Dept of Sanitation Garage in Hudson Square

[bigkdc]

As has been discussed in many threads here, plans have finally come out for a new sanitation garage in hudson square. The plan is to build 3 facilities in the area with the largest being in the UPS parking lot at the corner of Spring St and West St. Evidently the plan is for a joint use facility for UPS and the dept of sanitation that will be 140-150 feet high.

The proposed plan is in its early stages but the fight has already begun as there is a big turnout planned by the friends of hudson square at a hearing on the project on Jan 31.

It will be interesting to see how all of the folks who have purchased milion dollar plus condos in the area will react as news gets out. More details on the project can be found at the following link:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/guides/MJLMN125.pdf

[lofter1]

It might be very difficult to win a fight against this plan.

DSNY is under order to remove existing facilities from the Piers / Hudson River Park. A large site is need to consolidate those facilites.

There seems to be one other option at 11th Avenue / W. 30th Street, but with plans for Hudson Yards that seems like the less likely site.

From the document:


The Proposed Action is consistent with the existing mix of land uses, and the garage is an as-of-right use under the existing M2-4 zoning ... would be within the requisite floor-air ratio (FAR) of 5.0; however DSNY would seek special permits for height variance and relief from streetwall and setback requirements ...

However, if built this facility might turn the Urban Glass House into one of the biggest "luxury development" turkeys in all of NYC.

On the other hand if a well designed building with a "green" roof were built it could be a great benefit to the community at large.

Some maps showing the proposed facilities / traffic patterns ...

***

[lofter1]

Curbed (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2007/01/09/west_soho_paradise_threatened_by_sanitation.php#mo re), in its own inimitable way, has a big report on this today; here are the visuals -- go to the link for the text ...

West Soho Paradise Threatened by Sanitation

Tuesday, January 9, 2007, by BL

http://www.curbed.com/2007_01_westsohogarage.jpg

http://www.curbed.com/2007_01_anmap.jpg

[bigkdc]

There was a proposal back in 1999 to do something similar but the city and ups could never agree on how to make it work....

I am reading this as a garage for storing and fixing trucks - this isnt going to be a garbage processing site, is it?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Yes. It is replacing the truck/salt storage facility now at Gansevoort.

[lofter1]

But NOT a garbage processing site ...

1.1 Project Description

DSNY is proposing to construct and operate a new garage facility in lower Manhattan on a site generally bounded by Spring Street, Washington Street and West Street. The new garage would consolidate operations at the proposed site to provide better service to the local community districts, achieve an economy of scale, replace outdated facilities, and improve operational efficiencies. It would also enable DSNY to comply with its legal obligation to vacate the Gansevoort peninsula, 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street, within the recently established Hudson River Park, which currently holds garages for Manhattan Districts 2 and 4, and which will in the future temporarily house up to two other Manhattan garage districts pending completion of new facilities but will at no time hold more than three Manhattan garage districts...


The new multi-story garage (approximately 427,000 gross square feet of space) would be located on an 85,450 square foot- (sq ft-) site that is currently owned and used by the United Parcel Service (UPS) for truck trailer staging and parking (known as the Equipment Staging Lot) as part of their Manhattan South Facility operations...

The overall UPS Package Distribution Facility operations would remain as they currently are. There would be no change in their existing operations. The number of UPS trucks, trailers, other vehicles and employees would remain at their present levels...

There would be a maximum of 128 pieces of DSNY equipment operating out of the new garage. The total number of employees on a peak day over three shifts would be about 231 (including 191 sanitation workers). The peak number of employees working out of the new garage during any individual shift would be 108. The facility would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

DSNY truck and equipment access and egress to the DSNY garage would be via West Street and Washington Street. The configuration of West Street in this location allows for queuing of trucks and equipment, when needed. Vehicles exiting the garage at this point would turn north onto West Street. DSNY would also be able to enter and exit the new garage via Washington Street (one-way in a southerly direction) at the northern end of the site. DSNY employees would enter and access the garage from Washington Street at mid-block...

The DSNY salt storage facility (Block 600, Lot 29) would be located just north of the new garage for ready access to the vehicles and equipment. The covered facility would have a maximum storage capacity of 6,500 tons of salt. Loading operations would take place from the Washington Street side of the facility. There would be two aboveground storage tanks for liquid calcium chloride used to melt snow and ice...

[bigkdc]

Has anyone seen anything on how the city and UPS are working together on this? Seems odd for the city to make a proposal on land they don't own. I assume the city would give UPS some sort of tax break in exchange for entering into this situation?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
I think it was UPS that initiated the deal, in light of what they were facing.

The lot was underutilized. UPS had been trying to sell all or part of it, but retain a presence for truck staging. The city wanted the land for the garage, and could have used Eminent Domain to acquire the property.

It's not clear to me who will own the garage. The scoping document states that the DSNY will be the lead agency in the DEIS, and one of the alternatives to be discussed is a sanitation garage without UPS..

The condo owners are really stuck, but they should have looked at a zoning map and researched neighborhood issues before buying. I posted about the city's plans for a garage a year ago. The Urban Glass House is on a corner of a C zone (bounded by Canal, Washington, Spring and Hudson) that is surrounded by M zones.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Found some information:



City to build garbage truck parking tower in Hudson Square

By Albert Amateau

The Department of Sanitation wants to build garages on three sites, one of them owned by United Parcel Service, in the Hudson Square neighborhood where six luxury residential towers have risen in the past few years.

The project would require joint use of the 85,450-square-foot U.P.S. parking lot on the north side of Spring St. along West St. behind the U.P.S. Washington St. truck-loading facility. Sanitation would build a garage 150 feet tall — 13 feet taller than the new, 12-story, Philip Johnson-designed Urban Glass House directly across Spring St. from the site. The garage would store garbage and recycling trucks, snow plows and salt spreaders on the upper level, and U.P.S. would use the lower level for the staging area for its Manhattan South sorting and dispatching operation.

The garage would be home to trucks from three Sanitation districts, including those currently on Gansevoort Peninsula, as well as those from the Sanitation garage on the south side of Spring St. at West St. Under a legal settlement, the city must remove its garbage trucks from Gansevoort by 2012 so that the peninsula can be redeveloped as part of the Hudson River Park.

Norman Black, U.P.S. public affairs director, said the city was threatening to take over the property under eminent domain, so the company made a deal.

“We’re a reluctant participant in this project,” he said. “We said we’d agree to the current proposal if the city got all the necessary approvals,” Black said. “Questions about ownership [of the new garage] haven’t even begun to be addressed yet.”

The site is a relatively quiet parking lot during the day, but at night serves as the crucial staging area for trucks that pull into the U.P.S. building as soon as loaded trucks pull out. Without the staging area, U.P.S. would have to move the entire operation, Black said.

Also part of the D.O.S. project is the demolition of the existing Sanitation garage at Spring and West Sts. and replacing it with a truck-washing and refueling facility that would accommodate four 4,000-gallon diesel fuel tanks, a 4,000-gallon unleaded gasoline tank, a 4,000-gallon ethanol tank, a 2,000-gallon hydraulic oil tank, a 2,000-gallon motor oil tank and a 1,000-gallon waste oil tank.

The third part of the project calls for converting an existing parking garage on Washington and Clarkson Sts. into a covered shed to store 6,500 tons of road salt with two above-ground storage tanks for liquid calcium chloride used to melt snow and ice on city streets. This would replace the salt shed on Gansevoort.

Artist Julian Hatton, who lives nearby on Broome St., said “I used to paint the sides of those [U.P.S. and Sanitation] trucks a while back.” He was not concerned about the more recent residents to the neighborhood who have moved into the new luxury buildings.

“The people that live in those condos need to have a little bit of disruption to their lives, it’s like you need to have a trust fund in order to even get one,” he said,

But Francis Dosne, who owns Manhattan Graphics nearby, said: “I am sure it will cause a major traffic problem for residents in this area, there is no doubt about that.”

Sanitation will conduct a public scooping session on the project from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Wed., Jan. 31, in the Rosenthal Pavilion on the 10th floor of New York University’s Kimmel Hall, at 60 Washington Sq. S.

Community Board 2, which originally supported Sanitation’s proposed takeover of the U.P.S. site, reversed itself a year ago under new leadership. Friends of Hudson Square, a neighborhood group headed by David Reck, a C.B. 2 member, has always opposed the project.

With reporting by Priya Idiculla


Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.
145 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 229-1890 Fax: (212) 229-2790
Advertising: (646) 452-2465 •
© 2006 Community Media, LLC

Email: news@downtownexpress.com

[bigkdc]

TRUMP DUMPS ON SOHO'S TRASH PLAN

By RITA DELFINER
January 16, 2007 -- Donald Trump is ready to talk trash to help his future SoHo neighbors take on the Sanitation Department.
The city agency wants to build a 150-foot-tall garage on a site roughly bounded by Spring Street, Washington Street and West Street that would house 106 trucks.
It would be located several blocks from the site where Trump plans to build the Trump SoHo Hotel Condominium at 246 Spring St.
"I don't like the trucks, the fumes, the traffic from the standpoint of the community," Trump said, saying he sympathizes with concerns voiced by some neighbors.
"If the community wanted help, I would certainly help," he added.
The Donald stressed that he has no personal objection to the proposal, declaring, "It doesn't impact [our building] because it's five blocks away. Five blocks in New York City is an eternity."
The Sanitation Department plans to share the garage with the UPS, which now has a facility there.
The department's plan also calls for putting a refueling station with nearly 30,000 gallons of fuel and oil in a separate building at Canal and West Streets.
"That's lunacy," David Reck, president of Friends of Hudson Square, said. "It would be a perfect terrorist target that would burn up TriBeCa, Hudson Square and the Holland Tunnel all in one big shot."
rita.delfiner@nypost.com (rita.delfiner@nypost.com)

[lofter1]

The Donald knows what he's talking about when it come to TRASH (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20007639,00.html)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Sanitation parking tower plan reignites C.B. 2 feud

The city plan to build a garbage truck parking garage tower in Hudson Square has reopened a feud at Community Board 2 over whether the area should get more Dept. of Sanitation trucks.

Last week’s Downtown Express article on the proposed garage incorrectly stated that C.B. 2 recently reversed its late 1990s resolution in support of siting a Sanitation garage on the U.P.S. parking lot at Spring and Washington Sts. In fact, Arthur Schwartz, C.B. 2 Waterfront and Parks Committee chairperson, a year ago, had proposed a resolution supporting the lawsuit by Friends of Hudson River Park to force the city to get its garbage trucks off Gansevoort Peninsula, which likely would have moved the trucks to the U.P.S. lot. The move would allow a park to be built on Gansevoort as part of the Hudson River Park. But Schwartz’s resolution failed after a discussion by the board, mainly because some newer members didn’t take kindly to the idea of the garbage trucks being relocated to the Hudson Square lot.

Noting he grew up in Hudson Square back when “rats were as big as cats,” Phil Mouquinho, who owns the nearby P.J. Charlton restaurant on Greenwich St., said at the time, “The area is just starting to gentrify,” and that an influx of garbage trucks could threaten further upscaling. The earlier C.B. 2 resolution supporting just one Department of Sanitation garage at the site still remains on the books, however. But the latest proposal by the city — for a garage for not one, but three garbage truck districts, plus the U.P.S. trucks, a jumbo fuel storage depot and a salt shed on two other sites to boot — is likely to provoke even more opposition from the 50-member board, only about five members of which remain from the late 1990s.

Meanwhile, Schwartz and David Reck, who sparred over the initial resolution on the U.P.S. lot, are, eight years later, once again on opposing sides of the new proposal for a 150-foot-tall mega-garage. Reck is leading a coalition against the garage plan, including his group — Friends of Hudson Square — along with the Tribeca Community Association, the new Urban Glass House condo tower, the Ear Inn and other local restaurants and businesses, and the area’s “major landlords.”

“I am a park supporter,” Reck said. “I just don’t feel that dumping it all [the garbage trucks and facilities] in one neighborhood is fair. They want to move three garbage truck garages down here — plus a salt pile. We’re going to become like the garbage center.” Reck added the fuel depot, located near the Holland Tunnel airshaft, would also be a juicy terrorist target. “There’s 29,000 gallons of flammable stuff there.” They will be filing a lawsuit, he vowed.

Schwartz countered that the only residents negatively impacted would be those in the Urban Glass House just south of the site. “If David Reck wants to defend luxury housing Downtown — this is super-luxury housing — that’s fine,” Schwartz said, adding he’s sure Reck’s lawsuit will be well funded by developers’ money. “What’s David’s alternative — using the [U.P.S.] lot to build luxury housing?” he added.

“The Urban Glass House people are very upset about this,” Reck assured.

Speaking of developers, Reck can also count Donald Trump in his corner. On Tuesday, the New York Post reported that Trump, who’s trying to develop a condo-hotel a few blocks away on Varick St., said he’d offer the community his help in fighting the massive garage. Reck said he hasn’t personally talked to The Donald about it yet.

As for Schwartz’s statements about real estate money behind his lawsuit, he said, “Arthur’s not relevant here. He doesn’t live in the neighborhood, and we’re going to do our own lawsuit.”

Coincidentally, Schwartz, who’s thinking of moving, said that six months ago he looked at a unit at the Urban Glass House and the broker claimed to know nothing about the garage when Schwartz queried him about it. “Either he didn’t know or wasn’t telling,” Schwartz said.

The city will hold a public hearing on its plan Jan. 31 at 60 Washington Square South at 7:30 p.m.

— Lincoln Anderson

Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.
145 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10013

[bigkdc]

somehow it does not seem fair to put the burden of 3 districts worth of garbage trucks on 1 district. that being said, life isn't always fair...

[projectsnyc]

Clearly CD5 is an after-thought in this proposal, it was not slated for the UPS site in the original agreement hammered out back in 1999 (rather there was to be a site at 29th-30th Street or Hudson Yards area). DSNY is being disingenuous inflicting the pain of trucks "commuting" to midtown Manhattan upon the West Village.

There is also genuine (commonsense) concern about 29,000 gallons of fuel atop the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, and another 13,000 gallons buried one block nearby. Also, why is there a gas station on the southern side of Canal Street so close to the Tunnel?

Finally, if the salt-pile shed structure in CD3 (under the Manhattan Bridge) is so under-utilized (it was empty up until early January and is now 1/4 full), why not use this as a central distribution node for CD's 1, 2, 3 and 5?

We need to break this proposal down into its component parts...

[CBTwo]

I don’t get it. I realize the DSNY must vacate the pier they are on now due to legal reasons, but it doesn’t make sense to tear down an existing facility, although it needs some upgrading, and build another at a different location, only in order to build a new park. It would appear an easier solution is to just build a new recreational pier.

How is the Hudson River Park Trust going to pay for a new park and maintain same? It seems they can barely maintain what they have now.

"The bottom line is" (if I may quote Bloomberg) there is no park down where the relocated DSNY garage is to be relocated. Pier 40 is not a park. It is a recreational facility used by players from all over the city. Plus the strip of Hudson River Park from the tennis courts up to Clarkson Street has been a storage junkyard for HRPT since before 9/11. When are they going to clean up their mess and give some amenities back to the area residents?

[lofter1]

The whole "leave the DOS facility at Gansevoort and build a new pier for the park" argument was trotted out last week in the comment section at curbed ...

You've answered that question yourself: There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...

Pier 40 is part of the park and will have multiple uses -- Are you suggesting that DOS move this facility in there?

The area in front of Pier 40 will be upgraded along with the renovation of that pier.

The Tribeca stretch of the Park is under construction.

The whole traffic concern is overblown. West Street is already a very high traffic hiway. Whenever possible most of the DOS truck traffic should be directed out of the area via West Street to reach the far-lying areas of the CB Districts which they serve. To access the garage trucks will be using an entrance / exit on West Street or coming up around on Clarkson and then down Washington and into the garage. The strip of Spring between Washington / West already is lined with various trucks -- parked and otherwise.

[CBTwo]

lofter1,

Your reply to my comment, “The whole "leave the DOS facility at Gansevoort and build a new pier for the park" argument was trotted out last week in the comment section at curbed ...” So? What does that have to do with examining a possible new solution? Is it a viable solution or not?

You also state, “There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...” So? There also was an “order” to "CHARGE!" given to the British Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Just because it’s an order doesn’t make it an intelligent order, or an order that cannot be rescinded before it's too late.

I never suggested, nor would I suggest, that Pier 40 be altered to accommodate the DSNY. It’s fine just the way it is (although it could use some upgrades) and does not need a Las Vegas style circus to make it into something else.

You also state that the front of Pier 40 will be upgraded with the renovation of the Pier itself. They are two different projects. How do you know that they will be cojoined and what is the timetable for accomplishing that feat?

I can’t believe your logic when you state, “The whole traffic concern is overblown. West Street is already a very high traffic hiway.” So adding a few hundred more trucks and more than a few hundred cars (you got to know that the sanitation guys drive to work for the most part because of free parking) isn’t going to impact the already overburdened streets and highway?

Then you go on with, “The strip of Spring between Washington / West already is lined with various trucks -- parked and otherwise.” I agree with you, yes it is, it’s lined already to the gills with randomly parked DSNY trucks and DSNY employee vehicles, who park on the side walk with impudence.

I also noticed that you have posted over 10,000 times to this site. So? Does that make you an expert on all of New York City's affairs?

[lofter1]

Not an expert, no ... just a longtime CB2 resident who loves NYC ...

But conversely, I note that you have 2 posts here -- does that make you an un-expert?

And "Charge of the Light Brigade"??

C'mon -- you can do better than that ...

But seriously ...

I'm a big fan of turning Gansevort Peninsula into a park. Have no interest in fighting the (losing) fight to try to undo the order that DOS must clear out.

If you are proposing same are you filing legal paperwork to get it done?

We both note that trucks are parked along that stretch of Spring. Wouldn't the GARAGE help to alleviate that?

If you think a couple of hundred more cars and trucks a day in that area are a problem -- when there are already many thousands that drive along West Street everyday -- then I don't know what to say to that.

I'm not a fan of the big proposal for Pier 40 either -- prefer the smaller scale plan that has been proposed.

What is your specific and viable proposal that would solve the DOS needs?

[lofter1]

You also state that the front of Pier 40 will be upgraded with the renovation of the Pier itself. They are two different projects. How do you know that they will be cojoined and what is the timetable for accomplishing that feat?



Regarding the Tribeca / Hudson Square stretch of Hudson River Park (Segment 3 (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/seg3.htm)):Segment 3 is being built by the Hudson River Park Trust and is expected to be opened in or before 2010.Pier 40 (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/pier40dev.htm) development is also overseen by the Hudson River Park Trust (LINK (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/underdev.htm)):The Hudson River Park Trust is in the midst of a selection process for a master developer for Pier 40Renderings (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/development/pier40dev.htm) of the two plans proposed for Pier 40 seem to indicate that the space between Pier 40 and the bike path will be designed / built in conjunction with the plan chosen for Pier 40.

According to the Segment 3 Plan (http://www.hudsonriverpark.com/pdfs/development/Seg3PLAN.pdf) rendering, Segment 3 does NOT include the space in front of Pier 40.

[CBTwo]

You are one tiresome individual I must say.

You say “Not an expert, no ... just a longtime CB2 resident who loves NYC ...” I can definitely agree with the “Not an expert part.” So you see we are agreeable on at least one point.

I’m sorry I only have a 2 rating, but given time discussing the problems of New York City and the Universe with you I am sure it will rise.

What parts of CB2 do you love? Can you tell me what and how many of the parts of this DSNY project that you love or find acceptable? I doubt for a variety of reasons that you live in Hudson Square and that you are neither in the field of architecture or city planning, nor environmental science. If so, an evaluation must be done on the certification process.

I admit that the Light Brigade was a bit reaching but it does illustrate a certain bull headed go ahead at any costs mentality that seems to pervade most of this DSNY discussion. It kind of reminds me of other decisions and positions made by leaders in power today.

Pataki ain’t governor anymore, are you aware of that. So things can change. Are you aware of that? Why take a defeatist attitude?

Regarding the first step to alleviate and start a legal proceeding, I believe that is underway with the Friends of Hudson Square under the brilliant guidance of David Reck. It will be interesting to see how much Donald Trump throws into the arena’$ legal pot.

The garage will not alleviate any of the “on street” parking that currently is there. Just walk down Greenwich Street after six and see how UPS takes over the four block stretch from Spring to Houston. They are drivers with total disregard of any and everything that is around them, hot rodding back and forth and jockeying for position. DSNY will be no different guaranteed. I don’t know how the two trucking groups are going to duel it out on Washington Street.

Relative to “there is a lot of traffic there already,” adding more will just be the same as adding just a few more straws to the camel’s back. At what point does it become obvious that one cannot add more?

I’m not anti-park, but I read constantly about the HRPT is having problems financing what they have already. Why would they take on additional financial burdens just because it was ordered by... ? I'm new to this ordering stuff, but can you tell me who ordered the removal of sanitation from the pier?

Realizing there is no quick fix to the problem, whether it’s the truck storage, or the salt storage. I’m suggesting that this has to be thought out in a more thorough manner than it has been to date.

I read somewhere there was an architectural competition to design the garage. I can just imagine the solutions. Renderings with a lot of trees at sidewalk level and foliage dripping from the "green" roof. Does anyone have a link to the competition?

[bigkdc]

I have seen the mention of homeland security as it relates to the fuel storage and the tunnel. Does anyone know if something like this would actually get reviewed by homeland security?

[CBTwo]

That is an interesting thought bigkdc. Hopefully there will be some input from them as well as OEM, but unfortunately I think OEM is asleep at the switch for the most part. Remember the somewhat recent blackout in Queens that caught OEM flat footed, and they had a duh duh duh response? I guess they need more higher paid people sitting around in planning meetings discussing pay raises.

Hopefully the feds will help.

lofter1,

Thanks for the update on the completion of segment 3 of the Hudson River Park scheduled for on or about the year 2010. I just find it amazing that the planners have moved the completion schedule from the fall of 2001 to the year 2010. At a certain time in the past (pre 9/11) I received monthly updates on the progress of 9A, which also included the progress of the "park." The Hudson Square portion of the park was scheduled to be one of, if not, the final phases of the park to be finished in the fall of 2001. I haven't received any of their updates since the summer of 2001. Did they go out of business? Talk about pissing on a community. How can it take nine years to do a simple job? And where were the time and resources diverted over the last five years to screw Hudson Square once more? What are we chopped liver?

Also I didn't ask for the where abouts of the renderings for the Pier 40 concepts, I was looking for the renderings for the garbage garage building renderings. I heard there were ten firms that offered "design" solutions.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You are one tiresome individual I must say.
Save the hostility for the CB meeting; personal attacks are not permitted here.

[CBTwo]

I believe UPS got an OK back in the last days of that less than perfect Mayor David Dinkens reign before he left office, to build a very large multi storied garage that would have bridged over Washington Street from their existing building to a new structure where the parking lot now exists. It would have extended from Spring to Charlton (or maybe half the way between Vandam and Charlton) from Greenwich to West street. Economics shut that project down I believe. But I can imagine them resurfacing the idea.

Andrew Stein Ok'd the idea also in his waining days. This would be late 1993 I believe.

I remember the renderings vividly. A non descript beige block building fronted with a forest of rendered trees. None of the trees would have lasted the first season given the sub-artic weather and wind suffered on our blocks.

[CBTwo]

Sorry Chimp,

I didn't mean it to be personal. I mean he does have 10,199 posts and I only have 5.

It was meant only to be an observation. I think we are friends now. Co-combatants so to speak in the same war.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You also state, “There is an order that DOS vacate Gansevoort Peninsula ...” So? There also was an “order” to "CHARGE!" given to the British Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Just because it’s an order doesn’t make it an intelligent order, or an order that cannot be rescinded before it's too late.The original order for the DSNY to vacate Gansevoort was a result of the Hudson River Park Act in 1998. Rescinding the order would have to go before the State legislature to amend the law.

Suit was brought against the city in early 2005, charging that the DSNY was in violation of the law, not only in not vacating the peninsula in a timely manner, but attempting to build a temporary structure. An agreement was reached in court that they would vacate by 2012 and pay the HRPT $21 million in rent.

In spring 2006, the DSNY proposed building a marine transfer station for recyclable waste at Gansevoort, and to enlarge the solid waste facility on pier 99 at W59th St. They acknowledged that the law would have to be changed.

CB4 proposed consolidating both operations at pier 76.

So it seems unrealistic to me that no garage will be built at the UPS site. However, I think it is unfair that it is all being consolidated in one spot. And a better location can be found for the fuel depot.

A garage is under construction at w57th St.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/awards/design_awards21/slide0026_image064.jpg

http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/awards/design_awards21/slide0028_image066.jpg

http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/awards/design_awards21/slide0030_image073.jpg

[lofter1]

CBTwo: Now you're asking for credentials?

Offer yours first, if you please.

Do you serve on the Community Board in District 2 (as your moniker infers)?

While I do live in CB District 2, I don't live in Hudson Square.

But, like you and others in this District, I do generate garbage (I know I'm giving you an opening with that one ;) ) that needs to be collected -- which is what the DOS proposal is about.

Intersting: you still haven't offered a viable alternative -- or any alternative, for that matter -- to what DOS has put forth.

And if you think I'm tiresome because I challenged you on your first couple of posts -- hold tight, there's most likely more challenges to come ... as you can see I don't tire easily ;) .

btw: I posted the link to the renderings of Pier 40 to shed some light on your claim that Pier 40 and the space that fronts it "are two different projects". Are you still holding to that position? If so, please offer some basis so we can continue the discussion based on the facts rather than conjecture.

Also, you say now "I was looking for the renderings for the garbage garage building renderings", but you hadn't mentioned that previously. Those renderings are fairly clear in their depiction of what is proposed for that area.

You also state "I heard there were ten firms that offered "design" solutions." Any links to that info -- which I've not heard?

[lofter1]

A bit more on the Court ruling regarding the DOS facility on the Gansevoort Peninsula [aka Friends of Hudson River Park et al v. New York City Department of Sanitation et al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Index No. 105763/05, I.A.S. Part 5 (Stallman, J.), Settlement Agreement and Order] from the New York City Council (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142) Staff Report (February 2006):

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK


REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION
Robert Newman, Acting Legislative Director

COMMITTEE ON SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Hon. Michael E. McMahon, Chair

OVERVIEW:
On February 7, 2006, the Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Committee, chaired by Michael E. McMahon, will conduct a hearing on the status of the proposed draft Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) as it pertains to the borough of Manhattan. In particular, it now seems that several facilities proposed to handle aspects of Manhattan’s waste may no longer be viable ...



GANSEVOORT STREET FACILITYThe use of the Gansevoort site has apparently been precluded by the recent settlement of a long-standing court case between the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and a group of civic organizations, including Friends of Hudson River Park.[2] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn2) The settlement reaffirms the City’s intent to comply with the Hudson River Park Act, the state law that establishes the Hudson River Park and controls, among other things, land uses allowed on the Gansevoort Peninsula. Under the agreement the City will pay the Hudson River Park Trust $21,500,000 to design and build parks on Pier 97 and at the Gansevoort Street site, and the Department of Sanitation agrees to remove all of its operations from the Gansevoort Street site by 2012.
Although the decision is silent as to approval or disapproval of Gansevoort as a site for a recycling facility, it reiterates the terms of the original park act that precludes any “incompatible government” use.[3] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn3) The settlement agreement specifically calls for the demolition of the existing marine transfer station at Gansevoort Street upon the Department of Sanitation vacating, but provides no indication that the plaintiffs would consider it being restored in the future.[4] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn4) In addition, the Friends of Hudson River Park have stated that the Hudson River Park Act prohibits any sanitation facility from being located within the park.[5] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/71108.htm?CFID=868695&CFTOKEN=16939142#_ftn5)
And this from The Villager (http://www.thevillager.com/villager_172/letterstotheeditor.html) (August 2006):
To The Editor:

I generally am supportive of the reportage done by Albert Amateau and the rest of your staff regarding local issues affecting the waterfront. I am writing this letter to ask that you correct something that was omitted from Mr. Amateau’s article “Local politicians, activists, boards are not on board with barging plan” (July 26), which has to do with the city’s new 20-year Solid Waste Management Plan passed by the City Council on July 19, which includes a provision for a transfer station for recyclables on the Gansevoort Peninsula — the jewel of the Hudson River Park.

Mr. Amateau is correct when he refers to my remarks that the settlement of our lawsuit in October 2005 did not preclude transfer stations at Gansevoort and W. 59th Sts., but I would like to add the following clarification.

Our settlement agreement with the city of New York permits only present Sanitation activities to remain on the Gansevoort Peninsula until 2012. It is our position that the city cannot use the Gansevoort Peninsula in any other way until after the 2012 vacate date. In other words, even if the State Legislature allows another use at Gansevoort before 2012, the Friends of Hudson River Park would bring an action under their settlement agreement, which provides, contractually, that no other use can be there until 2012.

Finally, Mr. Amateau is correct when he says that the Friends would probably go to court to make sure the transfer stations are dropped, but we must add the other phrase, “or any other use before 2012.”

I hope this clarifies Friends’ position on the Gansevoort Peninsula.

Daniel Alterman

Alterman was the attorney on the Friends of Hudson River Park’s lawsuit to vacate the Department of Sanitation trucks from Gansevoort Peninsula

[Downtowner]

The HRP website says:
… this 550-acre park is the largest open space development in Manhattan since the completion of Central Park.

It seems to me that there should be more reason to create a park than to put photos of the former governor on the web site.

What city with a sense of greatness would build a significant park on the waterfront and then, having created choice waterfront views, put a sanitation garage overlooking the masterful new park. Would Chicago? Would Paris? Do we think NYC is so great it can survive being ugly and stupid --ignorant of architecture, land use and planning?

It is customary when building a handsome new park, at least in the cities I know, to put amenities next to the park, such as hotels and residences, where people can enjoy the park and have views of it. Symbiotically, when you are in the park, the handsome residences that line the park form an important part of their charm and appeal. Likewise, elegant buildings at an entrance to a park define the experience before you even enter.

I can't think of Regent's Park in London without the uniform elegant townhouses on one corner or of the Parc Monceau in Paris without the varied elegant residences adjacent to it. Likewise Chicago has some of its most attractive apartments overlooking the lake. And many of the fabled views from Central Park feature the prewar apartment buildings on its periphery. Only New York treats its waterfront --its fabled and fabulous waterfront --as a cesspool.

So what does the proposal match HRP with? A 150 ft tall sanitation garage.

Spring St and Canal are major cross town arteries. They effectively meet beside a charming new triangular park at an important entry point to the park. So what will set the tone at this key gateway? --a truck garage, more sanitation trucks and cars from sanit workers and plowing equipment stored on the sidewalk.

How stupid. How sheerly stupid.

[Downtowner]

I live in a single family home in Hudson Square/South Village suffiiciently far from the UPS site that it will not affect my quality of life, except to the extent that the whole neighborhood will be affected, including Trump's building.

However, whenever I or my family go to the park we will pass under 150 feet of looming ugliness and have to thread our way through cars and equipment parked on the sidewalk.

But I would like to address the question of our use of the City's garbage collection services. As a homeowner, I act as my own super. The way our garbage gets collected directly affects the apperarance of our street and our quality of life. I also have a small office in Chelsea, for which I have to hire a private carter.

Others may have a different experience, but I find the contrast between the private carter and our fine public servants the difference between night and day. The difference is simple. With the private carter, if I put out trash, they pick it up, and leave the sidewalk clean. With DOS, I never know, from day to day, whether they will show up at all or, if they do show up, what they will deign to collect. Moreover, if the private carter is unhappy, if they feel I have put out quantities or types of trash that are not in our agreement, they call me and in a few minutes and for insignificant amounts of money the problem gets solved.

With sanitation workers, it's like they are finicky cats who are likely to turn up their noses at our offerings for the oddest reasons, which they are incapable of communicating, except by leaving significant messes. I live in terror of my garbage not being picked up.

People in the know, contractors and people who have grown up in the neighborhood (I have only been here for 20+ years), tell me I have to wake up early and wait for them to come and bribe them. Then they will do their job.

So I would gladly dispense with their services, if our taxes were appropriately reduced, and hire the excellent private carter who services my office and manages to park his trucks somewhere without destroying neighborhoods and expecting me to break the law.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. HRP is crap because the city wants to put a garage across the street, to replace a garage that is in the park.

2. DSNY sucks, so just eliminate it, and you won't need a garage.

I hear speeches like this all the time at CB meetings. They offer nothing in the way of a solution, only present straw-man arguments that convince many people that these meetings are a waste of time.

Since you've deemed any garage unnecessary, you don't have to come up with an alternative in Manhattan - a large space space free of traffic.

Thank you for your input.

[bigkdc]

Does anyone know the timing of all this? How long will it take DOS to get the needed approvals to move forward with construction?

I think Downtowner makes a very good point about how we treat the areas around our parks. I can't really think of any other cities where they have something like what they are proposing. Now, we are on an island so the situation is a bit different but does the garage need to be right on the border of the park?

CB2 - thanks for the info on OEM and the safety concern. How does one make sure that OEM is fully aware of the situation so they can get involved? Has anyone heard anything from the local politicians on the issue?

[CBTwo]

What about the city's tow pound? Do they have to leave their pier also? That would be nice to get rid of them permanently.

[projectsnyc]

I found an RFP for engineering and design services on the City website dating back to December, 2005 (an estimated $6mm contract). This gives us an idea of how the second, third and fourth floors would lay-out. Wonder who won it?

Why burden Hudson Square with Mid-Manhattan's (CD5) garbage?

Why not move the salt-pile to CD3 under the Manhattan Bridge?
It is under-utilized and more centrally located for CD's 1,2,3 and 5...
Why so many private vehicles (non-mandated employee parking)?

[CBTwo]

Thanks for the link Projectnyc.

Where does UPS fit into this scheme? The basement floor is taken over by many small vehicles (I guess they ramp down to that level from an entrance at the southeastern part of the plan.) The same vehicles that I mentioned earlier which I presume is taxpayer subsidized free parking for DSNY employees.

Also there appears to be only one way in and one way out for all the trucks, and it sure looks like it's on Washington Street at the northeastern part of the plan if I'm reading the plans correctly. That is going to be one tangled mess on Washington Street.

The whole building could be made into a two story structure by excavating the portion in the basement marked with an "X" and using it for the offices that are currently on the second, third and fourth floors, Or store more trucks down there. Why is all that office space needed at that location? Doesn’t DSNY have their headquarters somewhere in one of the outer boros? If you eliminate two thirds of the office space, you eliminate the need for the space that the DSNY small vehicles take up and also those DSNY employees’ private vehicles.

If you eliminate two of the three sanitation districts from the garage then the whole project is a reasonable fit. If one wants to talk about fairness, why should one district take on the storage problems of two other districts?

One more thought. Since there needs to be some kind of relationship with UPS, why doesn't the City go into contract with UPS and use the refueling depot that UPS uses at Houston Street? A simple card would be used to read who's using how much fuel. At least it gets the fuel storage problem away from on top of the tunnels.

[CBTwo]

Wait a minute here.

After studying the plans for the new garage and what the total project’s scope is I must ask, “Where is the refueling station and the scrubby dub dub part of the plan? None of that is being shown in the “main” building. If it’s at the new facility on the triangle of Spring, Washington, and Canal streets. How are the trucks going to access that and then neatly go to bed in the garage?

Are they going to go down Washington Street, turn right on Canal street, go through the facility, turn left on Spring Street, turn right on West Street, go up to Clarkson Street and turn right, and then make another right and proceed down Washington to the garage? HUH? Or will they come across Canal street on their maiden approach to access the refueling station?

Or am I reading the whole plan wrong and the feed into the garage is from West Street? It would be nice if the planners at least show a north arrow on their drawings.

This does not look like the original “concept” plan shown on page one of this forum. Page one shows a “Swiss cheese” approach to entering and existing the garage. But obviously that would not work because of the ramping problem.

Once again I am confused.

[ZippyTheChimp]

There are two entry/exits on Washington St and two on West St.

[CBTwo]

Where does it show the two entrances and exits on Washington and two on West Street? I'm not talking about the conceptual sketch on page one, I am talking about an updated drawing. Is there a link to a drawing that I am not seeing? I was using the link provided by projectsnyc.

Those drawings do not show the ground floor plan so I was interpreting that plan by using the least wasted space and giving UPS the most available space on that floor.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Wait a minute here.

After studying the plans for the new garage and what the total project’s scope is I must ask, “Where is the refueling station and the scrubby dub dub part of the plan? None of that is being shown in the “main” building. If it’s at the new facility on the triangle of Spring, Washington, and Canal streets. How are the trucks going to access that and then neatly go to bed in the garage?This information is in the scoping document.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloa...s/MJLMN125.pdf

The garage has its own refueling tank:
The garage would have one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank and a tank each (1,000 gallons) for motor oil, waste oil and hydraulic oil.The truck washing and refueling facility (Block 595, Lot 87) would be reconstructed on the site of the existing MN1 Garage (14,575 square feet). The facility would house four 4,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, one 4,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank, one 4,000 gallon ethanol tank, one 2,000 gallon hydraulic oil tank, one 2,000 gallon motor oil tank, and one 1,000 gallon waste oil tank.

[CBTwo]

Can some one show me a flow plan of this project? Any architectural office or city planning group could probably do this.

Starting with where are the trucks coming from, and how are they getting here. Once here (assuming they are someplace on Washington Street below Houston) how and where do they go through the process? Do they refuel first or do they go through the wash first, where and how? After that where do they go? Are they teleported to the garage or what?

[lofter1]

The pdf file posted by projectsnyc is, as was pointed out, from 2005.

This image is from what was recently released and shows the entrances / exits:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3323&d=1168203558

[CBTwo]

Chimp thanks for the link.

And yes I realize that fuel is being stored there. Your reference says it’s in the garage and then your other reference says it’s in the new washing and refueling facility.

Where is the refueling facility? Someone has to make up their mind on this. Or are there two refueling facilities? I notice one has a large capacity gasoline and ethanol storage, so much for the “harmless” diesel fuel storage.

I also, thanks for giving me a sanitation district map through the link, noticed that MN1 is in Tribeca, not in the Village. Why is the Village MN2 responsible for Tribeca’s MN1 garbage truck storage? Aren’t there a lot of spots down on the East river where Tribeca MN1 can park their trucks? We are talking fairness here aren’t we?

BTW I noticed you live in Battery Park City, are there any available spots down there for this project?

Lofter,

Yes I see the plan and it sure looks to me that UPS is getting screwed big time with all the problems of having DSNY take up most of the first floor plan with their circulation flow with all those entrances. The diagram does not show the circulation plan for the facility, it only shows the entrances and exits. How does the processing of the garbage trucks work?

[Downtowner]

At the risk of repeating myself, in a rational world, land with river and park views and adjacent to luxury housing is not used for sanitation garages.

There is also a safety factor. Kids and adults on bikes, strollers and rollerblades are constantly using Spring St. to get to HRP. Since DOS uses the streets and sidewalks as parking lots and an extension of their facilities, people can get hurt. Two cyclists have been killed on the path in recent months. The park does not need to have its reputation tarnished further.

The role of Spring & Canal St. as gateways to the park must be taken into account. Even without Trump, there is increasing residential density that needs to get to the park through Canal and Spring.

Even if DOS get to use the UPS facility, the streets leading to the park must be kept clear for pedestrians and bikers/skaters.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Where is the refueling facility? Someone has to make up their mind on this. Or are there two refueling facilities?
The answer is obvious.

Why is the Village MN2 responsible for Tribeca’s MN1 garbage truck storage? Aren’t there a lot of spots down on the East river where Tribeca MN1 can park their trucks? We are talking fairness here aren’t we?When you flush your toilet, the crap is processed at the North River Plant. Why should MN9 be responsible for it. When you turn on your toaster, where does the power come from? Does MN2 have any power plants? MN3 has one. Why should they provide your electricity?

Community districts are not autonomous municipalities.

BTW I noticed you live in Battery Park City, are there any available spots down there for this project?No.

My only interest is getting the garage off Gansevoort. I don't like the ides of the waste transfer station, but that involves barges, and must be on the waterfront. The garage involves trucks.

Yours is not the only westside neighborhood that has to put up with city infrastructure. Besides the sewage plant, there is a subway power station, a fuel transfer station, and waste transfer station at W59th; a huge DSNY garage at W57th; a postal service repair garage, and DSNY repair garage on W24th.

[ZippyTheChimp]

At the risk of repeating myself, in a rational world, land with river and park views and adjacent to luxury housing is not used for sanitation garages.At the risk of repeating myself, you have again avoided confronting the problem.

Land with river and park view pretty much takes care of the westside. We could always put the garage in Harlem. It has Highbridge Park, but doesn't meet your third criteria of luxury housing.

[Ninjahedge]

CB2...


Just a clue, you are asking a lot of pretty good, although "lazy" questions on the whole subject, but the way you phrasing them is not lending to any sense of conviviality.

Your first 3 posts insulted one of the large contributors (and very rare fighter) on this forum, and your later posts seem to be almost bulleted demands rather than discussions and requests for filling in the gaps.

Do some googling yourself man! Bring in an op-ed or city plan you may have found here or there. Even if it is minor, i will be seen as cooperation and contribution rather than phact phishing.

You do not seem like a bad guy CB, just a bit pushy. Relax a bit..... ;)




As for the facilities, I agree. It is difficult to fit all you need to operate a city within its bounds. Just like a luxury car, you need an oil filter, drip pan, air filter and gas tank.

You would not want any of these to be in your lap while driving, but unlike a car, you really can't just stick them behind or under the engine and hope everyone likes them there.

So aside from NJ (no, we won't take them....) or all of Manhattan throwing out less trash (HAHAHAHAHA) what other solution is there? If your only complaint is the route that the trucks have to take to get around, that is pretty small. I would rather get them off the sidewalk first rather than worry about the fact that they have to go down a back-street to get to the main road...

[bigkdc]

I don't know nearly enough about the city and the ability to do this but why wouldn't they build these garages underground somewhere? I know that hudson square may not work well because it is a flood zone but seems to me there might be better areas for this (even within these districts). Underground also seems really efficient.

On the fuel storage - no plan here but I would think there has got to be something smarter than storing near the hudson tunnel which has (along with the path tubes) already been mentioned in the past 12 months as a terrorist target. We elect our gov't officials to come up with smart solutions and this one (especially on the fuel) seems really odd.

I will say that the 57th street DOS building looks quite nice in the renderings so hopefully whatever ends up here looks as nice.

[Ninjahedge]

Big, main reasons are pre-existing construction and $$.

Manhattan has three main construction zones. Bedrock, fill or pre-existing construction. Getting a plot of unused subterranian large enough to build something like this on it is as hard, if not harder, than getting something above-ground.

As for the fuel depot and the like, it is hard to build something when you do not own the land needed to do it.

I think the DPW and whoever else is involved could BUY some more land to do this, but that in itself would probably cost more than the reclamation and construction of the facility itself.

Too much $$ almost any way you look at it...

[lofter1]

Maybe the should flip the salt storage and the truck washing / refueling sites ...

Here's the map of what is proposed:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3322&d=1168203550

Salt Storage could go onto the triangle at West / Spring / Canal.

Washing / Refueling could go to the block at Houston / Washington.

[lofter1]

There is also a safety factor. Kids and adults on bikes, strollers and rollerblades are constantly using Spring St. to get to HRP.

There is no crosswalk leading into the HRP at the foot of Spring Street. The closest X-Walk is at the south side of the intersection of Canal / West St opposite the new Canal Street Park. The other option is to cross at Houston Street. There are no X-Walks between those two.



Two cyclists have been killed on the path in recent months. The park does not need to have its reputation tarnished further.

All the more reason to get DOS facilities out of the HRP ASAP.



The role of Spring & Canal St. as gateways to the park must be taken into account.


At some point in the past there was discussion of constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Street into Pier 40. This seems to be something that should be raised once again, particularly as the redevelopment of Pier 40 moves forward.

[CBTwo]

Several voices here are not addressing the problems, they are doing a Jack Webb on them, “I Just Want Facts Mam, Just the Facts.” I appreciate their facts but I don’t see alternate solutions coming from those individuals.

Specifically, “There is no crosswalk leading into the HRP at the foot of Spring Street. The closest X-Walk is at the south side of the intersection of Canal / West St opposite the new Canal Street Park. The other option is to cross at Houston Street. There are no X-Walks between those two.”

Obviously people that live in Hudson Square are aware of that, and given the traffic pattern set up, it makes sense, although at rush hour the south bound lane on West Street is diverted further south from the Canal Street approach to the Holland Tunnel. Is one to dawdle in that funny little patch of green, I believe it’s called Canal Park, waiting to cross? I’m not saying the park is useless, it’s better than keeping snowplows in that patch of no man’s land like DSNY use to do. But please, who goes there to eat lunch and reflect on the betterment of man?

So great, Hudson Square, and may I add SoHo, residents access to HRP is via the top of Tribeca or the bottom of the Village. Thanks for the convenience, but we knew that already.


"Two cyclists have been killed on the path in recent months. The park does not need to have its reputation tarnished further.
All the more reason to get DOS facilities out of the HRP ASAP."

They were not killed by garbage trucks, the latest fatality was caused by a poorly marked access road and a driver who was unfamiliar with the pathways. As a monthly parker at Pier 40 I have seen way too many cyclists go merrily through an obviously marked stop signal at Houston street with their ear phones stuffing their head. It’s a wonder more haven’t been injured or killed.

"At some point in the past there was discussion of constructing a pedestrian bridge across West Street into Pier 40. This seems to be something that should be raised once again, particularly as the redevelopment of Pier 40 moves forward."

The pedestrian bridge makes sense if the public facilities are on the second or third level of Pier 40. An elevator should be provided of course for the handicap and elderly and where should it be located? Houston Street would be the most logical place due to, at least what I see from using the Pier, the most common access point to the Pier. Clarkson Street would be more convenient for people coming from the Village of course.

[bigkdc]

Maybe the should flip the salt storage and the truck washing / refueling sites ...

Here's the map of what is proposed:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3322&d=1168203550

Salt Storage could go onto the triangle at West / Spring / Canal.

Washing / Refueling could go to the block at Houston / Washington.

Yes that seems like a very reasonable solution. I have to imagine there is some reason why they didn't do that. I guess this thing is still in a very early stage so solutions like this one are still quite likely to come along.

[CBTwo]

I apologize, Lofter came up with an alternative plan for the project. That's what we need. More thought into this thoughtless project. Thanks Lofter.

I believe you are talking about the building at Clarkson and Washington Streets, not Houston and Washington.

[lofter1]

Several voices here are not addressing the problems, they are doing a Jack Webb on them, “I Just Want Facts Mam, Just the Facts.” I appreciate their facts but I don’t see alternate solutions coming from those individuals.

I asked you way back after your first post here for a viable alternative to the DOS proposal from your point of view -- but you have yet to offer one with any specifics.

[CBTwo]

I did. One of the most obvious things to do is build a new pier, either for the park or for sanitation. Or down size the project so it fits more to the community. Do I have to make a flow diagram for you to understand the two possible solutions?

What do you want me do for specifics, specify the bore diameter of the inspection ports on the proposed pier?

I even gave you the benefit of positive acknowledgement regarding the switch from salt to fuel. Is that the limit of your thinking outside the ...? Great! and Thanks for all your thoughts.

Plus Chimp doesn't like this forum to get personal so I wont.

[lofter1]

One point ^^^ of agreement (many to go ;) )

And I like diagrams, so if you'd like to post visual aids you'll get no complaints here.

Per your idea to build an additonal pier: It seems that any idea regarding DOS facilities on the piers will not be viable due to the NYS court ruling that states all DOS uses must vacate the park area by 2012.

The entire waterfront along there is controlled by the Hudson River Park Trust under the Hudson River Park Act.

Piers and DOS don't mix. It is a matter of law.

So if DOS con't be on the pier, then no additional new pier is needed for park space.

Besides, building a new pier into the Hudson would most likely also require all sorts of land use studies / applications / legal maneuvers involving many of the issues that stopped Westway.

On the other hand if you know otherwise (i.e.: that building such a new pier out into the Hudson River would be an easily achievable goal) then any concrete info pointing in that direction would be appreciated.

You suggest that salt storage continue at the site under the Williamsburg Bridge. If it's viable then I have no problem with that. Especially if it could mean that the planned refueling building is moved away from the Holland Tunnel / Canal Street location and into the block proposed for the salt storage facility. However I do not know if the Williamburg Bridge site is workable in the future -- there could be some specific reason that it is proposed to move the current salt storage away from there. Such info on that site would be good to know before presenting it as a solution to the salt storage problem.

You keep challenging me to come up with a better idea. But I don't have a big problem with the overall concept of these specific DOS facilities on the sites proposed. Therefore I'm not going to spend lots of my time figuring out an alternative. I'll leave that to those who believe passionately that changes to the DOS plan are necessary -- and who have the wherewithal to follow through with a clear new plan which will be listened to by those in power.

After all, those with the power are the ones who will make the decisions regarding this DOS proposal. They are ones to whom a viable, complete alternative will need to be presented -- they are the ones who truly need to be won over.

[lofter1]

This is from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation ...

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/enb2007/20070103/not2.html

ENB - REGION 2 NOTICES
Positive Declaration And Public Scoping

New York City County - The New York City Department of Sanitation, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Consolidated Sanitation Garage for Manhattan Districts 1, 2 and 5 may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. A public scoping session will be held on January 31, 2007, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at Kimmel Hall, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, Rosenthal Pavilion, Tenth Floor.

Written comments on the Draft Scope are also invited and will be accepted and considered if received by 5pm on February 12, 2007 by the project contact person listed below. A draft Scope of Work for the DEIS is available for public review and comment on DSNY’s website (www.nyc.gov/sanitation), at the office of DSNY’s contact person, and at the repositories indicated below:
-Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, 253 Broadway, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10007

-NYC Public Library, Hudson Park Branch, 66 Leroy Street, New York NY, 10014

-NYC Public Library, Jefferson Market Regional Branch, 425 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

-Community Board 2 Office, 3 Washington Square Village, Apt. 1A, New York, NY 10012.
As part of its ongoing capital program, DSNY proposes to consolidate operations of three district garages (1, 2 and 5) at a new garage facility to be constructed in lower Manhattan on a site generally bounded by Spring Street on the south, Washington Street on the east, West Street on the west, and St. John's Center (550 Washington Street) on the north. The new garage is intended to replace outdated facilities, provide better service to the local community districts, and improve operational efficiencies.

The garage will also enable DSNY to comply with its legal obligation to vacate the Gansevoort peninsula 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street within the recently established Hudson River Park, which currently holds garages for Manhattan Districts 2 and 4. The proposed consolidated garage, located in Manhattan Community District 2 next to the current District 1 Garage would service Community Districts 1, 2 and 5. DSNY vehicles and equipment providing refuse and recyclables collection and winter emergency services, would be garaged, maintained and refueled there.

The new facility would consolidate garage operations of Manhattan District 1 currently at 553 Canal Street/297 West Street, Manhattan District 2 currently at 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street, and Manhattan District 5 currently at 525-545 East 73rd Street. Associated actions would include relocation of the Manhattan District 6 Garage from a leased facility (606 West 30th Street, between 11th and 12th Avenues) back to the site now occupied by the Manhattan District 5 Garage at 525-545 East 73rd Street; replacing the existing 14,575 square foot (sf) Manhattan District 1 Garage with a newly constructed fueling and truck washing facility on the site (553 Canal Street/297 West Street); vacating the existing Manhattan District 2 Garage site and salt shed on 2 Bloomfield Street/427 Gansevoort Street; demolition of a 2-story private parking garage on Block 600, Lot 29 at 575 Washington Street between Clarkson and West Houston Streets (a site of 13,495 sf) and construction and seasonal operation of a covered road salt storage facility on the site.

The proposed Garage site (Lot 50) and the truck washing and refueling facility (Lot 87) are both within an M2-4 zoning district, while the proposed salt storage site (Lot 29) is within an M1-5 district. Within ¼ mile of the site is a mix of commercial, industrial and residential zoning and land uses.

The new Consolidated Garage would be approximately 140 to 150 feet in height, up to 220 feet wide and 413 feet long, with approximately 427,000 gross sf of space and be located on an approximately 85,450 sf site that is partially paved, fenced and used by the United Parcel Service (UPS) for truck trailer staging and parking to support the adjacent UPS Package Distribution Facility at 315 West Houston Street.

The first floor of the proposed Consolidated Garage would accommodate existing on-site UPS vehicle parking and storage (approximately 58 trucks). Floors 2, 3 and 4 would include DSNY vehicle storage, offices, and employee locker facilities. DSNY employees would total approximately 231 over all three shifts on a peak day, with a shift peak of 108 employees. The facility would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

The Garage would have one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank, a tank each for motor oil, waste oil and hydraulic oil (1000 gallons each).

The refueling and truck washing facility will have four 4000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, one 4000 unleaded gasoline tank, one 4000 gallon ethanol tank, one 2000 gallon hydraulic oil tank, one 2000 gallon motor oil tank, and one 1000 gallon waste oil tank.

The salt storage facility on Lot 29 would be enclosed and kept locked except during resupply and winter emergency use. It would store up to 6500 tons of road salt and have two aboveground tanks for liquid calcium chloride for melting snow and ice.

The build year for all three proposed structures would be 2012 following a three-year construction period.

Primary DSNY truck and equipment access and egress to the DSNY garage would be via West Street. The configuration of West Street in this location would allow for queuing of trucks and equipment, when needed. Vehicles exiting the garage would turn north onto West Street. DSNY secondary access and egress would be from Washington Street (one-way in a southerly direction) at the northern end of the site. DSNY employees would enter and access the garage from Washington Street mid-block. The garage facility would have approximately 106 parking spaces for DSNY trucks and equipment and 98 spaces for automobiles. The total number of DSNY daily two-way vehicular movements into and out of the site would be 480 trips (240 trips in and 240 trips out).

The proposed action includes site selection and acquisition for a capital project and related Uniform Land Use Review Procedure approval, special permits for a height variance and relief from street wall setback requirements, Art Commission review, City construction contracts, and consistency review with the City’s Waterfront Revitalization Program for actions in the designated Coastal Zone.

Contact: Abas O. Braimah, City Planner, New York City Department of Sanitation, Bureau of Legal Affairs, 125 Worth Street, Room 708, New York, NY 10013, phone: (646) 885-4993.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Several voices here are not addressing the problems, they are doing a Jack Webb on them, “I Just Want Facts Mam, Just the Facts.” I appreciate their facts but I don’t see alternate solutions coming from those individuals.
It's not incumbent on those who either support or accept any modification of the project, including moving it elsewhere, to offer alternatives.

[projectsnyc]

Under the Manhattan Bridge (CD3) - A viable location for CD1,2,3 & 5?

In New York City there are 34 city-owned salt storage locations, 26 of which are along the waterfront and 19 of which are outdoors and uncontained piles. Salt piles on the waterfront are a significant concern both to the health of our environment and the value of New York’s waterfronts. Storing unprotected salt on the waterfront poses a significant environmental problem, terrestrial and aquatic resources are damaged as chemicals in these salts seep into soil and groundwater and run off into surface water due to wind and rain. This is the same salt that corrodes our cars and seeps into the soil and water if it is unprotected from wind and rain. The City will protect the aquatic live, vegetation, and water quality it is currently threatening.

While New York City waters are brackish, salt from salt piles and snow increases the salinity of the water near the pile, aggravating the balance necessary for aquatic life in the vicinity. Salt used for snow removal is also not pure sodium; additives that increase its effectiveness can have adverse consequences for the natural environment. These include chlorine, which can be detrimental at high concentrations, sodium chloride, which, after dissolution renders chloride ions that do not easily dissipate and therefore accumulates in water to pose risks, and sodium ferrocynide, which can dissociate to form cyanide in solution and in the presence of light. Calcium, potassium, and magnesium chlorides are also added to snow salt.[1]


[1] Riverkeeper, “Road Salt Storage on the NYC Waterfront: Environmental Considerations,” unpublished manuscript (February 2003).


Borough Sanitation District Location Coverage Capacity(tns)Waterfront
Manhattan M2 Gansevoort Peninsula Shed Fulltime 8,000 yes
Manhattan M3 South and Pike Streets Open 4,000 yes
Manhattan M3 Henry Street Indoors 1,500 yes
Manhattan M7 West 56th Street/North River Shed 2,000 yes

CB#3 – November, 2005 Resolution
Temporary storage of salt pile at Pier 35 for one season on OEM property
VOTE: That Community Board #3 understands that the NYDS was planning to enclose the salt pile at Pike Street/South Street so that it would not be a dangerous area for children and also to prevent salt from leaking onto the sidewalk. However, when excavating for this enclosure, NYDS discovered gas tanks at this former gas station site that have not been certified for proper removal by the NYDEC. It is therefore necessary to obtain the proper environmental approvals and to ensure that the soil in the area is safe.

NYDS therefore finds it necessary to store the salt pile for the 2005 – 2006 winter on OEM property. This specifically is the OEM parking lot at Pier 36. The salt pile will be kept at a minimum level, approximately 1500 tons and will be refilled as necessary during the winter. The salt pile will be kept at a distance from the bike path and will have cinder blocks around the boundaries for safety.

The Department of Sanitation has made every effort to keep the Community Board informed. The Board understands the necessity to have an unenclosed salt pile on the OEM parking lot for this one year ending April 2006 and looks forward to a presentation of the design of the enclosure located at Pike/South St. before it is erected.

[bigkdc]

The build year for all three proposed structures would be 2012 following a three-year construction period.



So building starts in 2009 with it going operational in 2012. The next two years while they are planning this thing will be a real battle. I'd love to see the renderings as soon as anyone sees anything. I am having a tough time imagining it being so tall (150 feet). The one on 57th street is 117 feet and 4 stories, I believe.

I was also doing some running around on the web about eminent domain and the ability for the city to make UPS agree to doing this. That debate is a pretty fervent one as well.

[lofter1]

Battle Day #1, one week from tomorrow:

A public scoping session will be held on January 31, 2007, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at Kimmel Hall, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, Rosenthal Pavilion, Tenth Floor.

[CBTwo]

Isn't that the same floor that NYU's Community Affairs and School of Proctology are located?

[bigkdc]

Battle Day #1, one week from tomorrow:

A public scoping session will be held on January 31, 2007, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at Kimmel Hall, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, Rosenthal Pavilion, Tenth Floor.

What happens at a session like this?

[lofter1]

Usually a fairly calm presentation with visual aids ...

But given this project there could be some noise ...

[CBTwo]

These types of meeting are usually for the quiet old time Villagers who have nothing else to do except chat with their neighbors and share the memories of how their community was before it went down the tubes.

I’m not sure what refreshments will be served if any, but it will probably be bottled water and finger sandwiches.

Then again if the “element” shows up there could be some noise. But there shouldn’t be a problem if that rowdy group takes the advice of the late Tex Antoine (Mr. Weatherbee to those that remember) who quipped, "With rape so predominant in the news lately, it is well to remember the words of Confucius: 'If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.”

[Ninjahedge]

Um, I vote thumbs down on that last post. I believe that even if the quote fit, it was rather discordant and looking for confrontation.

Also, the apparent lack of any confidence that anyone would be of any use at the meetings, either being "old and useless" or "noisy and discordant" indicates an overall lack of confidence in the system and a disheartening attitude that will only lead to arguements on the board.

CB2, lighten up, will ya?

[ZippyTheChimp]

What happens at a session like this?Everything that happens from now until construction begins is in preparation for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which is the necessary legal document covering all aspects of the project.

The scope of work that was issued will be discussed at the Jan 31 meeting. There will be a presentation, and comments by attendees will be entered into the record. Generally, no issues are resolved at this meeting, just gathering of information.

Down the road, there will be a Final Scoping Document, followed by a Draft EIS and a Final EIS. Public comment is taken on all of them.

If you've never gone through the process, I recommend you attend the sessions. It's only a few nights over a year or more.

[bigkdc]

Yeah it sounds interesting....I think I will try to check it out

[projectsnyc]

NY TIMES
January 28, 2007
Big Deal
Few Views Are Forever

By JOSH BARBANEL
DOUGLAS PINTER, a San Francisco real estate developer and the former chief executive of a long-forgotten Internet start-up, is used to the ups and downs of the business world, but his introduction to the pitfalls of New York City real estate has been a bit abrupt.

Just last month, Mr. Pinter closed on his $2.4 million 10th-floor apartment in a notable new condominium, the Urban Glass House, the last residential commission of Philip Johnson, modeled loosely on the architect’s own home in Connecticut and marketed as a “modernist luxury residence.”

Mr. Pinter liked the building’s light and airy look, even though its location, at Spring and Washington Streets, was in a grungy no-name land between Greenwich Village, TriBeCa and SoHo. It is across the street from ventilation shafts for the Holland Tunnel. Still, some upper-floor apartments have views to the south, and most of the apartments have views of the river to the north and west. At least for now.

But in the last month, with most of the 40 apartments in the building sold or in contract, the New York City Sanitation Department said that it planned to take over a large parking lot just to the north and diagonally opposite the Urban Glass House. It would put up a garage as tall as a 15-story building and longer than a football field that promises to block much of the view of the river from many apartments.

Having a view blocked by a newer, bigger building is an old story in New York. But seldom has the view from such a distinctive building been threatened so soon after the ink on so many sales contracts has dried. The building opened in October.

Since then, Mr. Pinter and his neighbors, an affluent mix of models, minor celebrities and Wall Street executives who spent $2 million or more for their apartments, have been gathering information and organizing.

Mr. Pinter, who calls himself semiretired, said he was looking for “like-minded residents” to join him at a hearing called by the Sanitation Department to discuss plans for the new garage.

“It’s a shame,” Mr. Pinter said. “Invariably something would have been built there, but here is a building that was critically acclaimed architecturally, modest in size and scale and not gaudy, facing a consolidated sanitation garage.”

The Sanitation Department plan was put forth in a 46-page document posted on the department’s Web site. The document was dated Dec. 28 but was first spotted in early January by residents of the neighborhood. The plans call for putting up a garage 140 to 150 feet high on the lot, which is bounded by Spring, Washington and West Streets and to the north by a large office and warehouse building. The Urban Glass House tops out at 137 feet.

The garage’s ground floor would be used by the United Parcel Service, which now parks its trucks on the lot, while the rest of the building would be used by the Sanitation Department, consolidating three garages. A smaller garage just to the south of the parking lot and next to the ventilation shafts would be turned into a truck wash and refueling depot, storing 13,000 gallons of fuel and oil.

Vito Turso, a deputy sanitation commissioner, said that the garage was needed to replace garages along the river in the newly established Hudson River Park. “We are trying to be as understanding and as good a neighbor as we can to that community,” Mr. Turso said, “recognizing that we still need to provide refuse collection, recycling and snow removal to that part of town.”

Abe Shnay, a partner in the group that developed the Urban Glass House, said that buyers were still signing contracts and that most were aware that the parking lot could someday be developed. At one point, he said, there were rumors that a high-rise would go up on the site. “The reality is that on the upper floors the best views are to the south, incredible views of the upper harbor and the Statue of Liberty,” he said.

But Michael Shvo, the president of Shvo Marketing, a real estate company that is not involved with the Urban Glass House, said he always tells buyers, “There are only two views in New York that are guaranteed: if you are on a park, or if you are facing a brick wall.”

My Comment: It is 29,000 gallons not 13,000 gallons of fuel contemplated on top of the Holland Tunnel entrance (needs to get his facts right).

The reporter fixates on looking west (scenic vistas) when he should be more interested in quality of life issues (proximity of residential to manufacturing) like traffic safety, noise and air quality. The City has been actively promoting the potential of Hudson Square and really can't have it both ways now either...the neighborhood has clearly reach a tipping point.

[bigkdc]

That column is generally pretty gossip oriented and rarely gets too deep into any issue. I think it is good that the story is getting out and I am sure as this thing proceeds the NY Times will write further articles about the situation.

I have a feeling there will start to be a steady stream of letters to the editor on the subject.

[CBTwo]

If Nino Vendome, the original developer would have been allowed to build the Johnson building originally designed for the site, "Architecture as Art," there would presently be a much larger stink from both residents and those that could appreciate fine architecture.

Alas, it was too ambitious for some individuals in the community, and it became what it is, moderate and non threatening.

[infoshare]

NY TIMES
January 28, 2007
Big Deal
Few Views Are Forever

“It’s a shame,” Mr. Pinter said. “Invariably something would have been built there, but here is a building that was critically acclaimed architecturally, modest in size and scale and not gaudy, facing a consolidated sanitation garage.”



It is this (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142980&postcount=29) NYwired member (thus far) that has said what best reflects my personal sentiments.

[ablarc]

It is customary when building a handsome new park, at least in the cities I know, to put amenities next to the park, such as hotels and residences, where people can enjoy the park and have views of it. Symbiotically, when you are in the park, the handsome residences that line the park form an important part of their charm and appeal. Likewise, elegant buildings at an entrance to a park define the experience before you even enter.

I can't think of Regent's Park in London without the uniform elegant townhouses ...
Those townhouses --and vast residential palaces like Chester and Cumberland Terrace-- were conceived as part-and-parcel of the development or Regent's Park. The Regent and his architect, John Nash, wanted to gift the public with the park, while making money from the housing, whose value was enhanced by the park.

This self-same idea was trotted out recently in Brooklyn, where NIMBYs rose to oppose it. It's such a good idea, it should be adopted as the paradigm for park development in New York: the profits from the residential helps finance the park's construction and maintenance. There's no reason to mean-spiritedly oppose this because some benefit from it financially. I would hope some benefit finacially from every good act. No need for envy.

[infoshare]

There's no reason to mean-spiritedly oppose this because some benefit from it financially. I would hope some benefit finacially from every good act. No need for envy.

Yes, this just one of the many unstated objections of the NY NIMBY. Glad to see you are not in the least bit fooled by the many nimby 'straw man' arguments: as so many all too often are. :mad:

[CBTwo]

I consider myself a tin man not a "straw man". Mark me stupid, but what is a "straw man?"

I see several of the supporters of this garbage hut on this forum have no problem with sharing the reponsibility as long as it doesn't affect their little tree lined alcoves of the Village, Soho, and Battery Park City. They say "Share in the needed infrastructure." Well I don't exactly see them sharing a four block long UPS terminal in their little Shangri-La's. We have enough of our fair share of trucks in Hudson Square. The UPS trucks, along with the lines of idling buses feeding the FEGS center on Vandam street, as well on the northern end with FedEx contributing their fair share of trucks, is a bit over the limit for the fair share amount of a small but concerned neighborhood.

Let those other NIMBY's have their "fair share" of all this "good for the city's benefit structures."

[ZippyTheChimp]

I see several of the supporters of this garbage hut have no problem with sharing the reponsibility as long as it doesn't affect their little tree lined alcoves of the Village, Soho, and Battery Park City.I seem to be having trouble locating the post where I stated that I support the garage. The only thing I could find was:
My only interest is getting the garage off Gansevoort. They say "Share in the needed infrastructure." Well I don't exactly see them sharing a four block long UPS terminal in their little Shangri-La's. We have enough of our fair share of trucks in Hudson Square.You chose to live near an M district. My choice was not to.

I consider myself a tin man not a "straw man". Mark me stupid, but what is a "straw man?"Not you, your argument. Look it up.

[CBTwo]

Chimp,

I never made any direct reference to you supporting the garbage garage. What is it, why do you think I was talking directly to you? Are you so important and the only voice of BPC?

The whole Tribeca and BPC communities would love to sweep their obligations and contributions to NYC under the umbrella that they suffered so much after 9/11 that they can't bear any more. That's a load of c....

I know that Battery Park City is not an edgy community and never was. I always felt it was the upper east side built on land fill, but that is another issue all together. That is not the point. They have a lot of fill going out of the city and why not create more land with that fill down in BPC and plant a garbage transfer or a new train yard for MTA on that land?

I believe Soho and Tribeca were M1 also back in the early days. Look what marvelous things have been done there. M1 is zoned light manufacturing, not a wholesale free for all dumping ground for everyone else's crapola.

I looked the "straw" thing up and after reviewing the facts I am a full supportive member of the straw vote party.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The whole Tribeca and BPC communities would love to sweep their obligations and contributions to NYC under the umbrella that they suffered so much after 9/11 that they can't bear any more. That's a load of c....
More straw man.

why not create more land with that fill down in BPC and plant a garbage transfer or a new train yard for MTA on that land?Maybe you should suggest that at the meeting.

I believe Soho and Tribeca were M1 also back in the early days. Look what marvelous things have been done there.
They are not M zones now.

M1 is zoned light manufacturing, not a wholesale free for all dumping ground for everyone else's crapola.

Let's see. St Johns was once a RR terminal. Morton Square was a Yellow Freight facility, and before that, I think an iron foundry. Seems you're the one who intruded. If you think you're the dumping ground for everyone else's crapola, you should get out more.

At any rate, it doesn't matter to me as long as DSNY obeys the law and court ruling, and vacates the peninsula. I suggest you spend your time looking for alternatives, instead of attacking those you consider "supporters." I can't help you.

[bigkdc]

Is this a viable alternative? Seems like that area is better suited for something like this and there may be a way of putting the fuel stoarge in a safer place.

[CBTwo]

Chimp,

Actually it was a Plymouth Rock freight terminal that was situated on the ground of the Satchi and Satchi building. What other terminal are you talking about?

When I arrived in '73 the Union Freight Terminal now known as the UPS terminal was vacant.

Can you name the private carting services that were stationed here in Hudson Square at that same time?

[infoshare]

I consider myself a tin man not a "straw man". Mark me stupid, but what is a "straw man?"

Sorry about not getting back to you right away with an answer; besides, I much prefer the asynchronous mode of communication with my on-line interlocuter. :D

As to your queston CBtwo. Basically a 'straw man' argument means setting-up a sham/false arguments of one sort or another: try wikipedia for a better definition.

[CBTwo]

Thanks Info,

That's me waving at the camera from the "Square." I don't see the Trump building or the Village or BPC in the picture, just a smidge of Tribeca. Where are the others

What false argument have I set up?

[projectsnyc]

30th & 12th is currently housing CD6 trucks with CD5 trucks up at East 73rd.

As we transition from the Giuliani-era 1999 agreement (CD4 and CD5 were slated to go to the Con Ed site at 29th & 12th) to the Doctoroff-era where the Hudson Yards are the center of residential/office/hotel and Convention Center development/expansion, there are more global agendas driving three CD districts to the UPS site.

CD5 becomes an "orphan" under the current plan where CD6 returns (rightly) to East 73rd Street. Related is trying to take the 29th Street site and turn it into another residential monstrosity (even though it is currently in an M-zone). They don't want DSNY across the street on 30th Street and are also pushing to cut down the northernmost portion of the proposed HighLine Park so that someone else can put up a residential neighbor.

CD4's new "architecurally distinguished" 57th Street & 12th Avenue facility will be completed this year and instead of also housing CD5 it is (rightly) housing CD7. I use the word "rightly" because you want to keep the truck trip mileage to a minimum.

Is the 57th Street Garage large enough to accomodate CD5? Maybe...
Should the City save the West 30th Street Yards?
What about the two other alternative sites that they were studying,
Block 1093 and Block 1094 basically across the street from the INTREPID pier, where their pedestrian necks down to the east of Route 9A?

[infoshare]

Thanks Info,
What false argument have I set up?

I was not talking about you personally on the 'straw man' comment: it was comment about nimbys - in general - who typically use such arguments.

However, I do not get the sense that you are sincerely interested in persuing mutual edification on this (or an other) subject. I perceive you as being a bit of a troll: look it up.

With that being said I will now end any further discussion with you.

cheers.

[bigkdc]

Related is trying to take the 29th Street site and turn it into another residential monstrosity (even though it is currently in an M-zone). They don't want DSNY across the street on 30th Street and are also pushing to cut down the northernmost portion of the proposed HighLine Park so that someone else can put up a residential neighbor.



So do you think Related is pushing to get the garage in hudson square to preserve their plans for 29th street? Ironic because I always thought Related would end up building some sort of residential building on the ups site...

[CBTwo]

Wait a minute here. I believe back a few pages the moderator or instigator or someone else said to keep this and all discussions not personally directed.

Do you see Chimp? He called me a troll, albeit "a bit of a troll," but a troll none the less. Is that allowed?

[lofter1]

If the shoe fits ... :cool:

[infoshare]

Wait a minute here. I believe back a few pages the moderator or instigator or someone else..........


Your the instigator;;;;;;;so there!:p

p.s. .......... the 'troll' comment was not a personal attack,,, pleeezzzz! You are toying with people here - and with people who actually live/work (myself included) a few blocks from you: not very neighborly.

[ZippyTheChimp]

CBTwo:

Rather than do any research, you have been spoon-fed information after asking questions the answers to which are available in the links that have been posted.

Unlike others who (I guess) are opposed to the project and have offered viable alternatives, you have offered nothing.

Look up internet troll. The term was used in reference to your posting style.

You are starting to annoy me. That's not good.

[projectsnyc]

Re-directing our attention to the issue at hand, I have located a CB4 letter to the Commissioner of Sanitation re-affirming that CB#2 WOULD BE RELOCATED to 29th Street and 12th Avenue.

[bigkdc]

That letter is a great find. I wonder what transpired that has caused the change of plans. I assume of all this will come up at the meeting wed night....

[ZippyTheChimp]

Print the letter, take it to the meeting, and read it into the record.

[lofter1]

The problem is that the letter is from a Community Board. Under NYC rules of procedure CBs only have advisory power -- nothing they say is binding.

Besides, the letter does NOT re-affirm that a NYDS facility WILL BE RELOCATED to 29th / 10th -- it merely mentions that CB4 had agreed to allow a NYDS facility to be built on that site (which has now become a hot area for redevelopment since rezoning in 2005).

While this letter (dated May 2005) was written after the re-zoning of Hudson Yards (January 2005), seemingly the powers that be revised their plans regarding the NYDS facility.

From NY City Planning Commission:

Hudson Yards (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hyards/hymain.shtml)
Adopted by the City Council on January 19, 2005.

[projectsnyc]

Hudson Yards - Approved Adopted Zoning

On November 23, 2004, the City Planning Commission approved the ten ULURP actions for Hudson Yards. On January 19, 2005, the City Council voted to adopt the ULURP applications for the Hudson Yards proposal with several modifications to the zoning map change (040499(A) ZMM) and the zoning text amendment (040500(A) ZRM).

SITE SELECTION AND ACQUISITION FOR TOW POUND AND/OR SANITATION FACILITY(IES) (040501 PCM)
Site selection and acquisition of Manhattan Block 675 (West 29th to West 30th streets and Eleventh to Twelfth avenues) would allow for construction of a new below-grade municipal facility to accommodate one or more of the following uses: a Police Department violation tow pound, a Department of Sanitation (DSNY) garage for District 2, and/or garage for DSNY District 5. This facility would allow for the relocation of these uses from within the Hudson River Park.

[CBTwo]

Mr. Braimah:

The Friends of Hudson Square has reviewed the Draft Scoping Document and we have the following comments;

1. We object to the Department of Sanitation (DSNY) being the Lead Agency for the City Environmental Quality Review. Given the size and scope of the project, we request an independent lead agency such as the Department of Environmental Protection or City Planning act as the Lead Agency.

2. We find the Environmental Assessment Statement prepared for the Proposed Action is incomplete in that it found that the proposed action may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts only with respect to traffic, noise and air quality and these impacts are not fully described. Clearly there are significant adverse environmental impacts in other City Environmental Quality Review categories that require further analysis as noted below. No Environmental Assessment Statement has been provided. Please provide us with the Environmental Assessment Statement and all amendments for this proposed action.

3. This Proposed Action is only part of the relocation of multiple Sanitation Facilities. When taken together, these relocations affect a much larger area and have environmental consequences over multiple districts. We object to the limited scope of this Environmental Quality Review and we request that all of the Sanitation projects be included in a single City Environmental Quality Review.

4. Please explain why consolidation of the three Sanitation Districts is a better option than having separate facilities for each district within the separate districts. Please provide a comparative analysis. Please explain how the proposed consolidation complies with the “Fair Share” rules

5. The Draft Scoping Document assumes that there are no other possible alternatives to this proposal. Over the past ten years there have been many alternatives that have been publicly discussed. The City Environmental Quality Review process requires the review of alternative sites for public actions. Please provide an assessment of these alternative sites.

6. Expanding the study area beyond a 400- foot radius around the proposed consolidated garage, the truck washing and refueling facility, and salt shed sites is necessary because the proposed garage, located in Manhattan Community District 2, would service Community Districts 1, 2 and 5, all the vehicles will have to commute from a central location to all three Community Boards which will create significant impacts across all three Boards. Please provide an explanation and an analysis.

7. Please provide complete information on the current operations for the existing facility at Gansevoort and for the facility that currently serves District 5. Please include the size and the type of operations, the number and type of vehicles, the trip ends generated, the amount of fuel stored, and a comparative analysis between the existing and proposed facilities.

Please provide complete information on the current operations of all of the other district facilities that are being moved and / or relocated.

8. As per the Draft Scoping Document, The truck washing and refueling facility would house four 4,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, one 4,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank, one 4,000 gallon ethanol tank, one 2,000 gallon hydraulic oil tank, one 2,000 gallon motor oil tank, and one 1,000 gallon waste oil tank. In addition there would be one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank and a tank each (1,000 gallons) for motor oil, waste oil and hydraulic oil in the new DSNY consolidated garage and there is an existing retail gas station on Canal St. The truck washing and refueling facility directly adjoins the vent shaft and emergency exit of the Holland Tunnel and is on top of the Tunnel. The potential hazards of the fuel storage and its potential as a terrorist target need to be assessed as part of the scope of this proposal.

9. Land Use, Zoning, Public Policy, Neighborhood Character and Community Facilities Land use:
The Description of the existing zoning within 400-800 feet is inaccurate. The surrounding zoning districts include C6-2A, M1-5, M1-6, R6, C6-3A, and the TRIBECA Special Mixed Use District (Special District Zoning) that allows residential. The recent Hudson Square Rezoning (C6-2A), the recent rezoning of several blocks to the south in Tribeca (C6-2A & C6-3A), and the proposed rezoning of North Tribeca (C6-2A) that is currently underway at City Planning are clearly reflective of Public Policy in regards to Land Use for the surrounding area. The Land Use survey for the Hudson Square Rezoning found no industrial uses in the rezoned area and few industrial uses in the surrounding area. At the time of the Hudson Square Rezoning Community Board #2 recommended rezoning a larger area because of large number of existing residential and commercial uses. The scope should include the impacts on these districts and the uses they allow.

The request for special permits for relief from street wall, setback requirements, and from height limits would not be consistent with the Hudson Square C6-2A contextual zone and the proposed plan for a Tribeca contextual C6-2A zone. Please explain these impacts on the surrounding districts.

Introducing the proposed new heavy manufacturing use near the existing residential / commercial area will diminish the quality of residential / commercial uses, will affect surrounding land uses, and will create significant adverse impacts. The scoping document does not comment on this. We find that the Proposed Action is not consistent with the existing mix of land uses, would discourage development in the surrounding area, and that the planned project would create trends that would negatively affect land use in the surrounding neighborhood. Please provide an explanation and an analysis.

10. Socioeconomic Conditions;
The Proposed Action is one that would be expected to result in significant adverse socioeconomic impacts. The proposed development is large enough to alter socioeconomic trends in the area so that upgrading, conversion, and redevelopment would be adversely affected and would negatively change land use patterns. Please provide an explanation and an analysis.

The use of 2000 census data would not accurately reflect current population, demographics, housing, and employment. Since the time of the census there has been considerable upgrading, conversion, and redevelopment in the surrounding neighborhood that is not reflected in the census data. There are also many live work businesses in the surrounding loft buildings that would not be evident in the data. Please explain what data will be used.

The proposed action would lower property values in the surrounding area and would alter the underlying forces that shape socioeconomic conditions in the area and thus indirectly displace residents, business, and institutional uses through indirect displacement. Please provide an analysis and an explanation.

11. Open Space;
The Draft Scoping Document does not acknowledge that the truck washing and refueling facility is directly adjacent to the recently constructed Canal St. Park. This park and the Hudson River Park will permanently experience the limitation of public access through the direct effects of noise, air pollutant emissions, and odors. The impacts to these parks should be included and an explanation as to how this complies with park regulations.

12. Cultural Resources;
The James Brown House at 326 Spring Street has already experienced construction and traffic related vibration effects from previous construction projects. Care must be taken to preserve this designated landmark. There are other designated landmark buildings at Block 595, Lots 38, 38, & 40 and there are other buildings in the area that have been proposed for designation as NYC Landmarks. Please describe the precautions that will be taken and the impacts, including traffic, when the proposed project is complete.

Several years ago when the local streets were excavated for the installation of a 48” water main numerous archaeological and historic artifacts were found. It would be reasonable to assume that other artifacts would be found during excavation of the proposed project. Please describe the process that will be used to look for these artifacts.

13. Urban Design/Visual Resources;
The proposed new garage would not be consistent with the street wall, setback requirements, and height limits of the existing zoning nor would it be consistent with the Hudson Square C6-2A contextual zone and the proposed plan for a Tribeca contextual C6-2A zone andwould result in structures substantially different in height, bulk, size, scale, use and arrangement from existing conditions. The proposed new garages would obstruct view corridors and views of the waterfront. Please provide an analysis and an explanation.

14. Neighborhood Character;
We find that development resulting from the proposed action would conflict with surrounding uses; conflict with land use policy for the area; change land use character; and result in a significant negative land use impact. The proposed action would have substantially different building bulk, street wall, form, and scale from the existing buildings. The proposed action would result in substantial direct and indirect displacement of population, employment, and businesses. The addition of these three garages will increase the amount of traffic, change in traffic patterns, and substantial increase in traffic congestion on residential streets. Please provide an analysis and an explanation.

15. Hazardous Materials;
In that testing at other development sites along the west side that were formerly industrial has found leaking under ground tanks and soils and groundwater that were contaminated, it is likely that similar conditions exist at these sites. Please describe the methodology that will be used to determine if these problems exist.

16. Waterfront Revitalization Program;
The Draft Scoping Document notes that the proposed consolidated garage site and the existing MN1 garage are located within the designated New York City coastal zone boundary and are subject to a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Consistency Review and that the proposed salt storage facility is outside of the coastal zone boundary. Note that all three sites are in the 100 year flood plain. Please describe the potential impacts that could be expected from flooding.

17. Traffic and Parking
The construction and operation of the proposed salt storage facility would permanently displace an existing use, a two-story parking garage that provides parking for 400 cars. Most of the development in the surrounding area and throughout Community Boards 1 & 2 has been on sites that were former parking lots which resulted in a tremendous loss of parking spaces. This parking garage is one of few that remains. The loss of this parking would place an undue burden on the surrounding neighborhood that should be included in the analysis.

Traffic is already severely congested in the surrounding area due to the Holland Tunnel. It backs up along Spring St. from Varick St. to the West side. Washington St. is also congested because it is used as an alternative to the West Side Highway (Rt. 9A). Canal St., Houston St., Clarkson St., Varick St., Hudson St. and the West Side Highway (Rt. 9A) are often congested.

The Draft Scoping Document proposes