Downtown Flushing Development [Archive] - Page 2

sunnyguy

November 2nd, 2007, 05:25 PM

Flushing boom fades
By Stephen Stirling
10/11/2007

The demise of the ambitious RKO Keith's redevelopment project may be a harbinger of things to come in Flushing, with plans for the Municipal Lot 1 complex nearly dead and mounting delays threatening the city's vision for Willets Point, City Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing) warned in recent days.

During a speech to members of the Queens Chamber of Commerce Friday, Liu said the $500 million planned redevelopment of Municipal Lot 1 may be a lost cause and the city's expansive plans for redeveloping Willets Point may also be in jeopardy.

http://oascentral.zwire.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.poweronemedia.com/300X250.html/@Topx http://bannerads.zwire.com/bannerads/bannerad.asp?ADLOCATION=4000&PAG=461&BRD=2676&LOCALPCT=50&AREA=410&VERT=16497&NAREA=471&barnd=6289 "I think in the next month or so you're going to see a redefining in the set of priorities within the Bloomberg administration, and naturally some things are going to be dropped," Liu said. "As the 2008 election nears, priorities are going to continue to shift and the probability curve is dropping fast [for these projects]," he said, alluding to the mayor's rumored presidential ambitions.

Earlier this month, Liu and Borough President Helen Marshall were informed by Brooklyn-based Boymelgreen Development, which bought the site of RKO Keith's in 2002, that it planned to put the property up for sale, officially ending its redevelopment bid.

Liu said Boymelgreen is breaking apart its partnership and will be liquidating its assets, thus forcing the company to sell the property. But he is hopeful another developer will revive the project because the plans have been approved by the city.

"That's like a ghost haunting all of Flushing," he said. "We do need to bring the RKO site back from the dead."

Liu was less optimistic about Municipal Lot 1, and told the chamber the plans being developed by Flushing Commons LLC were all but hopeless in their current form.

"I honestly don't think anything will happen on Lot 1," he said. "Perhaps we can resurrect it, but unfortunately 'resurrect' is the word you have to use now."

In an interview with the TimesLedger Monday, Liu elaborated, saying there is no compelling reason for the Flushing community to get behind the Muni Lot plans, which originally called for a mixed-use development featuring 500 residential units, 350,000 square feet of retail space, a 50,000-square-foot youth center and 2,000 below market rate parking spaces.

"This is a project that is not pursued by the Flushing community," he said.

Liu said the original plan had promise, but changes proposed by the developer earlier this year that cut about 400 spaces from the parking plan, reduced the size of the youth center by nearly half and raised the proposed parking rates above what are currently available on the lot, left little incentive for Flushing residents.

"The developer seems to think it doesn't need to deliver on the promises it made two years ago. That's at best a woeful miscalculation and at worst just pure greed," Liu said.

Liu's current position is a far cry from what it was a few years ago, when standing alongside Mayor Michael Bloomberg and top brass from Flushing Commons LLC, he said the project would "set the tone and direction for Flushing for years to come."

Liu's more recent sentiments were echoed by state Assemblywoman Ellen Young (D-Flushing).

"If the community doesn't need this project, it shouldn't be pushed," Young said.

Reached for comment, Flushing Commons LLC spokesman Jamie Van Bramer rejected the Flushing officials' claims and said the Flushing Commons project is very much alive.

"We have been working diligently with our partners in the New York City Economic Development Corporation to work out the details on a development plan that we are confident both respects our original Flushing Commons vision and is wholly achievable within this ever-changing economic environment," Van Bramer said.

Van Bramer said the developer hopes to release a revised plan in the near future. Flushing Commons LLC is a joint venture between Flushing-based TDC Development and Construction Corp. and Rockefeller Development Corp.

Liu said, however, that Bloomberg's priorities may not align with those of Flushing Commons.

Liu said the mayor has made it clear that the proposed multibillion-dollar redevelopment of Willets Point is a higher priority for the city, plans which are also in flux. The public approval, or ULURP, process was scheduled to begin this fall but has yet to materialize.

Unveiled by Bloomberg in April, the redevelopment project for Willets Point is expected to include 5,500 residential housing units and 1.7 million square feet of retail space and will likely cost in excess of $3 billion.

Neither EDC nor the mayor's office returned calls for comment about when they hope the Willets Point public approval process will begin.

Liu said while he does not think the project is necessarily dependent on Bloomberg, it may be dependent on the New York Mets' Citi Field, which is expected to open in the fall of 2009.

"If that new Mets stadium is finished and there's still not much headway made on Willets Point, then the focus and excitement will just peter off and the Willets Point idea will suffer the same fate it has for decades," he said, referring to previous attempts to develop the hardscrabble 60-acre site.

But former Borough President Claire Shulman, who has been lobbying hard for the development of Willets Point in recent months, said getting the project off the ground during Bloomberg's tenure is crucial.

"We want to get so far along by the time Bloomberg leaves office that there's no possibility of reversing [the plan]," Shulman said. "You never know where support is coming from."

Reach reporter Stephen Stirling by e-mail at Sstirling@timesledger.com or by phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 138.

http://www.timesledger.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18907115&BRD=2676&PAG=461&dept_id=542415&rfi=6

ASchwarz

November 2nd, 2007, 08:11 PM

The "reporter" claims "Flushing boom Fades" but doesn't have a single point to back up the allegation.

The one holdup is because a real estate firm is being reorganized; the other holdup is a politican-developer clash. Neither have anything to do with Flushing's relative viability for high-end residential.

submachine

November 5th, 2007, 11:00 PM

the redevelopment project for Willets Point is expected to include 5,500 residential housing units

Since when? The plans I saw didn't include residential units, and what I read the environmental concerns of the Iron Triangle will prevent residential zoning.

investordude

November 5th, 2007, 11:23 PM

We can't condemn properties unless we are sure the buyer is serious about redevelopment. Eminent domain is an extraordinary power. It should only be used when the benefits are unequivocal and really going to happen.

Having said that, it would obviously be great to see an environmental cleanup of that area.

ramvid01

November 5th, 2007, 11:27 PM

investordude

November 27th, 2007, 07:41 PM

This is how you know we're in Queens - http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2007/11/27/2007-11-27_flushing_commons_changes_spur_outrage_by-1.html

When a developer is blocking 800 million worth of renovations for a SUBSIDIZED larger parking lot in an area with congested pricing. That's right - its not enough for the developer to build parking spaces in an over congested area - but they must also subsidize the parking spaces. Its inverse congestion pricing.

ramvid01

November 28th, 2007, 12:24 AM

^^ Did you read the right article? The developer isnt renovating anything, he is instead building a complex. The problem came about because they lowered the amount of parking the area residents wanted. Hence they forced the developer to up the amount of parking on the site but for that to happen they need it to be subsidized.

Regardless I don't see this as completely evil. Either way there is going to be parking. If this project doesn't go through Flushing will be stuck with that parking lot or if anything is going to get built they will ask for a large parking lot so there isn't much leeway on what you'll get.

Also unless they decide to build more subway lines further into Queens (because the buses are a mess) then there is no other real option aside from driving. I would rather they park and ride instead of driving straight into the city.

investordude

November 28th, 2007, 07:57 AM

I think I just didn't phrase my rant well. My gripe is with the city on this. It's a POSITIVE that the developer no longer wants to subsidize the parking. I don't get why people in Queens don't get that. (yes, there needs to be some parking, but they are already building more at the Flushing Town Center site which is a better place to put parking than right in the heart of main street).

NewYorkDoc

December 2nd, 2007, 04:47 PM

I took the #7 train to Flushing on Thursday and something bugs me. I can't stand seeing a huge parking garage being built as I'm riding right beside it on a train.

ramvid01

December 2nd, 2007, 06:03 PM

^^And a prefabricated one at that.

The only consolation is that you will never see it again once the building starts going up around it.

antinimby

December 3rd, 2007, 06:02 AM

I don't get why people in Queens don't get that.You've got to understand that the average New Yorker aren't very knowledgable or savvy when it comes to what's good or bad urban planning and development.

They don't know about the advantages that building denser, more mass transit-oriented developments contribute to less traffic, sprawl, environmental damage, lower housing costs and so on, as we do.

That's why you have these community people actually fighting residential, commercial, transportation projects that are actually good for the city.

They just don't know any better other than they just don't want changes/more people in their backyards regardless of whether that may be a good thing or not overall for themselves, the city and the planet.

ramvid01

December 3rd, 2007, 09:50 AM

^^Thats too broad of a generalization. The reality is this is not Manhattan.

The MTA has no interest (read money) to build more subway lines in Queens. Also, the 7 train is just HORRIBLE, there is always track work it is always slow going towards Flushing and it is extremely full going towards Manhattan. It is a line that is at it's capacity during rush hour.

Unless the MTA makes some effort to alleiviate this situation, cars will be an important part of this area of Queens.

antinimby

December 3rd, 2007, 09:57 AM

Broad generalizations are not, New York is all about NIMBYism. If I remember correctly, the MTA wanted to extend the subway line through Astoria to La Guardia but the NIMBYs fought it.

I'd bet you if the MTA announce plans to extend subway service lines somewhere, similar community uproar would ensue. Like I said, your average New Yorker don't know much but just enough to be a hinderance to smart projects.

antinimby

December 3rd, 2007, 10:07 AM

I also forgot to add that there were also community resistance to the JFK AirTrain. Let's face it, New Yorkers (not only Queens residents, so don't get all offended ramvid) are not the most progressive-minded people right now.

ramvid01

December 3rd, 2007, 10:09 AM

The reason that the LaGuardia link was killed off by the NIMBYs was because it would serve no real benefit to the area and the fact that it would be elevated on it's way to laguardia through a mostly 2 story house area. The reality is they live right next to Manhattan and getting there isn't hard for them. Also they weren't/aren't clamoring for more public transportation.

Flushing on the other hand desperately needs more mass transportation and it would probably be below ground so there would be less of a chance of serious NIMBYism.

antinimby

December 3rd, 2007, 10:17 AM

ramvid, you are sounding more like an apologist coming up with all sorts of excuses for essentially, just narrowminded NIMBYism. How can a mass transit line not be beneficial to Astoria?

While we may not know how many cars it would have taken off the road to and from La Guardia, we do know that it would at least taken some off. Don't you think this would affect Astoria in some way, like reduced traffic and pollution, just to name a few?

Second of all, raised subway tracks going through lowrise neighborhoods occur throughout Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx for many years. Another poor excuse.

You are now splitting hairs with the Flushing and Astoria arguments but I was talking about New Yorkers in general. As for Flushing, it isn't short on shortsighted NIMBYism either.

Underground or not, if the MTA do proposed subway extensions there, I'm sure someone will find something to gripe about.

ramvid01

December 3rd, 2007, 12:24 PM

I am not a NIMBY apologist, in fact I am for development. I am only stating the reasons that killed the LaGuardia link.

Your argument that raised tracks going through neighborhoods have been happening for many years is a poor argument. When was the last time an elevated line has been built in this city? The last one I can remember is the A train in the rockaways, but the ROW existed from prior LIRR tracks. Heck I live next to the 7 elevated line built in the 20's when Queens was but swamp for the most part.

The reality is elevated lines in today's day an age are just not going to be accepted by the public in general. Who wants to see hulking steel grid in front of their 2 story house. I doubt there would be few people. Maybe in the past people were more willing (or lets say the government was more iron fisted) to build these elevated rails but in today's day and age where NIMBYs are everywhere you turn it isn't possible.

As for the pollution bit, I doubt the few hundred cars it would take off the street would help much considering that 60% of the city's power is generated by power plants in Astoria.

And yes I am splitting hairs between Astoria and Flushing, but you know what you'll find NIMBYism in any part of the city. That's just the way it goes.

antinimby

December 3rd, 2007, 12:29 PM

All the reasons you are citing are exactly what NIMBYs use to kill projects. I don't even know why we are in this debate because in a way, you are basically saying that NIMBYism is partly responsible for transportation projects not getting built.

Yes, there are other factors but even you have to admit that even if you overcome those other obstacles, NIMBYism will always rear its ugly head. That unfortunately is what is this city has become and Queens is not the only place where it occurs. It's pretty much a city-wide thing.

"Yes, you can build it, just not in my backyard." Unfortunately, every part of the city is someone's backyard so essentially you can't do much without some kind of fight.

investordude

December 3rd, 2007, 12:51 PM

Money doesn't grow on trees, and I think the reason the La Guardia link was cancelled is that it costs money and the JFK and Newark links were more essential because those are the airports were travel time to the airports is unreasonable. If you told me you found a few billion dollars for this project, I'd tell you I'd rather have a second 7 extension station, a rail link to Stewart Airport, or a JFK downtown direct rail line. I'd tell you not even to come back and discuss the La Guardia train until those projects are finished.

antinimby

December 3rd, 2007, 12:58 PM

First of all, NIMBYs don't care about money or priority. They opposed it not on those grounds, eventhough they probably would use them in their arguments as well if it works out for them. No, their reasons are more selfish and revolves around their own little world, not the city's, the MTA's or anybody else's well being.

Second, why would you build a rail to Stewart from the city instead of to La Guardia? They are essentially serving the same purpose (assuming Stewart catches up to speed) and La Guardia is much, much, much larger and is within city limits?

investordude

December 3rd, 2007, 02:07 PM

here's why: La Guardia is at capacity and probably can't be expanded. Furthermore, buses are already probably faster or comparable in speed to midtown. For Stewart, to make that airport a viable reliever, we need a high speed option to midtown and rail can be made fast. Plus, you could probably add rail to Rockland county and reduce a lot of unnecessary car traffic in the region.

antinimby

December 3rd, 2007, 02:12 PM

Buses are not a comparable alternative to trains. If that was the case, why build the expensive SAS, or even the 7 train extension? Just run buses then. Oh I forgot, they do. Still just not good enough I guess.

Fact is that you'll get more people out of their cars if you have rail to the airports. You cannot have one of the largest airports in the country and the world in a supposedly world class city and not have it connected to some kind of rail transit. It's shameful actually, if you were to mention it to other people.

As for Stewart, it is seen and has always been a way to steer people from the Upstate counties from using the already crowded city airports. It wasn't intended to bring city folks up there. Why would you as a city resident want to go all the way up there when you've already got three (or four if you include LI's MacArthur) closer?

By the way, I think we should go somewhere else if we want to talk more on this Stewart airport business.

submachine

December 7th, 2007, 06:29 AM

I took the #7 train to Flushing on Thursday and something bugs me. I can't stand seeing a huge parking garage being built as I'm riding right beside it on a train.

You would have a point except for the fact that the parking garage is at the last train stop.

ZippyTheChimp

December 7th, 2007, 12:08 PM

Second, why would you build a rail to Stewart from the city instead of to La Guardia? They are essentially serving the same purpose (assuming Stewart catches up to speed) and La Guardia is much, much, much larger and is within city limits?Stewart is already larger than LaGuardia, with the capacity to expand. LaGuardia has always been small by international airport standards, and has no room to grow.

While a rail link to LaGauardia is desirable to reduce city congestion, at this point it would do nothing to alleviate air traffic congestion. Also, a subway line is not the ideal mode for air travellers.

f I had to choose between the two, I would pick a high speed rail link to Stewart.

antinimby

December 7th, 2007, 01:31 PM

LaGuardia is larger in terms of passenger volume and that was what I was talking about.

LaGuardia serves 26 million passengers and Stewart, 900,000. Stewart is projected to grow to 3 million in five years but still pales in comparison.

The debate was more on automobile traffic rather than air traffic. Stewart's potential for growth and expansion have no bearing on the fact that there is still 26 million people at LaGuardia that have no other viable transportation option other than cars.

Imagine how many cars are taken off the road if there was some kind of subway or rail service to LaGuardia. Keep in mind also, that all that traffic unlike Stewart, is within the city's borders, where traffic is already a big problem.

While high speed rail to Stewart is necessary for it to grow, I think rail to LaGuardia is just if not more urgently needed.

ZippyTheChimp

December 7th, 2007, 02:27 PM

The present passenger volume of the airports is not the issue, since the idea is to increase air traffic capacity. LaGuardia is at capacity, while Stewart is underused. Therefore, it would be more effective to solve that problem by building a rail link to Stewart.

I realize the debate here is about intracity transport, but you brought up the point about the wisdom of a Stewart link vs a LaGuardia link.

A subway link would reduce auto traffic to LaGuardia, but that link should be measured against other subway alternatives in Queens. As I already mentioned, getting on a subway with luggage is not very appealing - personally, I would still hop a cab. If the choice this time were a subway extension to LaGuardia or extending the #7 into Whitestone, I think the latter would be more beneficial.

antinimby

December 8th, 2007, 09:22 AM

Building subways to Whitestone, a mostly low density, residential area comprised mostly of one or two family homes is more urgent than taking some of those 26 million auto trips off the roadways around Queens?

Personal preferences aside, there will be a significant portion of those LaGuardia users that will not mind taking the subway to/from the airport. For one thing, it will be cheaper and during stifling midday rush hour on the bridges and tunnels, you might even get there faster.

Of course, there will be ways to operate the specially designated airport trains, that will skip local stops and that will make it even more faster as well as having less hassles when it comes to airport riders having to deal with non-airport riders.

ZippyTheChimp

December 8th, 2007, 10:11 AM

If you want to look at it as an airport problem, then a LaGuardia subway link is inferior to a Stewart link.

As a city problem, you can take a pencil to almost any place on a subway map and have a positive result. I lived in Whitestone for months after 09/11, and made the daily commute to Main St. The area is clogged with auto traffic. Many just avoid the hassle and take the GCP into Manhattan.

If I had to choose one place to spend money on subway improvement, a link to LaGuardia would be low on the list. Bigger bang-for-the-buck elsewhere, and you'd end up with airport transit that pales compared to other cities.

If I had to choose two out of three:
A Stewart
B LaGuardia
C #7

A and C. Just my opinion.

antinimby

December 8th, 2007, 10:29 AM

Well, you can guess my preferences will always favor the city over non-city projects anyday even if Stewart will serve city folks also.

So, I would go with B with C close behind and the Stewart rail thing handed over to the state or the Port Authority to worry about.

Back to Whitestone for minute. While I can understand your personal experience having lived there briefly, I would say that you are the exception rather than the norm. Most of the #7 line are used by Flushing people and not so much Whitestone residents.

If you are going to extend the 7, I wouldn't go to Whitestone but rather further east into Flushing. The folks in Whitestone are mostly caucasian drivers (I hate to bring race into this but that's how I see it) anyway, whereas the subway riders are mostly Asians and hispanics.

While I don't have data, I suspect just from perception the Whitestone commute might have a significant percentage going to Long Island rather than Manhattan.

By the way, I lived in and around the Flushing area for a couple of years also.

ZippyTheChimp

December 8th, 2007, 10:45 AM

Most of the #7 line are used by Flushing people and not so much Whitestone residents.That's the point. Whitestone is one of the places where a high percentage of people car commute into Manhattan. For years, a friend of mine drove from Whitestone to Lower Manhattan. The only thing that stopped him was when the cheap parking lot where 101 Warren now sits closed.

How New Yorkers get to work (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/transportation/20040115/16/837)

antinimby

December 8th, 2007, 11:09 AM

I'm assuming you are referring to this map:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/Map_2.gif

Isn't it interesting that there are other places such as eastern Bronx and even south central Staten Island that fall into the same category as the Whitestone area? The same argument can then be made to extend service to those areas but I don't think it makes sense to build more subways there given our priority.

Furthermore, I would caution that just looking at this map can be misleading because a large percentage of a small number is still a small amount of riders. To incur so much costs as subway extensions, it should be to be serve the greatest number of people and the greatest need.

I guess when you say Whitestone, I assume that you include neighboring College Point and Bayside as well since Whitestone itself is quite small.

In any event, I don't know the exact head count as far as those places are concern but I suspect they are relatively sparsely populated in comparison to other parts of Queens is concern. Just not worth it I don't think.

ZippyTheChimp

December 9th, 2007, 01:10 PM

The same argument can then be made to extend service to those areas but I don't think it makes sense to build more subways there given our priority.I did note that you could numerically improve the overall situation by extending subway surface anywhere, but I didn't make an argument for those other areas, did I.

I guess when you say Whitestone, I assume that you include neighboring College Point and Bayside as well since Whitestone itself is quite small.I just used 'Whitestone' to set the location. The subway extension would benefit all of CD7.

but I suspect they are relatively sparsely populated in comparison to other parts of Queens is concern. Just not worth it I don't think.Appearances can be deceiving.

CD7 population: 242,000
Density: 19,000/ sq mile

Queens density: 20,000/sq mile.

Even the less dense (12,000/ sq mile) CD11 (Bayside) at least has the LIRR.

**Reminder: I'm not advocating this extension as a #1 priority in NYC, just a better option than a LaGuardia link.

ASchwarz

December 10th, 2007, 12:54 AM

I have heard through a source at the MTA that the LGA link is again on the front-burner, and it is likely we will hear something soon. While there is presently no funding, the MTA wants to revisit the issue, and this time bury part of the extension.

Even if the extension is buried, it would supposedly be pretty inexpensive compared to the MTA's other projects.

Last time the extension was opposed by NIMBYs who didn't want to see elevated rail in their neighborhood. 9-11 occured and the extension was forgotten.

antinimby

December 10th, 2007, 01:17 AM

Don't worry, they'll find some other reason to oppose it again. Besides, hearing through a source isn't reliable and is probably just hearsay although as you know, I hope you are right.

antinimby

December 10th, 2007, 01:29 AM

Zippy, I'll just add this and then I'll wrap it up because I think we have both made our cases clear.

My experience with the outlying areas of the outerboroughs is that even with subway access, it just isn't used as much as those places closer to Manhattan.

For instance, there is less ridership in Bay Ridge than say Park Slope, even within the area but particularly to Manhattan. Understandably the longer distance and traveling time is probably a major factor.

With this in mind, it just doesn't make sense to extend service to those areas while an airport larger (passengers) than many major city's main airport have no rail link.

ASchwarz

December 10th, 2007, 02:20 AM

Don't worry, they'll find some other reason to oppose it again. Besides, hearing through a source isn't reliable and is probably just hearsay although as you know, I hope you are right.

My source is in the Communications Dept. at the MTA and a friend of mine.

He's relatively new to the organization, so he isn't completely in the loop, but I believe him when he says it is again under discussion.

ramvid01

December 10th, 2007, 02:23 AM

I know this has nothing to do with Flushing but I would like to see that dual contract line from Roosevelt Ave south into Maspeth and Middle Village built.

It would serve the greatly mass transit challenged South Central Queens and link it with the rest of Queens as it is currently being separated by a mirage of cemetaries.

They have the station built and a few hundred feet of tunnel already dug out, I wonder how feasible it is to build it now?

ZippyTheChimp

December 10th, 2007, 02:31 AM

For instance, there is less ridership in Bay Ridge than say Park Slope, even within the area but particularly to Manhattan. Understandably the longer distance and traveling time is probably a major factor.Coney Island, Sheepshead Bay, and Canarsie are all farther away from Manhattan than Bay Ridge.

Two of them, Coney Island and Sheepshead Bay have a lower percentage of car commute - they have subway access. Canarsie is high - it has no subway access.

Of the four areas, Bay Ridge is the easiest car-commute, and that would better explain why it's percentage is higher.

antinimby

December 10th, 2007, 02:32 AM

ramvid, everything is feasible as long as you got...

1) the dollar$
and 2) no community opposition.

submachine

December 10th, 2007, 09:59 AM

Re: Whitestone to Manhattan, many take the two express buses in the area.

Building subways to Whitestone

The LaGuardia extension would go to Whitestone? :confused:

antinimby

December 12th, 2007, 04:46 PM

Well regardless of the fading boom the 2 projects on the river are very busy. The Sky River View (Flushing Town Center) has some steel going up on the river side of the garage. The garage seems to be about 2 weeks from completion at least the section they are working on. As for the River Blue the site has been demo'ed and they seem to be flattening out the dirt.
Yup.

mgc1005 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/50734824@N00/2105426161/) - December 12, 2007

(Click on pics to enlarge)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2368/2105426161_203ede40ee.jpg?v=0 (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2368/2105426161_203ede40ee_b.jpg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2105425923_7d9fca70c8.jpg?v=0 (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2105425923_7d9fca70c8_b.jpg)

antinimby

December 12th, 2007, 06:09 PM

Here's the first look at The River project:

http://www.levrealestate.com/imageserver/b-2-7.jpg

...^ not that good but at least it's a vast improvement over this earlier version:

http://www.denardis.com/resimage/h-images/roosAsmall.jpg

ramvid01

December 13th, 2007, 12:59 AM

I just realized that the councilman from Flushing, John Lui, who wants more parking for Flushing Town Center, is head of the transportation commitee in the city council...Yikes.

antinimby

December 13th, 2007, 09:27 AM

Not a surprise. Most of the City Council are made up of clueless people that have no iota of knowledge on the things that they're suppose to be in charge of.

ablarc

December 13th, 2007, 07:07 PM

Most of the City Council are made up of clueless people that have no iota of knowledge on the things that they're suppose to be in charge of.
The price you pay for amateur government.

Professional government brings you Moses and Haussmann.

devinkc

December 15th, 2007, 07:19 PM

Here's the first look at East Lake Plaza project at 42-33 Main St. (corner of Frankline Ave.)

http://www.harvestinternational.net/listings/lease_eastlake.html

antinimby

December 15th, 2007, 10:26 PM

Pretty nice. Very modern day Asian and will fit in well in the new Flushing. That retail base will provide a very strong anchor for that busy corner.

Every major boulevard in the outer boroughs should follow this formula. Highrise and midrise residentials over a retail base. No more single story stores with nothing above. All that air space wasted at a time when the city is running out of developable land.

As you know, I took a pic of the site a few months ago. I wonder how much progress has been made since then.

42-33 Main St. @ the NE corner of Franklin Ave.
A new 66-unit condo @ 17 stories.
Let's hope it looks good. The architectural firm looks to be local and Asian so we don't know what to expect.
This site used to be home to a popular, Chinese seafood restaurant and a small parking lot out front. No loss as the base of the new tower will be retail so this will be a great development.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/1412/img0026tc9.th.jpg (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0026tc9.jpg)

ramvid01

December 15th, 2007, 10:36 PM

I have been wondering what was going to go up on that site. I used to pass it everyday on the bus, seems they were pouring the foundation walls.

nyterp

January 1st, 2008, 09:47 PM

Has there been posted recently a list of new developments in the flushing area? Hard to keep track of the name changes and on/off again nature of developments...

antinimby

February 1st, 2008, 11:36 AM

Eastern Consolidated to market dormant Flushing theater

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/images/3857/RKO_Rendering.jpg
RKO Plaza rendering

By David Jones
Updated On 01/31/08 (http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/8831) at 05:16PM

Eastern Consolidated has been named the exclusive agent to market the site of the long-dormant RKO Keith theater in downtown Flushing.

The site has already been rezoned for a 16-story, 390,000 square foot mixed-use project that could house Flushing's tallest building.

The rezoning allows for up to 200 residential units, 10,175 square feet of retail space, a senior center and 229 parking spaces. A glass facade would be built around the theater's landmarked lobby and foyer.

Community Board 7 officials say redeveloping the site is long overdue, and that the Main Street and Northern Boulevard intersection is a critical piece of Flushing's development.

"There is a 500,000 percent interest in getting this site developed," said Marilyn Bitterman, the Community Board 7 district manager. "Every meeting we go to the question comes up: when are we going to see some development at the RKO Keith's?"

The prospective sale comes amid a development boom in Flushing, where Muss Development is building Sky View Parc (once known as Flushing Town Center), a mixed-use development with a luxury condominium on College Point Boulevard near Flushing Meadow Park. That development will include big national retailers, including Target and Home Depot, Bitterman said.

At the RKO site, Boymelgreen Developers gave up on its big plans and decided to sell the property after a dispute with the community. In 2007, Community Board 7 approved a mixed-used project with 250 condominium units and retail and commercial space. However, after the approval Boymelgreen said it wanted to develop the residential units into lofts for home businesses.

Originally built in 1928, the RKO Keith's theater was considered one of the crown jewels of New York City's entertainment scene. The theater hosted big vaudeville acts, and operated for years as a movie house before it was sold for $3.4 million to developer Tommy Huang in 1986. Huang had planned to develop the site into a hotel and shopping center complex, but the site remained dormant for years.

Huang later pled guilty to charges that he allowed heating oil to spill into the RKO Keith's basement and tried to hide the damage. Boymelgreen bought the property from Huang for $15 million in 2002.

© 2008 The Real Deal

antinimby

February 9th, 2008, 07:39 PM

Backing for a Behemoth

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/realestate/03post-450.jpg
RESIDENTIAL SPACE ATOP RETAILING Sky View Parc in Queens is privately
financed, as Lefrak City was.

By C. J. HUGHES
Published: February 3, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/realestate/03post.html)

IN the 1960s, the LeFrak family reached into its own pockets to create Lefrak City, the rambling complex of 4,700 apartments and millions of square feet of commercial space on 40 acres in Corona, Queens.

Typically, though, most mega-scale mixed-use developments there in the last four decades — whether Rochdale Village in Jamaica or Queens West in Long Island City — have needed the help of union or public financing.

Today, private money is back — at least at Sky View Parc, a $1 billion complex rising on a 14-acre former parking lot in Flushing, where College Point Boulevard meets Roosevelt Avenue. To offset the costs, its creators are relying heavily on 800,000 square feet of retail space they are including in the project.

All told, the 3.3-million-square-foot site, huddled around a four-acre private park, will include six towers with about 1,100 apartments atop the retail space, which will be spread over three levels. There will also be garages midblock.

Sky View Parc will go up in two phases, says Jason Muss, a principal of the Forest Hills-based Muss Development, the builder, whose partner is Onex Real Estate Partners, a Canadian fund. The first, scheduled to wrap up by the end of 2009, will create 448 luxury condominiums across three towers, from 575-square-foot studios to 2,000-square-foot three-bedrooms.

Though the granite-and-glass project may evoke Lefrak City’s ambition, it doesn’t necessarily share its middle-class price points: units will range from $375,000 to $2 million, Mr. Muss said, adding that sales start this week.

Who will buy? “We think there’s a large number of people with single-family homes in Queens and on Long Island that would be very happy to trade up and move here,” he said.

Below the condos will sit the Shoppes at Sky View Parc, which are 65 percent leased, to Home Depot and other big-box tenants, though contractual issues prevent Mr. Muss from naming them, he said; rents average $65 a square foot annually.

Making sure those lease revenues offset the project’s huge cost was a challenge for the architect, Carl W. Ordemann, a principal at Perkins Eastman, who took steps to increase the project’s retail square footage by creating its distinctive full-block pedestal-style base.

If stores had simply been clustered at the ground floor of stand-alone towers, as they are in many developments, the site would have yielded just 250,000 square feet — about one-quarter the amount he ended up including.

“Retail was the big financial driver for this project,” Mr. Ordemann said.

Aware that developments of this scale can transform a neighborhood, Mr. Ordemann also hopes to tie the project in to a linear park that the city has discussed for the eastern bank of the Flushing River, which flows nearby.

There’s hope among some in Queens that projects like Sky View Parc could generate help for the Flushing River, which is generally considered polluted.

Thomas Lowenhaupt, a Jackson Heights resident and member of Queens Community Board 13’s Flushing Bay Committee, which works to improve water quality, admits he “hadn’t even heard there was a Flushing River till a couple years ago.”

But, he said, “projects like this could definitely help raise awareness.”

Sky View Parc could fuel development interest in this north-central section of Queens, say community leaders, who note that Citi Field, a stadium for the New York Mets rising on the river’s bank, is aiding that cause, too.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Monumental

February 10th, 2008, 09:26 PM

submachine

February 11th, 2008, 03:03 PM

But being a life-long resident of Flushing, I cant help but ask myself:

Who's going to pay to live six feet from the landing gear of airplanes every couple of minutes? .

Good question. If you want a high-rise with actual nightlife theres Manhattan, and if you want a $500k home you could buy an actual house in the surrounding areas (Whitestone, Bayside, Bay Terrace, College Point). This seems to be what most of the areas Asians with money are doing, so I really don't get the market for this.

Even the shopping area is in the middle of congestion, whereas you have another Target and two other Home Depots less than a few minutes away, and traffic-free.

antinimby

February 11th, 2008, 04:29 PM

Will you two eat your words when they sell this place out?

There's a reason why these developers are millionaires and the doubters here are sitting in front of their computers talking about them.

antinimby

February 11th, 2008, 05:08 PM

Just happen to run across this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/fashion/10suburbs.html) from today basically talking about the environmental friendliness of various different housing styles.

Here's the graphic that summarizes the point of that article:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/09/fashion/green.graphic.large.jpg

As you can see, Sky View Parc is better environmentally than those "actual houses" in the surrounding areas. Which means this city should be promoting more dense developments like Sky View Parc (minus the excessive parking of course) and against any more of those single family houses.

Like Mr. Muss said in that article, there will be enough buyers from Queens and Long Island that will be interested.

Buildup

February 11th, 2008, 06:02 PM

Hi Wired New York.

First post though I've been trolling for a while.

I live in Flushing and pass this site every day. The progress is astounding. But being a life-long resident of Flushing, I cant help but ask myself:

Who's going to pay to live six feet from the landing gear of airplanes every couple of minutes? The noise and vibrations get horrible the farther west in Flushing you go and presumably its incredibly loud on higher floors. Just walking around on the street the noise of the jets is stupendous, so I cant imagine who would want to live on a 12th floor by the airport and have their whole apartment convulse every few minutes....

Hey guys. My first post as well. In regards to your post Monumental, I am like you, lived in Flushing most of my life. Id just like to inform you that people are paying these prices for residential units in downtown Flushing.

You are right in the fact that most buildings over 13 or so stories are extremely close to air traffic. Close enough that when standing on the roof or balcony, one could not hear another persons scream standing right next to him/her as a plane is preparing to land @ LGA. However this is where quality comes into play. Ive been to quality built units where I can literally throw a baseball and hit a passing plane. However standing inside a well built unit with soundproofed walls, floors, and windows, I couldn't hear the plane nor feel the vibrations that I would have otherwise felt in a cost friendly unit.

Ive been trolling for a while as well =P Thanks Antinimby for the updates :).

antinimby

February 11th, 2008, 06:12 PM

You're welcome and welcome aboard.

I'd just like to add also that twelve stories in Flushing is still further from the planes than say College Point, which is literally a stone's throw from the runway at La Guardia.

Monumental

February 11th, 2008, 10:18 PM

^
Will anyone be allowed to walk around on the nice little elevated park there or is that just for residents? I'd like to take a stroll up there and maybe view Flushing's beautiful future convention center :rolleyes:

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 03:02 AM

Will you two eat your words when they sell this place out?

There's a reason why these developers are millionaires and the doubters here are sitting in front of their computers talking about them.

Developers don't use computers?:rolleyes: Talk about the "millionaires" who developed Arverne by The Sea, not just a financial failure but hated by the community as well.

Back to the subject, who will pay half a mil to live in this Muss development instead of a house in Bay Terrace or an apartment in Manhattan? Or a coop 5 minutes away in Jackson Heights for 25% the price?

ASchwarz

February 13th, 2008, 04:15 AM

Submachine, try again. I'm sorry, but I don't think you know the first thing about Queens real estate.

Arverne is a huge success. Resales are three times purchase prices.

And what do you mean by "hated by the community"? It IS the community. There were no residents in this portion of Arverne.

As for Flushing new construction, if you really think most people would prefer to live in something old and crappy way out at Bay Terrace (far from Manhattan and subways), then why are property values so much higher in Flushing? Sales prices and rents are much higher in Flushing, which is booming as much as basically any neighborhood in the city.

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 03:29 PM

Developers don't use computers?:rolleyes:Developers use computers but to further their business. Doubters like yourself use it to badmouth them. One makes loads of money, the other doesn't and just comes across as bitter.

Still don't get it?

Talk about the "millionaires" who developed Arverne by The Sea, not just a financial failure but hated by the community as well.Financial failure? I guess not.

This is New York. Anything large scale and new will generally be hated by "the community." The community doesn't know or care about what's good for the city. They just don't want anything in or near their backyards.

Unfortunately, the whole city is always someone's backyard so something has to give.

If left up to the community, this city will would never grow, prosper, compete and or get anything done.

Back to the subject, who will pay half a mil to live in this Muss development instead of a house in Bay Terrace or an apartment in Manhattan? Or a coop 5 minutes away in Jackson Heights for 25% the price?Like I said, there'll be plenty of people lined up to buy the units here. They probably can't build enough units fast enough to meet the demand.

There are plenty of people in Queens and Long Island that are getting tired of the suburban lifestyle of constantly having to drive everywhere, do constant maintenance work on the house and yard and are ready to move up to a multi-unit building where mass transit and shopping is within walking distance.

Furthermore, comparing these new units to an old, coop in gritty Jackson Heights is like asking why anyone would want to buy an expensive new Mercedes-Benz when they can buy a much more affordable, used 1995 Ford Focus instead. Silly.

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 06:16 PM

There are plenty of people in Queens and Long Island that are getting tired of the suburban lifestyle of constantly having to drive everywhere, do constant maintenance work on the house and yard and are ready to move up to a multi-unit building where mass transit and shopping is within walking distance.

You sound like a Muss ad copy. You think people from Long Island, Bayside, Whitestone are moving to Flushing? lmao! Everyone in Flushing is moving out of Flushing, if they can afford it. And if they cant afford it, they certainly can't afford a brand new condo.

Furthermore, comparing these new units to an old, coop in gritty Jackson Heights is like asking why anyone would want to buy an expensive new Mercedes-Benz when they can buy a much more affordable, used 1995 Ford Focus instead. Silly.

Using your silly car analogy, the new Benz is Manhattan, the Ford Focus is Jackson Heights, and the Ford Focus with a new paintjob that costs as much as a Benz....is Flushing.

Next.

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 06:39 PM

You sound like a Muss ad copy. You think people from Long Island, Bayside, Whitestone are moving to Flushing? lmao! Everyone in Flushing is moving out of Flushing, if they can afford it. And if they cant afford it, they certainly can't afford a brand new condo.Okay, let's put an end to this once and for all.

They are not building new condo buildings for no one. Those new condo buildings, both built and under construction are not and will not be sitting empty. They are being bought and occupied. If they were financial failures as you have claimed, then why are they building more of them? Your example of a financial failure, Arverne-By-The-Sea, is moving onto their FOURTH (as in 4) phase. See here (http://www.arvernebythesea.com/). Do you see the words "SOLD OUT" there?

As for people moving out of Flushing, I think you once again have embarrassed yourself there. See this (http://osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/june06/062906.htm).

Using your silly car analogy, the new Benz is Manhattan, the Ford Focus is Jackson Heights, and the Ford Focus that with a new paintjob that costs as much as a Benz....is Flushing.Yes, my analogy is "silly" but you comparing a new product in Flushing to an old co-op in Jackson Heights is right on the mark. Yeah, okay.

By the way submachine, why are you so worried on whether anyone will buy these units and on whether the developers here will fail financially or not?

What does it matter to you that someone will or will not lose out in their business venture?

ASchwarz

February 13th, 2008, 06:47 PM

Submachine, you don't know the first thing about Flushing.

Flushing home prices are actually higher than that of Long Island. I don't doubt some people are moving out to Long Island, but it's usually because they can't afford Flushing.

Long Island is barely growing, while Flushing is booming.

And Bayside and Whitestone are basically just more suburban versions of Flushing. They definitely aren't more expensive.

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 07:23 PM

Flushing home prices are actually higher than that of Long Island.

You are clueless, I doubt you've ever even been to Flushing.

"Flushing" is many different areas. Flushing North and Whitestone are like Bayside, with large single family and 2-family houses.

That has nothing to do with "Downtown Flushing" where these condos are, which makes Jackson Heights look like Soho.

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 07:29 PM

you comparing a new product in Flushing to an old co-op in Jackson Heights is right on the mark.

I think most people would choose the coop in Jackson Heights than to live in Downtown Flushing, let alone pay four times more to do so.

In order to defend Muss, you claim people want to move from the suburbs back to high-rise apartments.

In order to defend Muss, you claim that people who want a high-rise and shopping would choose Flushing over Manhattan.

Really, whats your agenda here? You seem really concerned on whether anyone will buy these units and on whether the developers here will fail financially or not? What does it matter to you that someone will or will not lose out in their business venture?

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 07:35 PM

As for people moving out of Flushing, I think you once again have embarrassed yourself there. See this (http://osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/june06/062906.htm).

You just proved my point.

I said everyone in Flushing is moving out of Flushing, if they can afford it.

And that link you posted is exactly the reason why.:)

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 07:47 PM

You are clueless, I doubt you've ever even been to Flushing.I have lived in Flushing. I find what you say to be more clueless than anyone here.

"Flushing" is many different areas. Flushing North and Whitestone are like Bayside, with large single family and 2-family houses.Okay, so what's your point. Who said anything to the contrary about that?

That has nothing to do with "Downtown Flushing" where these condos are, which makes Jackson Heights look like Soho.Jackson Heights looks like Soho? submachine, I'd like to know what you are smoking.

ASchwarz

February 13th, 2008, 07:50 PM

You are clueless, I doubt you've ever even been to Flushing.

LOL, I've been there many times, which is completely irrevelent.

Go to a Flushing R.E. agent and ask to see a 500k house in Flushing. They will laugh you out of Queens.

Then go to a Long Island R.E. agent and ask to see a 500k house. Outside of the Hamptons and a few fancy North Shore enclaves, you will have tons of options in virtually all communities.

ASchwarz

February 13th, 2008, 07:52 PM

You just proved my point.

I said everyone in Flushing is moving out of Flushing, if they can afford it.

The link shows that you are completely wrong.

People are moving out of Flushing if they cannot afford it!

People aren't moving from Flushing to East Hampton or Soho. They are moving to cheaper places in Queens or Long Island.

ASchwarz

February 13th, 2008, 07:58 PM

I think most people would choose the coop in Jackson Heights than to live in Downtown Flushing, let alone pay four times more to do so.

Well you'd be wrong (wouldn't be the first time). Flushing is more expensive than Jackson Heights. As for how much more expensive, Jackson Heights does not yet have comparable highrise luxury new construction towers.

In order to defend Muss, you claim people want to move from the suburbs back to high-rise apartments.

You aren't arguing with us, you are arguing with the U.S. Census, which shows that Flushing is growing rapidly, while the suburbs are barely growing.

In order to defend Muss, you claim that people who want a high-rise and shopping would choose Flushing over Manhattan.

Noone claimed this. Flushing is much cheaper than Manhattan. Muss' development would easily be twice the price in Manhattan (three times more if in a super-prime area of Manhattan).

What does it matter to you that someone will or will not lose out in their business venture

You are the one making this claim in the face of a mountain of evidence that condos are, in fact, selling. Queens is enjoying the biggest building boom since the postwar era.

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 07:58 PM

I think most people would choose the coop in Jackson Heights than to live in Downtown Flushing, let alone pay four times more to do so.And yes, we all know that what YOU think is what will happen exactly.

In order to defend Muss, you claim people want to move from the suburbs back to high-rise apartments.I'm not defending Muss. I am questioning your claims that people will not buy new condos there. Why makes you think this can't happen. If hadn't realize, the trend of people moving back to the city has been happening for over a decade now. Cities all over the country, even one's that were once dying, are getting revitalized.

In order to defend Muss, you claim that people who want a high-rise and shopping would choose Flushing over Manhattan.First of all, where did I say people would choose Flushing over Manhattan?

Second of all, yes there are people that would choose Flushing over Manhattan. Manhattan like any other place is not for everybody. There are plenty of people that will like Manhattan over Flushing and there are also people that will like Flushing over Manhattan. You can't categorize EVERYONE into the same category because you think everyone has the same mindset as you.

Really, whats your agenda here?My agenda here is to counter the false and fearmongering of someone like you and your agendas. Now's my turn to ask you, what is YOUR agenda?

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 08:03 PM

You just proved my point.
I said everyone in Flushing is moving out of Flushing, if they can afford it.
And that link you posted is exactly the reason why.:)submachine, you are really messed up if you think that I just proved your point.

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 08:23 PM

Flushing is more expensive than Jackson Heights.

Fact: Downtown Flushing is currently not more expensive than Jackson Heights.

Question: Who is going to pay 4 times to purchase a condo in Downtown Flushing?

Muss' development would easily be twice the price in Manhattan

Again, the obvious point here is if you want luxury, you could buy a house in the suburbs for the same price as Skyview Parc. If you want a high-rise and night-life and "shopping", you move to Manhattan for the same price as Skyview Parc.

So the question remains: Who will be buying, and why?

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 08:26 PM

there are people that would choose Flushing over Manhattan.

Obviously people have been choosing Flushing and many other areas over Manhattan, because of the cost factor.

Skyview Parc removes the cost savings.

Now tell us all who would choose a high-rise in downtown Flushing over one in Manhattan, and why. For the same price. Simple question, been asked about four times, still waiting.

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 08:34 PM

Go to a Flushing R.E. agent and ask to see a 500k house in Flushing. They will laugh you out of Queens.

Considering a 2 bedroom at Skyview Parc starts at $650,000, ask an RE agent for a house at the same price. Watch them laugh when you ask them if it only has 2 bedrooms.

People aren't moving from Flushing to East Hampton or Soho. They are moving to cheaper places in Queens or Long Island.

You really must be a tourist. They are buying houses, 10 minutes away, in Whitestone, Bayside, Bay Terrace, etc.

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 08:36 PM

Fact: Downtown Flushing is currently not more expensive than Jackson Heights.Show me.

Conclusion: Who is going to pay 4 times to purchase a condo in Downtown Flushing?No one. It will sit and collect dust because that's what successful developers do.

Again, the obvious point here is if you want luxury, you could buy a house in the suburbs for the same price as Skyview Parc. If you want a high-rise and night-life and "shopping", you move to Manhattan for the same price as Skyview Parc.What if someone doesn't like to live in the suburbs or live in Manhattan? Have you ever thought of that?

So the question remains: Who is buying?The answer again is no one. It will sit and collect dust.

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 08:46 PM

Obviously people have been choosing Flushing and many other areas over Manhattan, because of the cost factor.
Skyview Parc removes the cost savings.You are assuming that Manhattan is the end-all be-all destination for EVERYONE. Has it not occurred to you that not everyone, even if given a similar cost, don't want to live in Manhattan?

With that said, I highly doubt a condo in Sky View Parc costs the same as a similarly sized apartment in Manhattan. submachine, you are making all these ridiculous assumptions that aren't even back up by a shred of evidence.

Now tell us all who would choose a high-rise in downtown Flushing over one in Manhattan, and why. For the same price. Simple question, been asked about four times, still waiting.And answered 5 times by us but just flies over your head.

submachine

February 13th, 2008, 08:48 PM

What if someone doesn't like to live in the suburbs or live in Manhattan? Have you ever thought of that?

No. But I will now.

Someone wants to spend $650,000 on a place to live, maybe their family too.

Option 1) A nice house in Bayside, Whitestone, Bay Terrace:)

Option 2) A nice coop in Jackson Heights and save $400,000:)

Option 3) A nice condo 5 minutes away from either of those places, in downtown Flushing:confused:

Option 4) A nice coop in Manhattan:)

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 08:56 PM

Considering a 2 bedroom at Skyview Parc starts at $650,000, ask an RE agent for a house at the same price. Watch them laugh when you ask them if it only has 2 bedrooms.submachine, you are comparing apples to oranges. A condo is not like a house. Even if costs are equivalent, they will not have the same square footage or even the same amenities. They are too dissimilar to make the comparisons that you are trying so hard to make. It's not about choosing between a condo or a unattached private house if they are both the same price.

People have different reasons for wanting to live in a condo over a house, some of which I have already given you like, not having to drive everywhere and home maintenance. Other factors include perhaps being closer to work or business that one may have in the area. There are about as many different reasons as there are people.

You really must be a tourist. They are buying houses, 10 minutes away, in Whitestone, Bayside, Bay Terrace, etc.And there are people buying their houses in Flushing. That is what a real estate market is. People buying and people selling. People move in and people move out. Last time I checked that's what capitalism is all about, isn't it?

antinimby

February 13th, 2008, 09:11 PM

No. But I will now.
Someone wants to spend $650,000 on a place to live, maybe their family too.
Option 1) A nice house in Bayside, Whitestone, Bay Terrace:)
Option 2) A nice coop in Jackson Heights and save $400,000:)
Option 3) A nice condo 5 minutes away from either of those places, in downtown Flushing:confused:
Option 4) A nice coop in Manhattan:)Like I said, using your laughable logic that only you take seriously, these units in Flushing will sit unsold and collect dust.

Just keep on believing and convincing yourself that as the developer rakes in the dough.

ASchwarz

February 13th, 2008, 11:55 PM

Fact: Downtown Flushing is currently not more expensive than Jackson Heights.

Question: Who is going to pay 4 times to purchase a condo in Downtown Flushing?

You keep contradicting yourself. For some reason, you (falsely) think that Jackson Heights is more expensive than Flushing, and then you offer an example (Skyview Park) that demolishes your claim. If Jackson Heights is really more expensive, then why are all the Flushing condo sales at a higher price point?

I think I'd leave the pricing to people who actually know the market.

Again, the obvious point here is if you want luxury, you could buy a house in the suburbs for the same price as Skyview Parc. If you want a high-rise and night-life and "shopping", you move to Manhattan for the same price as Skyview Parc.

So the question remains: Who will be buying, and why?

None of this makes any sense.

Why would you automatically choose the suburbs if you want luxury?

There are rich, middle class and poor suburbs, just like there are rich, middle class and poor urban neighborhoods. The worst ghettos in metro NY are in suburban jurisdictions. The most expensive properties in metro NY are in Manhattan. There are plenty of examples of both wealth and poverty both in the densest neighborhoods and in the most sprawling exurbs.

Not sure what your "highrise, night life and shopping" argument means either. I would guess for many upwardly mobile Flushing residents (especially Asian residents), the highrise, nightlife and shopping amenities would actually be better in Flushing than in Manhattan. There are much larger Chinese, Korean and South Asian communities in Flushing than in Manhattan, and there is no apartment building anywhere in Manhattan that is sitting atop this much shopping.

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 02:10 AM

these units in Flushing will sit unsold and collect dust.

Just like these units in Flushing, that sit unsold and collect dust: http://www.3830parsons.com/

And all the other overpriced units that the market is long gone for. If you can afford it, buy a coach airline ticket to Vegas and tour all the units there, unsold, collecting dust.

Your infatuation with developments (and, oddly, developers) isn't rooted in reality.

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 02:11 AM

You keep contradicting yourself. For some reason, you (falsely) think that Jackson Heights is more expensive than Flushing, and then you offer an example (Skyview Park) that demolishes your claim.

Once again, you just unknowingly proved my point, but forget Jackson Heights if its too confusing; Within eyesight of Skyview Park, in Flushing there are co-ops available at 1/3 the price.

Are you forgetting the three most important factors in real estate?

Location.

Location.

Location.

for many upwardly mobile Flushing residents (especially Asian residents), the highrise, nightlife and shopping amenities would actually be better in Flushing than in Manhattan..

Those residents have not forgotten the three most important factors in real estate, thats why when they can afford it they are fleeing Downtown Flushing and moving into houses all over Whitestone, Bayside, and Bay Terrace. But you'd already know that if you spent more than 5 minutes anywhere in Northern Queens.

antinimby

February 14th, 2008, 03:10 AM

Just like these units in Flushing, that sit unsold and collect dust: http://www.3830parsons.com/Don't you wish it was. The fact is that this project is barely finished and the Certificate of Occupany hasn't even issued yet. On that link, you can see they're having an open house this Saturday. Come back and talk to me about collecting dust a couple of months from now.

And all the other overpriced units that the market is long gone for. If you can afford it, buy a coach airline ticket to Vegas and tour all the units there, unsold, collecting dust.They may or may not be overpriced but that is not for you to say. The market will determine whether they are or not. If they are, then the price will drop, if not, then they will get sold. Don't you worry you little heart out, because as much as would like to see that they won't get sold, they will.

And it's almost laughable if it wasn't so pathetic, that you should be talking about Las Vegas. For starters, what the hell does Las Vegas have to do with Flushing? Why stop at Vegas? Maybe you should (if YOU can afford it that is) fly to Toledo, Ohio or maybe Helena, Montana, too.

Talk about getting absurd. Sounds like you may be losing it.

Your infatuation with developments (and, oddly, developers) isn't rooted in reality.Let's see...every point you have raised has been debunked and I'm the one not rooted in the reality? Seems like you are the one in need of a reality check badly.

Call it what you will but this whole forum is about development. If we were to talk about anything else, it would be considered off-topic. And what is your obsession with developments and strangely, on developers about anyway?

By the way, I have asked several questions that you haven't yet answered. Are you trying to avoid answering them?

You know if your next posts don't have the answers, I'm just going to continue to ask so there's no getting around it.

antinimby

February 14th, 2008, 03:29 AM

Once again, you just unknowingly proved my point, but forget Jackson Heights if its too confusing; Within eyesight of Skyview Park, in Flushing there are co-ops available at 1/3 the price.The only person who's confused is you. You keep on saying that we've unknowingly proved your point but I don't see any evidence of it. Time after time, we have disproved all your points, from your claim that people are leaving Flushing, to Flushing is cheap, and then a whole bunch of nonsense that isn't worth rehashing again. It's like running around in a little retarded circle with you.

Are you forgetting the three most important factors in real estate? Location. Location. Location.And the location near Downtown Flushing can't be beat so you have as you would like to say so much, unknowingly proved MY point.

Those residents have not forgotten the three most important factors in real estate, thats why when they can afford it they are fleeing Downtown Flushing and moving into houses all over Whitestone, Bayside, and Bay Terrace. But you'd already know that if you spent more than 5 minutes anywhere in Northern Queens.Forget 5 minutes, I have lived in Flushing for years and as you have seen with my photographs, I was just there last Fall so there isn't anything major happening there that I don't know about.

As for people "fleeing." That's funny. People may be fleeing downtrodden Detroit, Buffalo, Camden, etc. but with the population growth (as I have shown) in Flushing, I wouldn't exactly call it fleeing. Some people may move out of Flushing but many more are coming in their place.

That's why there's a net gain in population, just in case you don't understand simple mathematics. I know that might be hard for you to grasp so I'll make it easy for you: if one person leave and two people enter, then the net gain is one.

Buildup

February 14th, 2008, 03:05 PM

It really comes down to preference Sub. There are many different types of people and homebuyers out there. I think you are just over generalizing a bit too much in saying that absolutely nobody would want to purchase a condo home in downtown flushing and if they do, they are retarded.

Definitely there are many people who see things the way you see them when purchasing a home. Who would want to live in crowded downtown Flushing? Loud Flushing? Sometimes even stinky Flushing? Who would pay the same amount of money to buy a 2BR less than 1000 sqft over a 5 bedroom house in north Flushing or College Point etc.?

I'm actually like you, I would never pay that much for a unit so small in downtown flushing when I can invest that money into a house in a less populated area. HOWEVER, you have to look at it through other people's eyes. There are many, many people who WOULD pay that much money to live at their residence of CHOICE in downtown flushing. Young Asian Couples who enjoy the shopping/culture or just like to keep close to their roots. Families buying a retirement home for their parents(many times asian) where they are literally steps and mere feet away from the closest asian supermarket or restaurant. People who prefer a 24 hour security building with no hassle of mowing the lawn or taking out the trash. People who prefer a reserved parking space opposed to looking for parking everynight when they get home.

These are just a few things that people consider when buying a home anywhere. As far as the developers go, I dont believe any of them CURRENTLY have failed in profits at least. Overpriced? perhaps. But what Ive learned is that (and not to sound mean or messed up here haha) nothing is TRULY overpriced as long as someone is paying that price for them. As a measurement of success, I guess I look at it this way. Sometimes houses whether old or newly constructed are put on the market and take long amounts of time to sell. Some even take up to more than a year. When you look at the currently finished buildings which contain 20-50+ units and they are selling a good majority of their units within the first year, Id consider that a success.

It really just comes down to preference. As far as people not buying these condos now, Id disagree currently. But you might have a point in a few years though. As we don't know how the market will play out in a few years with all these new projects going up. Some people aren't worried, however some people are a little concerned that they might oversaturate the market. Nobody will really know for sure unfortunately :(.

PS.
*Mental Note to Self*
Don't piss off Antinimby.

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 03:15 PM

On that link, you can see they're having an open house this Saturday.

lol you aren't familiar with sales tactics yet. They have an open house every other Saturday, been on sale for about six months. Oops!

They may or may not be overpriced but that is not for you to say.

Actually it is for me to say, and this is the very thread, in the very forum, in the very website to say it: They are ridiculously overpriced. I tried to dumb it down for you and give examples of why, but you remain clueless. I have an idea. Since you're so enamored of this place, buy a 1 bedroom in skyview park for $600,000 for yourself:)or a two bedroom for $700,000:)It's practically a bargain!

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 03:22 PM

And the location near Downtown Flushing can't be beat ....with the population growth (as I have shown) in Flushing, I wouldn't exactly call it fleeing. Some people may move out of Flushing but many more are coming in their place.

Wow you really don't get it, you keep proving my point: Of course Flushing is flooded with overcrowding and traffic, the ones fleeing are the ones who can afford to escape. That is why minutes away in Bayside, Bay Terrace, and Whitestone houses are being bought up by former Flushing residents.

And the ones who stay? Skyview Park is surrounded by co-ops available at 1/3 the price.

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 03:35 PM

I would never pay that much for a unit so small in downtown flushing when I can invest that money into a house in a less populated area

Exactly. Or a similar sized unit 1 minute away at 1/3 the price. Or a similar priced unit in Manhattan.

Young Asian Couples who enjoy the shopping/culture or just like to keep close to their roots. Families buying a retirement home for their parents(many times asian) where they are literally steps and mere feet away from the closest asian supermarket or restaurant.

Finally someone offers up some actual answers. That seems to be the only possibility, but in my experience Downtown Flushing is the last place young Asians actually want to live. Their demo is by far the one doing the most home-buying in the surrounding areas, or moving to the more trendy BK or Manhattan. I think paying more to stay in Flushing is the furthest thing on their mind.

Buildup

February 14th, 2008, 04:18 PM

Exactly. Or a similar sized unit 1 minute away at 1/3 the price. Or a similar priced unit in Manhattan.

Again thats just our preference. The people that are buying homes in downtown flushing are not wrong or dumb for investing there. More so, neither are the developers making millions answering the demand for these people. Nobody is dumb as far as I can see in a business sense here. Perhaps you can apply and state that towards the decision people make and in their preferences in light of your own preferences and decisions, however preference, like an opinion, can rarely be called dumb and insulted upon.

Their demo is by far the one doing the most home-buying in the surrounding areas, or moving to the more trendy BK or Manhattan. I think paying more to stay in Flushing is the furthest thing on their mind.

Again there may be some over generalization here. Even among young Asians, there is a spectrum. You are right in your statement when referring to young Asian Americans who were born here or brought to this country at a young age. Who live on their own, work in the city etc. etc. But there are also other groups of young Asian home buyers out there. Those who have come to the country recently with money. Those who cant speak English very well but have millions to invest in business and realty. There are those young immigrants of any race that come to this country and remain in their comfort zones or areas where English isn't really required nor is the conformity to American culture. You won't see these young investors hanging out at the newest, hippest bar in Williamsburg nor would they want to. There are so many people out there and I think its just hard to generalize when considering a product(this case real property) when not considering the full scope of the developers target consumers.

Heres another example of a hybrid of the two extremes I listed above. We have a female Asian financial analyst working for Goldman Sachs that commutes to Manhattan everyday. She just received this job and is moving from another state. Shes the only child. Her father passed away when she was young. Shes the breadwinner of the family. Its just her, her mother, and her grandparents. She has very strong family ties and responsibilities which she cant ignore. Her family weighs very heavy on her mind when making decisions. Including her new residence. Flushing, would be great for her family and an ideal choice for her and she could certainly afford it even though she doesn't speak one word of Chinese or Korean... People have limitless reasons and preferences that you cant account for when they chose a home. Preference.

Buildup

February 14th, 2008, 04:27 PM

Off topic...or rather back on topic...

Does anyone have any idea what they are doing with the property on Prince st and 38th ave? It used to be a Ford Dealership a long time ago. I know its going to be another res/com mix use but does anyone know the specs yet?

ZippyTheChimp

February 14th, 2008, 04:30 PM

I'm actually like you, I would never pay that much for a unit so small in downtown flushing when I can invest that money into a house in a less populated area

Exactly. Or a similar sized unit 1 minute away at 1/3 the price. Or a similar priced unit in Manhattan.Hey submachine, don't partially quote someone, and say he agrees with you.

I'm actually like you, I would never pay that much for a unit so small in downtown flushing when I can invest that money into a house in a less populated area. HOWEVER, you have to look at it through other people's eyes. There are many, many people who WOULD pay that much money to live at their residence of CHOICE in downtown flushing.Geez, he even tried to clue you in with an all-caps HOWEVER.

Much different with the rest of the paragraph, isn't it?

antinimby

February 14th, 2008, 05:21 PM

Off topic...or rather back on topic...
Does anyone have any idea what they are doing with the property on Prince st and 38th ave? It used to be a Ford Dealership a long time ago. I know its going to be another res/com mix use but does anyone know the specs yet?If you're talking about 37-14 Prince St., it will be 14 stories and 72 units.

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 07:08 PM

Hey submachine, don't partially quote someone, and say he agrees with you.

Hey Zippy, did you miss this part: "I'm actually like you"

Or what about this part: "Again thats just our preference"

Much different with the rest of the paragraph, isn't it?

Actually not much different or even a little different.

He agrees with me.

He just said others may not.

Which I agreed with. lol.

Thanks for the help though. :)

antinimby

February 14th, 2008, 07:20 PM

Unbelievable.

submachine, just drop it. You are embarrassing yourself.

No one really believes, other than you, that none of those units will sell, overpriced or not.

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 07:30 PM

The people that are buying homes in downtown flushing are not wrong or dumb for investing there.

Not now, since pricing in downtown flushing is pretty consistent; for a 3 bedroom coop its $250,000 to $300,000. Skyview Park starts at $750,000. Considering location (location, location), it's a horrible investment.

But there are also other groups of young Asian home buyers out there. Those who have come to the country recently with money. Those who cant speak English very well but have millions to invest in business and realty.

You really think those people would want to live across the street from a housing project? The smart money consistently moves out of apartments in Downtown Flushing, and into houses North Flushing, Whitestone, Bay Terrace, Bayside, even College Point. Ask any realtor, or any resident.

submachine

February 14th, 2008, 07:35 PM

No one really believes, other than you, that none of those units will sell, overpriced or not.

Just because you can't figure out if they are overpriced or not doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

Bottom line is money talks, and I noticed your money isn't going anywhere near Skyview Park :)

ZippyTheChimp

February 14th, 2008, 08:53 PM

He agrees with me.

He just said others may not.

Which I agreed with. lol.

Thanks for the help though. :)

"He just said others may not"

Which is pretty much the point of everyone you are arguing with.

Why do people who can't read wind up laughing at loud.

ZippyTheChimp

February 14th, 2008, 08:55 PM

Unbelievable.
I lost interest after he said that Arverne is a failure.

Hasn't a clue.

ASchwarz

February 15th, 2008, 02:28 PM

Wow you really don't get it, you keep proving my point: Of course Flushing is flooded with overcrowding and traffic, the ones fleeing are the ones who can afford to escape.

And the ones who stay? Skyview Park is surrounded by co-ops available at 1/3 the price.

Submachine, you really are 100% clueless. I think you don't even believe what you say; you are just arguing for the sake of "stirring the pot".

Bay Terrace, College Point, etc. are CHEAPER than Flushing. People "flee" Flushing mostly because they can't afford it, just like people "flee" Manhattan for brownstone Brooklyn because they can't afford it.

Yes, some people like more suburban neighborhoods, and others like more urban neighborhoods, but the FACT is that Flushing is pricier than those other neighborhoods, so that means that Flushing is more desirable than those communities. Whether or not you personally like Flushing is irrelevent.

Whether or not there are cheaper coops surrounding Skyview Park is irrevelent. Skyview Park is a condo, not a coop. For someone who claims to know something about real estate, it's pretty humorous to hear you compare condos and coops as if they were apples-to-apples.

In Manhattan, one can find properties for sale for $6,000 a foot in proximity to properties that sold for $600 a foot, so your three-to-one price discrepency claim is hardly telling in a market where ten-to-one is not that unusual.

I'm also confused by your claim that $650,000 for a two-bedroom constitutes Manhattan pricing. In much of Manhattan, you can't get a new construction studio for $650,0000. A typical new construction two-bedroom will probably run about three times the pricing at Skyview Park.

ASchwarz

February 15th, 2008, 02:30 PM

in my experience Downtown Flushing is the last place young Asians actually want to live.

Your anecdotal experience is irrelevent. The sales market shows that you are wrong.

ASchwarz

February 15th, 2008, 02:32 PM

smart money consistently moves out of apartments in Downtown Flushing, and into houses North Flushing, Whitestone, Bay Terrace, Bayside, even College Point. Ask any realtor, or any resident.

LOL, just like the "smart money" moves out of Manhattan into cheaper parts of the city. Just ask any realtor or resident.

Buildup

February 15th, 2008, 02:57 PM

On another note, I think Im gonna have lunch at the new sushi place at Queens Crossing. It looks really nice. Great makeover for the restaurants in that area. Really nice to see the new businesses improving their interior design.:) With a 14,000 sqft. overhead for rent though, I hope the prices aren't along the lines of Matsui's or Morimoto's :p

submachine

February 18th, 2008, 12:47 AM

Whether or not there are cheaper coops surrounding Skyview Park is irrevelent. Skyview Park is a condo, not a coop.

Location, location, location. The entire location is surrounded by co-ops, under 200k for a 1br, under 300k for a 3br. A condo doesn't justify tripling the average pricing, so who will buy it? I think theres an answer:

Who would want to live in crowded downtown Flushing? Loud Flushing? Sometimes even stinky Flushing? Who would pay the same amount of money to buy a 2BR less than 1000 sqft over a 5 bedroom house in north Flushing or College Point etc.?

Families buying a retirement home for their parents(many times asian) where they are literally steps and mere feet away from the closest asian supermarket or restaurant.

Agree. Skyview Park will be an Asian retirement home.

In 25 pages, no one has given any other reasons why someone would spend three times more than neighboring residents to live there.

Buildup

February 18th, 2008, 12:19 PM

Agree. Skyview Park will be an Asian retirement home.

You are quoting me out of context Sub.

As far as your repeated question of "who will buy these units at these prices?", perhaps you should stop asking us and call some of the newly constructed buildings and ask how many units they have sold. You might find your answer there. :)

This past Saturday, I went to the open house for 3838 parsons. All their C units on all floors were already sold. Their A units were almost all sold as well along with other units. Not bad for a building that recieved their CO pretty recently. So if you still don't believe that anyone will buy these homes, just go there and knock on some doors ;)

submachine

February 18th, 2008, 08:38 PM

I went to the open house for 3838 parsons. All their C units on all floors were already sold. Their A units were almost all sold as well along with other units.

Do you mean 3830 Parsons? It's less than 15% sold since the initial offering over six months ago. And they are priced $100,000 to $200,000 less than Skyview.

There was a huge condo building that went up in Corona over a year ago on 108th St, completely sold out in four months, because the price reflected the location. An increase over surrounding residences, but not a tripling or quadrupling.

sunnyguy

February 20th, 2008, 06:26 PM

It will be very interesting to see who will buy these newly built condos in Flushing.

The new condos are a little overpriced to me, but it is absurd for submachine to compare those condos to the coops nearby. For Asian, Jackson Height can not compare to Flushing.

There are two benchmark highend condo in Flushing:

1. Woodner House @ 13835 elder ave built in 80s ($500 - $ 600/sq ft)

2. Sanford Tower @ 13347 Sanford Ave built in 2000 ($500 - $ 600 /sq ft)

The price of skyview is higher than the above, but it is brand new. Will Skyview be much better than Sanford Tower to derserve a higher price? I doubt it. But if the developer can attract those people who can not afford the highend condo in Forest Hills, he might be fine.

Monumental

February 21st, 2008, 08:53 PM

Does anyone know whats going to be built on the lot across from SkyView; the one across the street also on College Point? You can see it from the seven train its a big lot and it looks like there's a lot of work going on....well...at least there's a big hole there, but that gives me cause for hope.

I would think this location would be prime for development in light of everything, but I havent heard anything about it around here.

ramvid01

February 22nd, 2008, 01:00 AM

Here's the first look at The River project:

http://www.levrealestate.com/imageserver/b-2-7.jpg

^^^You mean this?

sunnyguy

February 25th, 2008, 03:03 PM

Javits Expansion May Decamp to Queens

By PETER KIEFER
Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 25, 2008
f politicians can't agree on expanding the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Javits+Center) on Manhattan (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Manhattan)'s West Side, they may just move the project to Queens (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Queens+County).

As city and state officials clash over the fate of the land surrounding the Javits Convention Center, the 61 acres at Willets Point (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Willets+Point) eight miles to the east in Queens appear to be gaining new appeal as an alternative.

The city is finalizing its plans for a mixed-use development just next to Shea Stadium and trying to quell local opposition at the same time. The development — as laid out by Mayor Bloomberg (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Michael+Bloomberg) in May — calls for the creation of a total of 5,500 units of housing, along with 1.8 million square feet of retail space and 500,000 square feet of office space. The city's environmental review of the plan also mentions the possibility that "a convention center of up to 400,000 square feet would be developed."
"If you look at cities around the world there is a trend toward having a satellite convention center," the president of the Regional Plan Association, Robert Yaro, said. Mr. Yaro said he favors building a convention center in Queens that could act as a complement to, rather than a replacement of, the Javits Center.

Currently, Governor Spitzer is at loggerheads with Mr. Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Christine+Quinn) about the governor's plans to sell a plot of land to the north of Javits. Mr. Spitzer said proceeds from the sale, which could net $900 million, would go toward other West Side development projects, but Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn have faulted the proposed sale for restricting expansion possibilities for the Javits Convention Center. Mr. Spitzer could look to Queens to address concerns from the tourism sector and the construction industry about the halt put to Javits expansion plans. Those plans, put in place by the Pataki administration, were tabled by Mr. Spitzer.

"I think that investment in the boroughs in these key industry sectors is probably the highest rate of return on public investment you are going to get," the president of the Partnership for New York City, Kathryn Wylde, said.

Mr. Yaro said a convention center included as part of a larger Willets Point development plan makes sense on a number of levels. The area is close to two airports and has excellent transit and highway access to Midtown and its hotels.

A Queens convention center would not have to contend with the congestion and rapid business development that Javits now confronts on the West Side of Manhattan. And unlike the Sunnyside Rail Yards in Queens — another large undeveloped location that could house a convention center — Willets Point would be free of complicated issues surrounding air rights development and platform construction that is required when building over the rail yards.

"When Javits was the edge of nowhere you could get away with that but now as an extension of the central business district it is causing problems," said Mr. Yaro. "You can imagine a piece of Javits used for those in-town functions; for fashion shows and high-end conferences. But the boat shows, and those larger trade and consumer shows, could be moved to this peripheral location."

Plans for the Willets Point redevelopment were supposed to be ready for community review on February 25, but the city's economic development corporation has postponed the start by at least two weeks.

The city had originally selected eight firms as finalists to bid for the plan, including Forest City Ratner Companies, the Related Companies, Vornado Realty Trust, and Muss Development. A number of hurdles exist for the development of Willets Point, notably the opposition from the local City Council member, Hiram Monserrate (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Hiram+Monserrate), who is pressing for more "affordable" housing and for additional compensation for businesses and individuals who would face evictions by the city's use of eminent domain.

Last week, Mr. Monserrate held a meeting with the city's deputy mayor for economic development, Robert Lieber, to try to resolve their differences. Mr. Monserrate said the city's plan to designate 20% of the proposed housing units as "affordable" was unacceptably low.

"We need to do more to carve out protection for our citizens who own property and are not solely at the whim of the government," Mr. Monserrate said in an interview.

Another critic of the plan has been Councilman John Liu (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=John+Liu). Mr. Liu is in favor of developing Willets Point but has been critical of how the EDC has communicated the details.

"What was a plan that should have been flushed out more and more as time went on actually has become more of a skeleton," he said.

But Mr. Liu says that with 61 available acres, expanding the proposed size of the convention center would not be a problem. "I think that if the plan is to build a convention center at Willets Points there will be overwhelming if not universal enthusiasm," he said.

http://www.nysun.com/article/71762?page_no=1

Monumental

February 25th, 2008, 05:27 PM

All these pictures showing people strolling along the waterfront, taking in the nice viewe.

In reality the waterfront is a disgusting brown trickle penned in by highways on all sides (not to mention the train). Will anything be done about this cesspool of a creek?

I for one dont intend to do much strolling under the highway

submachine

February 28th, 2008, 06:04 AM

City Council member, Hiram Monserrate (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Hiram+Monserrate), who is pressing for more "affordable" housing and for additional compensation for businesses and individuals who would face evictions by the city's use of eminent domain.

Last week, Mr. Monserrate held a meeting with the city's deputy mayor for economic development, Robert Lieber, to try to resolve their differences. Mr. Monserrate said the city's plan to designate 20% of the proposed housing units as "affordable" was unacceptably low.

Exactly four years ago:

"Hiram Monserrate, the city councilman representing the area, said he recognizes the need to clear out the Iron Triangle.

''Clearly there is a better usage for that land, that would benefit the residents,'' he said. ''No one would want to build anything that is going to overlook those junkyards.'':p

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE7D9133FF937A35750C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

brianac

March 5th, 2008, 07:55 AM

Pool complex in city park draws raves

BY DONALD BERTRAND
Daily News Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 4th 2008, 4:00 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/03/04/amd_swimmers.jpg Cairo for News
The Townsend Harris swim team takes the plunge at new aquatic center in Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

It has a name befitting its $66.3 million price tag and the grandeur it displays - Flushing Meadows-Corona Park (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Flushing+Meadows+Corona+Park) Natatorium and Ice Rink.

Nearly seven years in the making, the gleaming new center finally opened Friday to raves from young and old who came to celebrate the unveiling of the largest recreation building ever constructed in a city park.

"This is just beautiful. And what a view of the park," said Donald Patterson (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Donald+Patterson), 72, of Springfield Gardens (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Springfield+Gardens), a member of the Senior Dolphins from Roy Wilkins Recreation Center. "I must say, this is first class."

"This is gorgeous," said Elena Gulotta (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Elena+Gulotta), 17, a senior and a swim team member at Townsend Harris High School (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Townsend+Harris+High+School), city champs for the past three years and Queens (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Queens+County) champs for 18 years running.

"Everything here seems perfect," added fellow Townsend Turtle Pamela Guzman, 18.

City officials were not at a loss for accolades either.

Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Adrian+Benepe) called it "the most beautiful building ever built in a city park" and an "out-of-this-world facility." Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Robert+C.+Lieber) called it a "fantastic addition" to the park.

"It is simply awesome," said Troy Legg (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Troy+Legg), president of USA (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+States) Pools, which will manage the pool under contract with the city.

The company operates some 500 pools nationwide.

"This complex is in the top tier," Legg said.

Ground was first broken on the project in June 2001, and it was originally set to be completed in late 2002.

But work was halted in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The project was later put back on track as part of the city's 2012 Olympics bid.

Inspired by the 1939 and 1964 World's Fair pavilions, a cable-supported canopy roof is suspended over the 110,000-square-foot building, Benepe said. The design allows for the walls to be removed to accommodate temporary bleachers.

The 50-by-25-meter Olympic swimming pool can be divided by movable bulkheads to provide different swimming and diving areas, and will use 1 million gallons of 80-degree water.

On Friday, the divisions included an area for youngsters where a movable floor kept the depth at about 2 feet.

The 85-by-200-foot NHL-regulation hockey rink is nearing completion at the site; the job is slated to be finished with a yet-to-be-announced concessionaire, off