposal. Instead, Friends of Hudson Square acknowledge the neighborhood’s obligation to provide a salt pile location and a garage for only one district’s worth of garbage trucks, and the architectural firms’ landscape drawings should reflect ways to incorporate those realities into the fabric of the neighborhood.

“Nobody is looking at Sanitation’s figures comprehensively,” Barrett said adamantly. “What they’re using as an argument is specious. We are not getting the best municipal dollars to fund the park if you look at what Sanitation is spending on these facilities.”

Added Kramer, “Friends of Hudson Square has submitted a list of 13 alternate sites to [Council Speaker] Christine Quinn, Borough President [Scott] Stringer and all other related parties. The viability of these alternative sites needs to be examined closely.”

The day’s conclusion leads into a two-month period slated for unlimited optimism and creativity on the part of the architectural firms, during which they can carve out a look for a neighborhood that takes into account business, residential and recreational concerns. Kramer emphasized that they are not to be overly concerned with the practical or the critical; all of that will come later.

The charrette, while a platform for neighbors and developers to vehemently express their concerns, was specifically structured as a hopeful event. It is a $100,000 project, funded by several community organizations, but primarily from Peter Moore Associates and Eugene Grant, owner of the St. John’s Center. Now, all are waiting for October, when the plans will be completed and exhibited to the community to try to find the best way to envision Hudson Square.

[infoshare]

I will never understand why people make offensive comments when trying to make a point - totally undermines all credibility.


I agree, CBtwo lacks credibility : a troll (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=144692&postcount=84) if there ever was one. :eek:

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_221/neighborsgarbage.html

Neighbors: Garbage tower changes still not a pretty picture

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_221/city.gif
The city has added more color to a possible design
for a 140-foot garbage truck parking garage it hopes
to build on the UPS lot on Washington and Spring Sts.
The city is no longer planning to take over the private
garage at Clarkson and Greenwich Sts. for a salt storage
facility. The new plan is to store salt in the existing
Sanitation building on Spring St. The truck’s fuel station
will be further away from the Holland Tunnel at the
north end of the UPS lot.

By Lincoln Anderson

The Department of Sanitation has made some significant modifications to its plans to build a 14-story, three-district garage at Spring and Washington Sts. But community members still say the project is too big — and a terrorist threat to boot.

Dan Klein, Department of Sanitation director of real estate, discussed the final scoping document for the project at a July 16 meeting of Community Board 2’s Sanitation Garage Subcommittee, attended by about 30 residents.

In January, a public hearing D.O.S. held on the preliminary scoping document for the garage drew intense opposition from community members over the project’s size and potential impact.

In a major change since January, D.O.S. no longer plans to condemn the privately owned parking garage at Clarkson and Greenwich Sts. to use for storing road salt. Instead, D.O.S. now would put the 7,500 tons of road salt — currently located on Gansevoort Peninsula — at the site of the current Sanitation District 1 garage building, located between Spring, Canal and West Sts. Keeping the Clarkson St. garage means 400 local parking spaces would be preserved.

Klein said the new road salt facility “would only be used when there’s a snow storm” by salt-spreader trucks reloading with salt. Salt would be loaded off-street in a space between the Holland Tunnel vent and what Klein described as a new “lean-to” built to house the salt pile.

In addition, a refueling station planned at the site of the District 1 garage building would instead be located at the north end of the UPS parking lot — which is bounded by Spring, Washington and West Sts. and the south end of the St. John’s Center building.

The fuel tanks — storing 34,000 gallons of fuel — would be put right next to the St. John’s Center. The previous plan located the fuel depot smack between the Holland Tunnel’s two tubes — the outgoing tube under Spring St. and the incoming tube under Canal St. The fuel tanks would now be 300 feet from the northernmost tube.

However, the project’s main component — a 427,250-square-foot garage that would be built on the 85,000-square-foot UPS lot — remains mostly the same. The city has lowered the planned building’s height from about 150 feet to just under 140 feet.

“We’ve been working hard to get this [height] down,” Klein said.

The garage would house a total of 95 garbage trucks and equipment from Sanitation Districts 1, 2 and 5, which serve Community Boards 1, 2 and 5.

Sanitation Districts 2 and 4 are currently based on Gansevoort Peninsula — and Sanitation District 5’s trucks will be moving there soon, too, Klein said. But, under a legal agreement with Friends of Hudson River Park, D.O.S. must get its trucks off Gansevoort by 2012 so the peninsula can be developed into part of the Hudson River Park. If the city stays on Gansevoort past the deadline, it will be fined heavily. The city also hopes to build a Sanitation marine transfer station for recycling on Gansevoort.

In Hudson Square, UPS would have 64 vehicles on the new garage’s ground floor. The garage additionally would include 80 parking spaces for Sanitation employees.

“How come they get to park and we don’t get to park?” one audience member asked indignantly.

Six fuel pumps would be located in the new garage’s northwest corner, according to Klein. After Sanitation workers’ shifts end at 2 p.m., they would queue their trucks in the parking lane on West St. for refueling inside the building. The trucks would then leave in the mornings fully fueled.

Klein said since another location in the West 50s will also be doing refueling, it may be possible to reduce the number of city vehicles gassing up at the Spring St. garage.

“We can work out an arrangement where, short of the Police Department, we’re not going to refuel any other agency [besides Sanitation],” he said.

There would be little operation at the garage on Sundays and reduced operation on Saturdays, Klein said.

The garage would have an environmentally friendly “green roof” — a roof planted with vegetation — meaning there will be no parking on top, Klein said. The building would have no usable cellar.

However, the idea of so much fuel, in both tanks and trucks, struck most residents at the meeting as problematic.

“This is just a crazy question,” said Andrew Azoulay, who recently bought an apartment on Charlton St., “but doesn’t Homeland Security think this is a terrible risk? You’ve got a building with 50,000 gallons of fuel.”

“Diesel fuel doesn’t explode,” Klein noted.

“We know from what happened at Tower 7 what diesel fuel does,” Azoulay said, referring to collapse of 7 World Trade Center the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001. Burning Twin Tower debris caused a building fire that was spread by stored diesel.

Phil Mouquinho, the committee’s chairperson, said, in fact, he had called Homeland Security, about the garage project, but was merely referred back to the New York Police Department. Klein added that in the future the fuel might be biodiesel.

Maria Passannante Derr, a committee member, asked why Sanitation District 5 couldn’t be relocated, for example, to another new garage being planned in the East 70s. But Klein said that the garage, which will be from 150 feet to 200 feet tall, is booked for other Sanitation districts.

A point of contention is that, before settling on Spring St., Sanitation planned to build a two-district garage next to the High Line in Chelsea, at Block 675, between 29th and 30th Sts. and 10th and 11th Aves. Sanitation says the Chelsea site was too expensive.

“I want to know where those figures comes from,” demanded Frieda Bradlow.

Klein said, for Block 675, the city would have to buy that entire block’s development rights, including air rights — or buy 1 million square feet at W. 30th St. versus 360,000 square feet at Spring St.

“Just the acquisition cost is triple,” Klein said.

Klein rebutted suspicions that the Chelsea site is being reserved for a high-priced residential tower, noting that, because of the area’s special zoning, “anything developed there would have to be below the level of the [High Line] Park.” He said the garage would have to be built 60 feet to 80 feet below ground, further raising costs.

UPS is on board with the Spring St. project, Klein said. But a garage for just one Sanitation district there wouldn’t be acceptable, he said, “because UPS is looking to pull their value from the site.

“The understanding is that that this could be some sort of friendly condemnation — with the value decided by a court, between what the city feels the site is worth and what UPS feels it’s worth,” Klein said, regarding how the city would acquire the UPS property.

He showed schematic renderings for a possible design in which the 14-story garage’s exterior would be dressed up with “glass curtain walls” of color bands and vertical concrete slats, plus even some planted balconies.

John McPeake, a resident of the new Urban Glass House, just south of the UPS lot, noted that the W. 30th St. garage plan included a ball field on top.

“This is just a shoebox,” he said of the Spring St. plan. “Ten stories high. It’s just dropped in the neighborhood with nothing [given] back — except some pretty colors on the side. Why did 30th St. get a recreational area, but we get a big cement block?”

Klein explained the W. 30th St. garage plan included a rooftop athletic field because it tied in with the city’s unfulfilled plan for a sports stadium on the Hudson Yards.

Klein added that the uniform land use review procedure for the garage will start in the fall, during which there will be opportunities for the public to recommend “taking things out” of the plan.


Lincoln@DowntownExpress.com

[bigkdc]

Obviously need to see more but that design looks horrible. The facility DOS is building on 57th street seems much nicer.

Can someone explain why they need so many parking spots for DOS employees? That seems awfully wasteful and goes completely against what Bloomberg is trying to do with the congestion charge.

[Teno]

These are the very people that give Nymby such a bad name. They are searching for any and every reason possible to not have the parking garage in their neighborhood. After listing all of the negatives ask why the parking cannot be located in someone else's neighborhood.

[bigkdc]

Not sure if I follow you. I can understand the need to have a garage for the sanitation trucks (although I really think this is real waste of an amazing piece of real estate) but I do not see why you need to have indoor parking for the employees who work there. They can take mass transit just like the rest of us.

[CBTwo]

^^^
Or at last have them pay to use the parking lots in the area.

[projectsnyc]

I don't understand DSNY's position. They consider this Consolidated Sanitation Garage for three Community District's to be a "local" facility, meaning that its scope or impact needs only to be studied within a 400' radius.

If you look at Title 62 of the Laws of New York, a "regional or citywide facility" is defined as one serving two or more community districts. DSNY's letter to the Friends of Hudson Square who raised this issue with them a few days ago indicates that Attachment B of Title 62 does not list garages, and that they are, therefore, not considered to be regional transportation facilities. However, both Attachments A and B have a footnote that states, "List is illustrative and should not be considered to include all such facilities."

A "regional" facility would prompt a study within a one-half mile radius (basically a ten rather than a two block area) which would bring much of TriBeCa, the West Village, SoHo, and the Hudson River Park into the picture.

Is this a "fatal flaw" in their Scoping Document? Back in 1999 CB2 agreed to accept one DSNY garage, it's time to go back to the drawing board and look at alternative sites for two of the three district garages.

[bigkdc]

In the end who has the final say on a project like this? If the gov't is behind it, how does it ever get rejected? Clearly public outcry may make the politicians rethink their positions but seems like the Bloomberg administration is okay with it. I guess Albany can get involved but are they really going to fight Bloomberg on the location of a garage?

[lofter1]

The NYC Council can stop it -- or so I believe.

[ZippyTheChimp]

In the end who has the final say on a project like this?Albany has no say in this, except that the EIS is covered by state law.

The project goes through the review process, and it's voted on by the City Council.

BTW, the question of employee parking at the site would be an excellent point to have entered into the record. By law, the issue would have to be satisfactorily addressed.

I could understand a number of spaces for DSNY official vehicles, but 80 spaces is just an employee benefit. NYC does not require private companies to provide employee parking, as is the case in many municipalities.

Presently, the sidewalk at the southern side of the UPS site is used for parking by employees of the present garage across the street. Those "parking spaces"are technically illegal.

[CBTwo]

I could understand a number of spaces for DSNY official vehicles, but 80 spaces is just an employee benefit. NYC does not require private companies to provide employee parking, as is the case in many municipalities.


What "private" company at this location is providing 80 spaces?

[bigkdc]

No I think zippy means (and please correct me if I am wrong) that private companies aren't required to provide spaces for employees so why does the DOS feel the need to do it

I will say this - I ran by this site yesterday and there were probably 10 garbage trucks parked on the street (on West, Spring and Washington) completely unlocked and just sitting there. This was at 8pm! There were no signs of any kind of security. To me there are several issues with this...#1 it is a eye sore...#2 seems like a security hazzard given proximity to tunnel....#3 these are illegal parking spots. If the garage there is not large enough then they need to do something to get these trucks off the street.

[ZippyTheChimp]

What "private" company at this location is providing 80 spaces?For someone who has made numerous snotty remarks on this thread, you don't read carefully.

[CBTwo]

Perhaps I am brain dead and I have made a few snotty remarks over the past few months and have lived with the chimp's haughty replies, but refresh my memory of those "private" parties please. Can you spell out the private companies that provide free parking and their location for me?

If you go to Spring Street between Washington and West you will realize that there mucho automobiles parked on the sidewalk?

I believe there is an ad campaign running presently based on the concept of
DUH?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Even after it's spelled out for you,
No I think zippy means (and please correct me if I am wrong) that private companies aren't required to provide spaces for employees so why does the DOS feel the need to do ityou don't get it.

Are you that dense, or so intent on looking for an argument, that you're not bothering to read this stuff?

[lofter1]

Zippy:

I could understand a number of spaces for DSNY official vehicles, but 80 spaces is just an employee benefit. NYC does not require private companies to provide employee parking, as is the case in many municipalities.

1) The "80 spaces" seemingly referred to slots to be used by DSNY employees.

2) The employee parking for private companies was in reference to other parking planned at the site for employees of UPS.

3) They are different parking allotments.

4) The parking required by private companies referred to situations outside New York and was used as a comparison, and not in reference to this specific proposal.

5) All of this is clearly spelled out in the quote from Zippy shown above.

[CBTwo]

For someone who has made numerous snotty remarks on this thread, you don't read carefully.

I will try again and hopefully someone can clarify this situation without slippery side comments. I asked what private company is parking employee vehicles on the proposed site? UPS (a private company) employees presently park their vehicles on the roof of the depot garage. There is no mention in the report of UPS (a private company) employees needing or receiving additional parking spaces in the new structure. Below is what I read from the report. Is there a paragraph I am missing?

"In Hudson Square, UPS would have 64 vehicles on the new garage’s ground floor. The garage additionally would include 80 parking spaces for Sanitation employees."

[bigkdc]

I think the question people are asking is:

In Manhattan, why does a municipal entity (Department of Sanitation) need to provide parking spots to its employees when private entities generally don't?

CBTwo - I think we are all asking the question in the vein of why the current plan does not work/is inefficient so from your previous posts I would guess we are all kind of in violent agreement.

[hudsonsq]

Our condo board has recently ask us to contribute money to friends of hudson square for a lawyer on this issue. I wonder if they have collected enough money from the area (100k, I think).

[lofter1]

Don't expect any updates this week ...

Last week of summer / week leading up to Labor Day is notoriuosly the slowest week of the year .

(That's one reason AG Gonzales announced his resignation today).

After Labor Day things all over will swing back into motion.

[Ellen Peterson-Lewis]

I don't understand DSNY's position. They consider this Consolidated Sanitation Garage for three Community District's to be a "local" facility, meaning that its scope or impact needs only to be studied within a 400' radius.

If you look at Title 62 of the Laws of New York, a "regional or citywide facility" is defined as one serving two or more community districts. DSNY's letter to the Friends of Hudson Square who raised this issue with them a few days ago indicates that Attachment B of Title 62 does not list garages, and that they are, therefore, not considered to be regional transportation facilities. However, both Attachments A and B have a footnote that states, "List is illustrative and should not be considered to include all such facilities."

A "regional" facility would prompt a study within a one-half mile radius (basically a ten rather than a two block area) which would bring much of TriBeCa, the West Village, SoHo, and the Hudson River Park into the picture.

Is this a "fatal flaw" in their Scoping Document? Back in 1999 CB2 agreed to accept one DSNY garage, it's time to go back to the drawing board and look at alternative sites for two of the three district garages.


Regional Facility DSNY Style

DSNY is also proposing a consolidated garage at East 73-74 street,adjacent to the FDR Drive for Districts 6,8A and 8. DSNY is also proposing a consolidated garage for two districts in BK district 1 as well as a single district garage for yet another district in BK district 1.

DSNY's response to the Friends of Hudson Square is their interpretation of a regional facility. If the Friends of Hudson Square sues DSNY on a regional facility as well as fair share and wins, the rest of the Solid Waste Management Plan will go back to the drawing board. It would be interesting to check out all of the boroughs concerning consolidated garages,

[projectsnyc]

Also, check out the Hudson Square supplement in this week's edition:

http://downtownexpress.com/de_230/hudsonsquare/nabefights.html

downtownexpress.com
Volume 20 Issue 21 | October 5 - 11 2007
Editorial

Garbage plan trashes Hudson Square’s future

When one mentions Hudson Square, many people, including even most New Yorkers, are at a loss. This unique neighborhood, located between Greenwich Village, Soho and Tribeca, was formerly known as the Printing District. But its new name, Hudson Square, is taking hold. This Downtown neighborhood is undergoing rapid change, which is why we have chosen this week to devote a special section highlighting Hudson Square’s attributes, as well as the challenges facing its future.

On the one hand, Hudson Square is a place one can enjoy fine restaurants and a historic, quirky bar, like the Ear Inn, in a more tranquil environment removed from the crowds of Soho. On the other hand, the area has become a magnet for new construction, particularly in its southern section, which was rezoned in 2003 to allow residential use. In short, the neighborhood’s identity, a mixture of old and modern, is taking shape in exciting ways to create a vital, new district.

This trend and the city’s misguided approval for an out-of-scale Donald Trump building are proof that Hudson Square needs intelligent, comprehensive planning to guide its continuing transformation. No longer should or can this area be a dumping ground for trucks, particularly garbage trucks, as before. Yet, that is precisely what the city seems intent on doing, with plans for a new 140-foot-tall garage for 95 garbage trucks for three Department of Sanitation districts to be built on the UPS lot at Spring and Washington Sts.

However, there is united community opposition to this project. From artists living in lofts on Canal St. to affluent residents of the new Urban Glass House — designed by the late Philip Johnson — to a neighborhood native who owns a restaurant on Washington St. and hopes to benefit at last from the neighborhood’s new cachet, no one wants a towering garage and garbage-truck convoy roaring through the streets and exacerbating the traffic problems around the Holland Tunnel.

Fear of the garage has spurred local developer Peter Moore and Eugene M. Grant Co., the St. John’s Center building’s owner, to seek creative, community-minded visions for Hudson Square. Earlier this year, they started a “charrette” process, commissioning five architectural groups to think outside the box — and beyond the mega-garage — and envision a dynamic, integrated neighborhood plan.

As seen in the ambitious charrette illustrations in our special section, the architects focused on key elements: more park space and retail, better access to the waterfront and a saner allocation of the neighborhood’s buildable square feet. The studies are all predicated on increased residential use and a smaller, one-district Sanitation garage.

The charrette is a model of grassroots neighborhood planning, in which community input and ideas begin a comprehensive dialogue — as opposed to planning being driven by the Department of Sanitation’s need for a place for its garbage trucks. The charrette’s intent is to start a discussion based on ideas and possibilities, then build a political consensus on how best to develop Hudson Square.

Hudson Square is changing organically, in many positive ways, and shows great promise. The city must not dump on this nascent neighborhood’s future.

[Eugenious]

I like how they always shoot everything down and talk of "constructive dialog" and "intelligent discussion". Yet all they are saying is "Not in my back yard, I don't care how much the city needs this, over my dead body". That's some constructive dialog right there.

[bigkdc]

I like how they always shoot everything down and talk of "constructive dialog" and "intelligent discussion". Yet all they are saying is "Not in my back yard, I don't care how much the city needs this, over my dead body". That's some constructive dialog right there.

Actually I think that editorial states that everyone in the area is quite comfortable with a 1 district garage. Is that such a bad thing?

[CBTwo]

I didn't read anything in the editorial that said "everyone in the area is quite comfortable with a 1 district garage." A single district is better than three districts, but none is even better. I am sure "everyone" in the area would be comfortable with that.

[bigkdc]

^^^That is NIMBYism....there is already a DOS facility there so hard to see how you would not be comfortable with status quo

[CBTwo]

^^^^^

I'll still go back to the original statement that "everyone in the area is quite comfortable" and I will underline and make bold for you the word "everyone" does not include me! I live in the neighborhood and I lived with the past where garbage trucks ruled the roost. I never liked those operations and I still don't like the cavalier attitude the DSNY has at their Spring Street facility. So the answer is no, "EVERYONE IN THE AREA IS NOT COMFORTABLE!"

We might have to live with it, but everyone is not comfortable with the alternate plans.

[CBTwo]

If the nimby thing is what you are saying I object to, it is not. It's called fair share. Why should the Hudson Square area host a district 1 garbage garage? If it was a district 2 garbage garage then it would make a little more sense, but not a district 1 garage. Does that make sense to the nimby's in district 1? I don't think so. The majority of district 1 residents seem to have an attitude that it should all go somewhere else but NIMBY.

[ramvid01]

If the nimby thing is what you are saying I object to, it is not. It's called fair share. Why should the Hudson Square area host a district 1 garbage garage? If it was a district 2 garbage garage then it would make a little more sense, but not a district 1 garage. Does that make sense to the nimby's in district 1? I don't think so. The majority of district 1 residents seem to have an attitude that it should all go somewhere else but NIMBY.

We live in a city not in 'districts'. And according to your logic why should Astoria house power plants that produce 60% of the power needed for the city? Lets build a power plant in district 2. How about a water sewage plant? And while we are at it a landfill too for district 2.

[CBTwo]

^^^ You left out airport in your list.

[lofter1]

They're going to build an airport in CBD 2??? Where would they put it :confused:

Gansevort Peninsula could be a good place ;)

[ramvid01]

^^^ You left out airport in your list.

Thank you, I thought I had forgotten something on my list. :D

[brianac]

City’s Recycling Station Plan Is Hobbled in the Assembly

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicholas_confessore/index.html?inline=nyt-per)


Published: October 24, 2007

ALBANY, Oct. 23 — In another setback for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s Albany agenda, the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sheldon_silver/index.html?inline=nyt-per), refused on Tuesday to hold a vote on a key part of the mayor’s plan for handling trash and recycling in Manhattan.
The speaker said the city administration had failed to live up to a promise to seriously explore alternatives to the plan, and he said he was in no rush to move ahead until officials did so.
The rebuff makes it unlikely that the measure, which would establish a recycling transfer station near Gansevoort Street in the meatpacking district of Manhattan, will be taken up this year.
The speaker appeared unhappy with comments the mayor made in a news conference on Oct. 16, when Mr. Bloomberg insisted that he and his aides had “answered every single question, including some two days ago that his staff and the governor’s staff has asked for, period, end of story.”
The speaker said that it was “unfortunate, that in an irresponsible fashion, despite everything we had as an understanding, he chose to do that.”
The proposed station is part of the mayor’s ambitious plan under which each borough would be responsible for its own garbage, a break with the past and one welcomed by lawmakers from poor or minority neighborhoods, which for years have handled much of the waste and garbage-truck traffic generated by more affluent areas like Manhattan.
Mr. Silver’s remarks seemed to signal a new ebb in his relationship with Mr. Bloomberg, which has veered between sour and sweet in recent years, sometimes at whiplash speed.
As recently as last week, Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Silver praised each other warmly at a groundbreaking ceremony in Manhattan. But the speaker has used his clout to delay or confound the mayor on several major initiatives, including the failed West Side stadium project in 2005 and the controversial plan for congestion pricing this year. In June, bowing to the wishes of several of his members representing districts near the Gansevoort site, Mr. Silver delayed passage of legislation approving the new station. In an interview Monday, Mr. Silver said that the administration failed to provide more financial details on an alternative site for a transfer station on 36th Street.
“Those numbers are not yet in, the use of Gansevoort is 2013, still more than five years away, so waiting for all of that to be completed does not impact in any way, shape or form from the use of it,” Mr. Silver said.
The Assembly was meeting in special session on Tuesday, and there are currently no plans for members to return before next year. The plan requires approval from the Legislature because the Gansevoort site lies on land allocated to the Hudson River Park, which was established by the state and the city.
The city has maintained that previous studies of the 36th Street site, which have been provided to Mr. Silver and his members, indicate that it would be far more costly and unwieldy than the Gansevoort site. But Farrell Sklerov, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said that the administration was open to further discussion about the issue.
“We remain optimistic that we will convince the leaders in Albany that Gansevoort is the best and by far the most cost-effective site to handle recyclable materials,” he said.
On Tuesday, some lawmakers said they were disappointed by Mr. Silver’s decision.
“There’s still going to be thousands of trucks and tons of garbage coming into the Bronx that isn’t from the Bronx,” said Rubén Díaz Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/ruben_diaz_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Bronx Democrat. “It’s delay tactics. Let’s just get it done.”
During Tuesday’s Assembly session, the issue of illegal immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) also flared up, as Republican members attempted to force a vote on a measure to block Gov. Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
The Republicans tried to add an amendment to a bill to extend Suffolk County’s sales tax. The amendment would have reversed Mr. Spitzer’s policy, promulgated by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles last month, allowing people without Social Security numbers to obtain driver’s licenses.
“The governor’s plan is risky, it’s illegal, and it’s irresponsible,” argued James N. Tedisco, the minority leader of the Assembly.
As expected, the chamber’s Democratic leaders ruled the amendment not germane to the sales tax bill. But Republicans appeared satisfied that they had forced a procedural vote on the amendment, saying it essentially reflected members’ positions on the Spitzer policy.
The amendment failed by a vote of 85 to 57, though at least 15 Democrats bucked their party leaders on the procedural vote, a sign of the intense passions the licensing issue has aroused.
A second amendment — which would have indemnified county clerks who refuse to process the new licenses against lawsuits from irate drivers — met a similar fate.
As the Assembly debated, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/andrew_m_cuomo/index.html?inline=nyt-per) released a statement saying he would be defending the new policy against challenges, like a lawsuit filed on Monday by the Rensselaer County clerk, Frank J. Merola, who like many county clerks across the state issues driver’s licenses on behalf of the D.M.V.
Mr. Cuomo has declined to say if he personally supports the policy. But in his statement, the attorney general indicated that he concurred with the Spitzer administration’s assessment of its authority to issue new license requirements. “We are defending these challenges and believe we will be successful,” Mr. Cuomo said.

[bigkdc]

^^^ Is there any linkage between this transfer station and the garage? ie, they want the garage to be near the transfer station?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The transfer station has to be on the waterfront. The two available sites are Gansevoort (preferred by the city) and pier 76. It has nothing to do with the garage.

A similar situation exists at piers 97 and 99. Pier 97 has been used by DSNY for truck and salt storage. They will vacate that site and move into the new garage on W57th. Pier 99 is a transfer station.

[projectsnyc]

"The local vision" Hudson Square architects reveal designs to counter city

by amy zimmer / metro new york

OCT 29, 2007

HUDSON SQUARE. Many residents and business owners of this former industrial pocket of Hudson River real estate nestled amongst the West Village, SoHo and TriBeCa don’t want the city to build a 150-foot-tall Department of Sanitation garage and salt storage facility here.

Instead, locals want new parks and better connections to the waterfront, which has been cut off by the UPS distribution facility and St. John’s Center superblocks. The Friends of Hudson Square hired five architectural teams in July to come up with plans reflecting community visions, and the results go on display today.

“Putting a 15-story building for Sanitation is the wrong thing to do. It’s old thinking,” Philip Mouquinho, a restaurant owner, Community Board 2 member and neighborhood native, said at this weekend’s exhibition preview. “Why Spring and West when you have Pier 40 nearby where kids play and new, great architecture like Philip Johnson’s Urban Glass House?”

Mouquinho was excited by designs from Zarkrewski + Hyde Architects with Starr Whitehouse, which featured a DSNY storage facility submerged beneath layers sloping up for other uses: a new park for ice-skating and other recreation, a cultural center and a mix of residential and commercial space.

“If you’re going to put the sanitation garage here, at least put a terraced park over it,” said Mouquinho. “We’re not Related or Vornado. We’re the David of the David and Goliath fight.”

He hopes their exercise shows “the city what private money can do, what the community can do.” It cost roughly $100,000.

Roberto Rovira from ArquitectonicaGEO explained how his firm “reclaimed” the water’s edge.

In Rovira’s rendering, UPS would occupy the first level, sanitation in the middle, and then a top level that’s “essentially an elaborate roof garden.”

Instead of importing the salt from Chile, as Rovira said the city does now, he proposed a salt harvesting field in the Hudson.

“We wanted to take that challenge [of salt storage] and express it architecturally,” Rovira said. Along with a bird rookery and mussel farm, the salt harvesting area would create a new ecosystem and a year-round destination. “This is our opportunity to rethink what it means to have a park.”

You can see it

Envisioning Hudson Square is on view at the St. John’s Center, 550-570 Washington St. at Houston Street, through Nov. 21. For more info, visit envisioninghudsonsquare.org.

[NYatKNIGHT]

The best deal the city can get on salt comes from Chile?

[bigkdc]

Hard to really see them but the renderings in the background on that website are pretty interesting. If there is a way to get more park space in that area and still provide the needed parking space for DOS/UPS, that would be great...

On salt and chile - I had the same reaction...I was under the impression that a lot of our salt comes from mines in upstate new york (around the finger lakes)......

[projectsnyc]

The NY salt comes from a company called International Salt (http://www.internationalsalt.com/history.php) and their website homepage makes mention of it. The links to the contract award notices from the procurement office are as follows:

http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/purchase/spg/pdfdocs/0180019132p.pdf [see page 12]
http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/purchase/spg/pdfdocs/0180019132a.pdf [see page 2]
http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/purchase/spg/awards/0180019132CAN.HTM


It is interesting to note too that the road salt for NY is the most expensive of all the contracts!

[projectsnyc]

November 16, 2007
Former G.O.P. Official Admits He Evaded Taxes

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
The former chairman of the New York County Republican Committee admitted yesterday that he had evaded taxes and violated state ethics law in connection with money he was paid as a consultant to a real estate company and as an arbitrator in a dispute over helicopter services on the West Side.

The former chairman, James A. Ortenzio, said during a hearing in State Supreme Court in Manhattan yesterday that he had knowingly failed to disclose the income, totaling about $180,000, in 2004 and 2005, and pleaded guilty to tax evasion and to violating the financial disclosure law for public officials.

He made the guilty plea as part of a deal with prosecutors, in exchange for a sentence of five years’ probation. But he must file amended tax returns and pay back taxes and penalties.

Mr. Ortenzio is a millionaire businessman who has been a major fund-raiser for former Gov. George E. Pataki and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. He went from truck driver and butcher to owner of the Long Island Beef Company in Greenwich Village. He has been known as Mr. Meat among residents of the meatpacking district, now home to fashionable restaurants, nightclubs and boutiques.

His lawyer, Randy M. Mastro, said after the hearing that Mr. Ortenzio was “a good and decent man who made a mistake that he regrets,” and who was accepting his responsibility for that mistake.

Mr. Mastro stressed that the money Mr. Ortenzio had been paid in both cases was “perfectly legal,” and suggested that his “mistake” should be put in the context of “exceptional and dedicated pro bono public service that this man has given to New York.”

Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney, said yesterday that the investigation of Mr. Ortenzio grew out of an earlier investigation into the Cipriani family restaurant business. Mr. Ortenzio, who owns several meat processing companies, was a distributor of meat and other foods to Cipriani restaurants, Mr. Morgenthau said.

The investigation began with an anonymous tip that Mr. Ortenzio was trying to use his influence to obtain a contract for Cipriani at Pier 57, Mr. Morgenthau said. From 1999 to 2003, Mr. Ortenzio was chairman of the Hudson River Park Trust, a public benefit corporation created to develop the park, which stretches from 59th Street to Battery Park. It covers both Pier 57 and the West Side heliport.

It “started with an over-the-transom letter, an anonymous letter, alleging collusive bidding at Pier 57,” Mr. Morgenthau said. But no such charges were filed. He said there was other information in the letter that led to yesterday’s guilty plea. Prosecutors do not know who sent the letter, Mr. Morgenthau said.

Mr. Ortenzio read a written statement in court admitting that in September 2004, while he was chairman of the Republican Party, he was paid $100,000 by Fisher Brothers Management Company, a Park Avenue real estate firm, for consulting services. He said that “with intent to deceive,” he did not report the payment on a financial disclosure form required of public officers by the state’s Ethics Commission.

He also admitted that in June 2004, he was retained to mediate a dispute between Air Pegasus of New York and Sightseeing Tours of America over helicopter service in Manhattan. He said that in 2005, he was paid $80,000 for his services and that he filed false tax returns by intentionally failing to disclose the income.

Asked by Justice Laura A. Ward whether there was any impediment to his understanding the nature of his guilty plea, Mr. Ortenzio replied, “No, Your Honor.”

The proposal to redevelop Pier 57 at West 15th Street into an event and catering site was a joint venture of Steve Witkoff and Giuseppe Cipriani, but has been on hold since the investigation began, prosecutors said. Mr. Cipriani dropped out of the project in May 2006.

Mr. Morgenthau said that prosecutors did not know exactly what kind of consulting services Mr. Ortenzio had provided to Fisher Brothers. “We’ve got ideas, but we don’t know,” he said.

Mr. Ortenzio pleaded guilty to one count of violating the tax law by filing false returns or reports of personal income and earnings, a Class E felony, and one count of a violation of the Public Officers Law on financial disclosure, a Class A misdemeanor. He faced up to four years in prison on the felony count.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[CBTwo]

A museum for city sanitation by amy zimmer / metro new york

> email this to a friend (http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/A_museum_for_city_sanitation/11066.html#email)
DEC 12, 2007
INTERVIEW. New York University professor Robin Nagle’s other gig is the Dept. of Sanitation’s anthropologist-in-residence. An exhibit she did with another professor and 12 students about DSNY’s history opens tonight at 136 West 20th St. — the first step in creating a Sanitation Museum, she told Metro.

Police and firefighters have museums. Why not sanitation?
It’s long overdue. The department is kind of a victim of its own success. For the most part they do the job so well, you don’t have to think about them. It’s as if they’re forgotten. Sanitation personnel are used to being disregarded, so they forget to celebrate themselves. I have the privilege — since I come from the outside, but straddle both words — to say, “Look at how important you are.” Because we export all our trash now that Fresh Kills is closed, we are always three days away from a system shutdown if something goes wrong.

Why are sanitation workers forgotten?
When I was on the job as a sanitation worker — I drove a truck — as soon as I put the uniform on, I was invisible. People looked right through me. I’d like to change that. I’m not saying these guys are heroes, but sanitation workers are three times more likely to be killed on the job than police or firefighters. When sanitation workers are killed they get three inches in the paper, but police or firefighters get the front page.

What’s next for the project?
This is a modest start. It’s one room. But it signals to the world we have big goals. Once this is done, we’ll sit down and do the homework to file as a not-for-profit and raise money. We envision the museum as a cultural and education center. We hope the Dept. of Sanitation will use it for events.

Have you been eyeing a spot for the museum?
I have one dream location: There’s a garage on Canal Street, by the West Side Highway. It was built as a stable for the Department of Street Cleaning. We grew out of that department when Sanitation was formed in 1930.

[Laura KC]

wnbc.com

Lawmaker: Missing Ammo Poses New York Harbor Danger

POSTED: 9:39 pm EST January 14, 2008
UPDATED: 9:45 pm EST January 14, 2008

NEW YORK -- Before the city's Sanitation Department starts building a new garbage-transfer station on the edge of New York harbor, it may have to clean up something more potentially explosive than rancid food that stayed too long on the shelf, says a state lawmaker.

Back on March 6, 1954, hundreds of tons of Korean War-vintage munitions were being loaded off the aircraft carrier USS Bennington when a sudden storm caused a barge to capsize and break loose, spilling its cargo. By the time the barge was found upside down six miles away, it was empty.

About 400 anti-aircraft shells were recovered by divers at the loading site eight months later, but as many as 14,000 more were strewn along the bottom and never found, said State Assemblyman Bill Colton, a Democrat from Brooklyn.

Colton said he was "deeply concerned" that dredging for the new shoreline waste facility could detonate live shells buried in the harbor silt, even after 54 years.

"It's possible that 219 tons of anti-aircraft shells are still out there on the bottom, and we must make sure we're not digging and dredging in a place where they go ka-poof," Colton said Monday. "It's an unknown hazard and could be a catastrophe."

Colton said the Sanitation Department should conduct an "intense environmental assessment" before going ahead with plans for the waste transfer station on Gravesend Bay, a broad inlet of the harbor that already has a large fuel oil depot. The sanitation site will include a 20,000-gallon fuel tank.

A Sanitation Department spokesman did not return a call seeking comment on Colton's claims.

The Bennington, a 27,000-ton veteran of World War II and Korea, had recently suffered damage from a boiler explosion and was destined for repairs at the Brooklyn Navy Yard where it was built in 1944.

Warships were required to offload all explosives before entering the upper harbor, a task carried out at Fort Lafayette, a tiny outpost that dated back to the War of 1812 and later would become the foundation for the Brooklyn-side tower of the Verrazano Bridge.

Petty Officer William Kirk, a New Jersey native, was supervising a work crew loading boxes of ammunition onto one of the barges and had just stepped away to get a cup of coffee when the barge suddenly broke away.

When he rushed back to the scene, "sure enough it was my barge," Kirk, now 77, recalled on Monday in a phone interview at his home in Winter Park, Fla.

"People later said it was rough seas. I don't know about that, but that would have explained it. It just tipped over and deep-sixed all those munitions."

© 2008 by The Associated Press (http://www.wnbc.com/news/2455821/detail.html). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Gravesend Bay, not Gansevoort.

[CBTwo]

I see they have core drilling rigs set up in the UPS lot. Somethings up.

[NYer]

In local newspaper articles about the community’s alternative proposal to the Department of Sanitation’s plan to site three sanitation districts plus a salt pile at Spring and Washington Streets, a UPS spokesperson is quoted as saying that UPS is willing to work with the Department of Sanitation. The spokesperson states that UPS does not have a preference about whether Sanitation's proposal or the community's proposed alternative is built at UPS’s Spring St parking lot.

The community alternative (which would include a park built over a shared UPS/Sanitation garage for CB 1 and 2, as conceived under the "Envisioning Hudson Square" architectural design charrette) has significant community support, unlike the Sanitation plan, which is uniformly opposed. I hope UPS reconsiders its indifference to the concerns of the community, which until now, has been a good neighbor to UPS.

[bigkdc]

well said...actually UPS would rather just keep the lot as a is but they are being bullied into working with the DOS.

[ZippyTheChimp]

actually UPS would rather just keep the lot as a [it] isThey wanted to sell it from the beginning.

[bigkdc]

really? i thought they were threatened with Eminent Domain so were forced to sell to/work with DOS. I can't imagine the value UPS is getting compares to what they could have gotten with some sort of private development.

[lofter1]

Could be that both were happening in tandem ...

UPS wants to sell, DOS shows interest, UPS sets price, DOS counters, UPS balks and deal seems to be stuck, DOS / government uses threat of seizure of UPS porperty via eminent domain as a negotiating tactic, shared use UPS + DOT plan for the site is announced ...

[NYer]

Under the community's alternative, DSNY would get its garage at much lower cost than under its own proposal, UPS would remain at the site and get significant $s for air rights, and the community would get a rooftop park and other amenities. I would think this is something to which all parties could agree.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
To be fair, you would have to factor in the cost of another garage for CD3.

[projectsnyc]

There is a perfectly good DSNY garage, circa 1995, at 606 West 30th. To acquire the land & build an enclosed truck parking lot to the South would be around $30 MM and is included in CB 1 & CB 2 alternative plans. The City still saves $179 MM. Is Council Speaker Quinn listening?

[v70cat]

This is a beautiful water front site, why put a garage in this great location?

[projectsnyc]

I've attached the DSNY Executive and Capital Budgets for 2009.
This project has gone up from $148 MM in 2006 to $268-285 MM in 2009.

They are offering UPS $94 MM ($255/psf).

Time to consider the Community Board's Alternative Plans.

[CBTwo]

Interesting that the state has approved the use of the Gansevort pier for a marine transfer station. Perhaps the garages and the salt pile should be located there also.

Strange things happen when money gets short. I guess the HRPT lost that round.

[bigkdc]

They are offering UPS $94 MM ($255/psf).



Does anyone know if $255/psf is market for a plot of land like this one?

[bigkdc]

There was some sort of hearing last night on the garage. I did not go. Did anyone? Anything interesting come out of it?

[projectsnyc]

Here is the resolution that came from the joint CB 1&2 Public Hearing:

[NYer]

This resolution makes a lot of sense. I attended the public hearing, and here are some of the comments that I heard:

•The City would waste taxpayers’ money by its plan to spend more than $400 million to build the garage and salt shed. Suggestions to reduce costs include storing infrequently used vehicles at an existing garage and having collection trucks refuel where they dump their loads. Also, instead of building a salt shed, the City could simply add salt at an existing shed.

•The City would waste several million dollars of taxpayers’ money by constructing free parking spaces at the garage for employees. This would also violate the Mayor’s goal to encourage use of mass transportation to improve air quality.

•The large number of vehicles that would use the garage (about 107 in a peak hour) would endanger pedestrians and bicyclists visiting the Hudson River Park.

•The garage would store 34,000 gallons of oil and fuel, almost the amount stored at 7 World Trade Center before its collapse.

•The garage would be located about 100 feet from residential dwellings. The 500 or more daily vehicle trips would harm a neighborhood that has the second worst air quality in New York City, higher even than the South Bronx.

•The City would place sanitation vehicles for the midtown district (MN 5) at the garage, far from its district, resulting in increased mileage and air pollution.

•In 2005, the City received approval to build a garage midtown, in Hudson Yards, an industrial area. Its decision to instead build in Hudson Square demonstrates it is more concerned with enriching real estate interests in Hudson Yards than with protecting Hudson Square residents.

•Schools are overcrowded. The City should spend the money on schools, not on constructing a mega-garage to replace already existing garages.

[bigkdc]

So now what happens with this resolution done? Does DOS or the city have to respond in some fashion?

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.downtownexpress.com/inside_dt_logo.gif


AUGUST 8 - 14, 2008

Stringer floats idea to move some garbage trucks out of Hudson Square

By Josh Rogers

Borough President Scott Stringer told Downtown Express Thursday that he has asked the city to consider moving a proposed Sanitation garage to Chelsea in order to avoid dumping too many garbage trucks in Hudson Square.

The new use would be moved into an existing Sanitation garage on W. 26th St. between 11th and 12th Aves. and serve Community Board 5, which includes part of Chelsea. Stringer said he is concerned about neighborhoods getting their “fair share” of Sanitation facilities.

The current city plan is to build a 120-foot tall Sanitation garage at Spring and Washington Sts. to serve the two nearby community boards as well as C.B. 5, which includes much of Midtown, Union Square and a corner of Chelsea.

The plan has received strong opposition from Community Boards 1 and 2, local politicians, and residents of Tribeca, Soho, the Village as well as Hudson Square.

Stringer said he is in “fierce discussions” with the Sanitation Department since his formal opinion is due on the plan on Monday. On Friday, Aug. 8, he has a meeting planned with City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose district includes Chelsea, and the chairpersons of the affected community boards – 1,2, 4 and 5.

He declined to discuss more specifics of the alternative site since he had not talked about it yet with community leaders. Moving Sanitation District 5 -- which coincides with the community board lines – to Chelsea would reduce the amount of truck traffic throughout the borough, Stringer said. Under the city plan, District 5 trucks would have to travel from Chelsea and Midtown up to the E. 91st St. marine transfer station and then down to the west end of Manhattan at Spring St. to park.

“There is a real concern about truck traffic balance through this community and to the extent you can mitigate that -- I’m concerned about” doing that, Stringer said in an interview in Downtown Express’s office.

Shaan Khan, Stringer’s director of community relations, said “one of the reasons why we’re interested in Sanitation studying this other site in Chelsea is it’s already owned by Sanitation and it appears there may be room for the District 5 trucks to go there.”

The city plans to buy the large Spring St. lot from U.P.S., which parks its trucks there. U.P.S., which has said it faced an eminent domain threat from the city, would still be able to park in the new garage. Many of the Sanitation trucks in the new facility currently park in the Hudson River Park on the Gansevoort Peninsula and have to leave by 2012 as part of a lawsuit settlement filed by park advocates.

The large W. 26th St. facility is used in part to repair Sanitation trucks that serve the Bronx, Stringer said, and moving those trucks out could provide enough room for District 5.

He has discussed the site with John Doherty, Sanitation Commissioner, and Stringer staffers toured the facility this week.

Dan Klein, who heads Sanitation’s real estate department, said the District 5 uses can’t fit because of all of the existing uses, but he did not address the point Stringer made about moving the Bronx uses out of the building.

“The building is fully used,” he told Downtown Express.

Klein did not sound like the city wanted to negotiate with Stringer over the weekend. “He has until Monday,” Klein said Thursday. “We’ll respond when we get his recommendation.” A few minutes later, the department’s press office issued a prepared statement to Downtown Express saying it would respond to Stringer after the formal recommendation.

Stringer said: “I met personally at the table with Doherty and told them what my bottom line was.”

He said he will not make a final decision on recommending the 26th St. location as a possibility until he speaks more with community leaders and Sanitation. If Sanitation commits to studying the alternative, it will mean the City Council will have the option of voting for the alternative when the city plan comes for an up or down vote later this year.

In addition to an alternative site close to District 5, Stringer is also looking for a better connection to the Hudson River Park at Spring St., which could come in the form of a crosswalk and a small plaza at Spring St., immediately north of Canal Park. This plaza is slated to get a salt pile storage center, but Stringer wants the city to consider four alternative salt locations already identified by the Dept. of Sanitation, particularly since traffic from Canal St., the Holland Tunnel, and the West Side Highway make it difficult to get to the riverside park near Spring St.

“If we can get all that,” Stringer said before referring to the limits of his role in the land use process known as ULURP, “you could argue job well done given you have an advisory opinion.”

Josh@downtownexpress.com

[bigkdc]

Sorry if I am dense but would his idea move the entire garage off of Spring Street or just make it smaller as the CB5 trucks would end up in chelsea?

[projectsnyc]

It is a good idea to use the Chelsea VMF facility for CD 5. 1/3 of the trucks within an existing building can be sent back to the Bronx by investing a small amount of money in the Bronx VMF facility making room for Midtown.

It is also a good idea to find another location for the salt shed other than Canal Street. What a great place for a public open space to join the remarkable Canal Park just to the south !

However, it is disingenuous for the MBPO to get behind DSNY's Plan at Spring Street...zoning controls were implemented to protect us from this monstrosity, not to enable it. If CD's 4 and 5 leave Gansevoort (along with the salt shed) perhaps we can come up with a better idea for CD 2 sometime in the future rather than imposing a squat, 95 foot high building upon Spring Street without setbacks and rear yard requirements. Or better yet, the Community Sanitation Steering Committee came up with a "horizontal" solution, putting CD 1 & CD 2 large vehicles underground and getting rid of DSNY free employee parking. It won an AIA Design award from the 2007 ENVISIONING HUDSON SQUARE CHARRETTE.

Time for DSNY architects to re-design their Plan by going underground.

Here is the full text of the letter from the MBPO...August 27th 10 AM Public Hearing upcoming at the City Planning Commission on both the ULURP actions and the DEIS...please join us in opposition...

[bigkdc]

There is a public hearing on the garage this week.

Wed August 27th
10am
NYC Planning Commission
22 Reade Street

[projectsnyc]

The Sanitation Department plans to build a $429 MM 3-District, 12-story garage at Spring Street, housing 62 garbage trucks, free parking for 102 city employees, fancy offices, a truck repair and washing facility, and a gas station fueling all city agency vehicles.

The Sanitation Department also plans to place a 7-story high, open-sided salt shed at Spring Street - blowing salt onto our streets and into the river.

Over 800+ vehicle trips would be made to the garage each day - about half by garbage trucks and half by employee cars. The garbage trucks would be in addition to the Sanitation trucks that will travel to our district from all over Manhattan to use the Gansevoort marine transfer station.

Be sure to attend and/or testify at the Public Hearing on Wednesday, August 27th at the NYC Planning Commission, 22 Reade Street. Although the proceedings start at 10 am, we are last on their agenda and probably won't start until sometime between 11 am and noontime.

Yes, this takes place three days before Labor Day to minimize attendance. It is very important to attend.

[brianac]

Sanitation Department Building Plan for SoHo May End Up in Court

By PETER KIEFER, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 27, 2008

Residents of SoHo are pledging to take the city to court if the Department of Sanitation's plans to build a 150-foot-high garage and fueling center just blocks from the Holland Tunnel move forward.

http://www.nysun.com/pics/7499.jpg
Neighnorhood residents are pledginf to take the Department of Sanitation to court if it goes through with a plan to build a 150-foot- high garage and fueling center in this spot. (Konrad Fiedler)

At a City Planning Commission hearing today, resident groups are expected to say the proposal to build a 427,000-square-foot facility at Spring and Washington streets would worsen what is already substandard air quality in the area and create additional environmental and health concerns, as well as increase street congestion.

"We would prefer that calmer heads prevail, but we are prepared to go to court," a spokesman for the nearby 1 million-square-foot St. John's office building, Michael Kramer, said yesterday. Mr. Kramer is working in concert with the local Community Board 2 and an opposition group that calls itself

This Deal Stinks, all of which are expected to testify today.

The Bloomberg administration wants to use the site, which is currently occupied by the United Parcel Service, to consolidate garbage trucks that service districts 1, 2, and 5 — roughly encompassing Manhattan (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Manhattan) between Midtown and Canal Street — and turn a smaller garage just to the south into a truck wash and refueling depot. The depot would store 13,000 gallons of fuel and oil and would service a number of other city agencies.
UPS's offices would be relocated to the ground floor.

The western edge of SoHo has experienced a renaissance over the last several years and now boasts a number of high-end retail stores and a several high-profile residential condominiums, including Philip Johnson's Urban Glass House at Washington and Spring streets and the $82.5 million, 14-story 505 Greenwich condominium building. The Trump SoHo, a condo hotel, is rising nearby, at Spring and Varick streets.

The upcoming fight highlights the challenge the city faces in trying to find real estate in Manhattan to house the infrastructure needed to perform necessary services such as sanitation. The new facility would help the department comply with its legal obligation to vacate Chelsea's Gansevoort Peninsula sanitation.

In a statement, a spokesman for the Department of Sanitation, Keith Mellis, said the department is seeking a building that would house 62 collection trucks, 15 dump trucks, and nine salt spreaders.

"The building would allow the DSNY to vacate existing facilities that are within the grounds of the Hudson River Park. DSNY currently fuels other city agency vehicles at all of our facilities citywide as long as refueling doesn't interfere with department operational needs/requirements," Mr. Mellis said.

A local restaurant owner and community board member, Philip Mouquinho, said the area is already overtaxed with car and truck congestion, which he says has resulted in some of the worst air quality in the entire Northeast.

"We are already burdened with the one district garage here, the UPS facility that has 150 trucks, the Holland Tunnel, and the maintenance trucks that are on Pier 40. On top of that congestion and pollution, you are going to give us two more district garages with a 30,000-gallon fuel dump? It's insanity," he said.

The project falls within the district of the City Council speaker, but a spokeswoman for Christine Quinn said she has yet to take a position.

Manhattan's president, Scott Stringer, opposes the plan. He says that while a new garage on the Lower West Side to serve districts 1 and 2 made sense, the department should find an alternate site for trucks that serve District 5 in Midtown.

A spokesman for UPS, Norman Black, said the company's cooperation was contingent upon the sanitation department's ability to get the project through the city's land use review process.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/sanitation-department-building-plan-for-soho-may/84711/

© 2008 The New York Sun,

[CBTwo]

Although Philip Mouquinho is a well spoken and an outspoken individual for the community, I don't believe he is still a community board 2 member.

Actually the project is not blocks from the Holland Tunnel it straddles the Holland Tunnel and abuts on one of its airshafts.

I have heard figures around $400.? million to build this garage. And also a figure of $1.8 to $3 mil per year in fines if the sanitation department doesn't leave Gansevoort pier. If that is the case it would take at the high side 133 years to cover the cost of the new facility versus paying a fine. Again I am not sure exactly what those figures are, but hopefully someone here can straighten out the math a bit.

We are coming upon hard times and the city really has to do some soul searching to come up with the money for this exercise. Also what revenue generating source does HRP have to fill the $3,000,000 fine? It seems every time they throw out an RFP no one seems interested other than not for profit organizations.

One other contention of congestion in the area is that there is during the afternoon hours a contingent of buses that serve FEGS on Vandam and Hudson. Why they put a facility that is primarily served by private transportation services in an area already jammed with traffic is beyond reason.

[Merry]

Downtown Express | Sept. 26 - Oct. 2, 2008

Discovering Hudson Square


http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_282/wau.gif

Trinity Real Estate, which is sponsoring an application to create a Hudson Square Business Improved District, said it hopes the BID will open within a year and begin looking for ways to improve the look of the streets and the neighborhood’s traffic problems.


http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_282/hudsonss.gif

Hudson Square veterans chew over what’s going on

By Josh Rogers


Hudson Square, in a sense, is 10 times behind its neighbors. The neighborhood still gets fewer than one million Google hits compared to many millions for its more popular border areas — Soho, Greenwich Village and Tribeca — but that can be seen as a sign of progress. A year ago, there were 100 times more annual Google searches for Soho and Tribeca than there were for the newer neighborhood, according to a search survey done by Trinity Church, the Square’s largest property owner.


The Square’s southern and western borders are undeniably Canal St. and the Hudson River, but there’s no consensus in the other directions. Give or take a block or two, the other boundaries are Sixth Ave. and Leroy St. But then some still think of the area as western Soho or the southern Village.
Once home to the city’s printing industry, the neighborhood has more and more media firms such as Viacom, MTV and WNYC Radio along with a small, but growing residential population — thanks to a rezoning to allow apartments and condos several years ago.


Trinity is proceeding with its city application to create a Business Improvement District in part of the neighborhood and hopes to have it begin operating by the middle of next year. Five years ago, the church’s BID effort was stymied by community opposition, but this time Community Board 2 is overwhelmingly in favor of the effort because Trinity took the neighborhood’s residential blocks out of the district application.


Carl Weisbrod, who heads Trinity’s real estate division, said the BID will focus on what’s important to residents and workers — improving the “mean quality of the streets.” With snarling traffic from the Holland Tunnel and Canal St. making it difficult to get around, residents and workers want more pedestrian safety and better-looking sidewalks, Weisbrod said.


Neighborhood surveys show people are satisfied with the security and cleanliness of the neighborhood so the BID will not take on those traditional BID functions, he added. BIDS are supervised by the city’ Dept. of Small Business Services and are funded by taxes on the district’s building property owners.


Weisbrod, who used to run the city’s largest BID as president of the Downtown Alliance, said it’s still a “daunting challenge to attract the type of retail residents and commercial tenants want. Retailers want round the clock demand.”


He said famed Tribeca chef David Bouley’s recent deal with Trinity to open a restaurant at 10 Hudson Sq. (Varick between Charlton and Vandam Sts.) will draw more people to the area. But despite the large number of small, interesting restaurants already in the Square, Weisbrod doesn’t see the neighborhood developing like restaurant-heavy Tribeca, which he said will always be more residential than its northern counterpart.


He sees the Square more as a creative district, with new media and entertainment firms dominating.


Phil Mouquinho, who opened PJ Charlton restaurant off the beaten path on Greenwich St. in 1980, said he definitely notices the change in customers.
“We’ve gone from the printers, the policemen and truck drivers” to some financial industry workers, “then morphed into media types — Miramax folks, lawyers in the film business, publicists,” Mouquinho said.


He’s updated the “old fashioned” Italian menu with dishes like watermelon salad and sautéed vegetables with garlic and oil, but many still opt for the ravioli with sauce.


“Makes them feel like home,” Mouquinho said.


He said he likes seeing more restaurants in the neighborhood and thinks of it as help, not as competition.


“More attracts more….We don’t have the pedestrian traffic most places enjoy,” he explained. “Spring St. tends to generate its own pedestrian flow, but on Vandam, King, Charlton, even Houston, there’s not much.”


He remembers seven different restaurants in less than 20 years at one spot on Hudson and Charlton Sts. and said a new Japanese-French eatery, Archipelago, will be there soon. The restaurants that make it in the Square tend to have owners who do a lot themselves rather than the large-staff, “delegate and regulate” model. But he said Bouley, who is in a “league by himself,” should not have that problem because his restaurants are such a draw. Bouley has not said yet what kind of eatery he will be opening on Varick St.


Mouquinho said he and many small business owners are worried about the turbulence on Wall St., but judging how he weathered the stock market crash of ’87, he thinks the effects won’t be felt in Hudson Square until 2009.


“It’ll be a lean mean January to June of next year,” Mouquinho said. “We’ll be okay for the holiday.”


Similarly, Weisbrod said “the softness in the financial markets tends to have a ripple effect, but we haven’t seen it yet.”


Mouquinho said the neighborhood did surprisingly well after 9/11 because many Lower Manhattan firms relocated temporarily to the north. It took a turn for the worse, a year or so later, and has been rebounding well since.


He and many others in the community think the biggest threat to the neighborhood is the city’s plan to build a 120-foot Sanitation garage on the UPS lot at Washington and Spring Sts. The plan is also opposed by Community Boards 1 and 2 and Borough President Scott Stringer.

Opponents say the site can accommodate a garage for garbage trucks from Boards 1 and 2 in Lower Manhattan but should not have to take trucks from Board 5 in Midtown and part of Chelsea, particularly since those trucks will have to traverse most of Manhattan to get to its marine transfer station on E. 91st St.


The city has rejected all of the opponents’ suggested alternatives for a District 5 garage, saying the most cost-effective plan is to build one facility for three districts.


Mouquinho expects City Planning to approve the plan with only minor changes in October. He is a member of the Community Sanitation Steering Committee, a group of neighbors and property owners fighting the plan. He said if the City Council gives the final approval — the vote is expected before the end of the year — his group is likely to sue.


Mouquinho said his group has already retained Kenneth McCallion, a prominent plaintiffs attorney who has had successful lawsuits against Dow Chemical, Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case. The group has consultant studies suggesting property values in the neighborhood will drop 30 to 40 percent with the city plan, Mouquinho said.


He feels certain the issue will be resolved in court but he thinks it all could be settled if the city were open to alternatives.


“Why can’t we do it in a responsible way that’s fair to everybody,” he said.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_282/hudsonsquare.html

[bigkdc]

Here is a rendering of the garage and salt shed...this is the view from the west side highway...looks absurd to me - such a big block



http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3194/2899202502_05e8fe3aa6_o.png

[projectsnyc]

The Salt Shed is supposed to be 60 feet high and the garage 118-120 feet high. Are my eyes playing tricks on me or is the scale of the rendering dishonest ? Manhattan Borough President Stringer asks that the Salt Shed be located "elsewhere" and he has proposed five alternative sites.

Both the Community Boards and the MBPO have insisted that the Midtown MN 5 district garage be located in midtown (for any number of operational and environmental reasons). This would take an additional 30 feet off the height of the building. No free employee parking, subtract 15 feet and suddenly it is the height of the St. John's Center. Maybe use some basement space for less intensive activities, and suddenly you can put a rooftop park on top that starts at Canal Street and goes to the top of the St. John's Center.

Let's find a better solution driven by community consensus rather than a private settlement agreement !

[lofter1]

I agree that the proposal for the DOS garage / salt shed are terrible and should be re-thought from any number of angles.

The roof top of the St. John's Center (a privately owned building) has been slated for additional development (there are thousands of un-used FAR available at that site). One proposal from TEN Arquitectos (http://www.ten-arquitectos.com/) includes some green space on the roof there ...

*

[projectsnyc]

Attached is a revised rendering of the HUDSON RISE concept (2.5 acre rooftop park starting at Canal Street) which would
incorporate a two-district DSNY garage at Spring Street.

Yes, as per the Manhattan Borough President, the Midtown MN5 Sanitation garage and the salt shed would have to be located elsewhere...

Comments anyone?

[lofter1]

So ... the building(s) in that render would be purely a parking garage for DSNY vehicles?

No offices? No UPS parking?

Visually and conceptually this proposal is far more in the direction that should be considered. The park-bridge over Spring Street is great. The majority of the builk at the new Washington / Spring / West building should NOT rise above the current hreight of the St. John's building to the north (as it seems is shown).

Where would the salt shed & maintenance facility be (re)-located? Is the current DSNY facility at Clarkson / Washington / Houston completely out of play? The other previously-proposed location at W 30th / Eleventh Avenue should be brought back into play.

[lofter1]

After looking at the pdf image I see that the 3rd Floor (hgihest level at the north end) will be DSNY offices.

Is there a website where more info / renders are available?

[projectsnyc]

We have further attached floor plans to make this plan more transparent.
There would be 13,000 sf of space on the second floor for DSNY offices,
17,000 to 27,300 sf of space available on a shared basis with UPS on
the ground floor for employee parking should that be deemed desirable.

Finding a better site for the Salt Shed should properly be in the hands of the Community Boards and the Manhattan Borough President. At the City Planning Vote, Commissioner Angela Cavalucci, R.A. suggested in explaining her vote against the DSNY proposal that her office had identified five suitable sites to relocate the Salt Shed.

Manhattan MN 6 is currently housed in midtown at 606 West 30th Street.
Because DSNY chose to send them back to East 73rd Street when that garage has been re-built (rather than MN 5 which was not invited back)
this is why this "orphan" has been foisted upon Spring Street. MN 5 could move right into the MN 6 garage the next day (it is a smaller district).

Will the City continue to turn a "deaf ear" to realistic alternatives?

Now it is time for Council Speaker Quinn to hear from her constituents
demanding a better solution !

[bigkdc]

Isn't the salt shed in the structure right in front of the holland tunnel vent? (where the maintenance facility is now).

I think these renderings look amazing. To me it seems like a real win-win as the neighborhood gets the trucks off the street (which smell and look horrible), gets additional green areas and does its part to help support the city's infrastructure.

[NYer]

I agree. This is much better than the plan proposed by the Department of Sanitation. The structures proposed by DSNY would overwhelm the area. Your proposal, on the other hand, would incorporate community elements.
I also agree with the Manhattan Borough President and with CB 2 that the salt shed and MN 5 garage don't belong here.

[infoshare]

I agree. This is much better than the plan proposed by the Department of Sanitation.


Yes, a low-rise structure with a 'green open-to-the-public roof': nice.

This new design proposal seems somewhat similar to Riverside State Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbank_State_Park) or one of the many Urban Rooftop Gardens (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V91-4DJBSWC-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=734a690c94325caad6a3326598b5c2e0) seen in high-density cities like Japan & Singapore. That building would be a good spot for some rooftop greening: even if (for maintenance reasons) it has to be astroturf.



Building Rooftop Gardens: information - http://www.truveo.com/Building-a-Roof-Top-Urban-Garden/id/3547142627

Rooftop Gardens: public perception - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V91-4DJBSWC-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=734a690c94325caad6a3326598b5c2e0


Riverbank State Park - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbank_State_Park

[CBTwo]

I find it amazing that DSNY needs 30' ceiling heights for their operation, while UPS which has large trailers need only 15'. If the ceiling height is lowered the ramps could be shorter, therefore giving more usable floor space to the garage. If the DSNY needs the additional ceiling height for maintaining their trucks they don't need an entire floor, but only one or two spots which can pop up into the floor above. If they limit their ceiling heights to 15' the overall structure will be 30' shorter. And no they shouldn't be using that extra 30' to park their private cars.

I really don't think turf is considered a "green" roof in it's present day context.

[infoshare]

I find it amazing that DSNY needs 30' ceiling heights for their operation, while UPS which has large trailers need only 15'. If the ceiling height is lowered the ramps could be shorter, therefore giving more usable floor space to the garage.

Good point: my guess (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/insight/09/14/0914tales.html) is that DSNY probably needs a lot more overhead space for air circulation: given (http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Your-Breath-Smell-Like-the-Backend-of-a-Garbage-Truck&id=499111) that they are 'garbage' trucks.


LINK - http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/insight/09/14/0914tales.html
LINK - http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Your-Brea