101 Warren Street - Condo, Rentals - TriBeCa

[Edward]

Recreating an old thread....

Originally posted by Stern

Developer Edward J. Minskoff was selected by New York City to build a tower on a 90,565
square foot site bounded by Greenwich, Murray, and Warren Streets in Tribeca. The L shaped lot
is currently a parking lot but since 1985 has been proposed for the New York Mercantile
Exchange, headquarters for the New York Board of Trade, and for the headquarters of Drexel
Burnham Lambert. Edward Minskoff is proposing to build a 1.5 million square foot, 60 storey
tower to rise 600 feet on the site. Originally proposed as a 515 foot tower with 34 storeys, the
tower was able to rise higher when Edward Minskoff acquired the air rights from the College of
Insurance on the same block. The taller building designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merril will
have loading docks opposite P.S. 234 resulting in community opposition. A recently formed
group known as *Citizens for Intelligent Planning hopes to stop such a building from being built.
The still unnamed tower will consist of black granite and glass. The tower will begin
construction in April of 2002 and will finish three years later. Minskoff stated that he will break
ground even without an anchor tenant. This speculative office building will most likly become
the first downtown office tower built within a dozen years.

[hr]

Text and pictures below from SOM website
http://www.som.com/

The massing of the proposed design develops from a series of simple steps that relate directly to the physical context and program. The building is set back from Greenwich Street to create a landscaped plaza for the development, the adjacent College of Insurance and the neighborhood. The establishment of this open space is central to the integration of this project into the surrounding context. Like the open spaces to the north at Salomon Smith Barney, the gardens of Independence Plaza, Washington Market Park, and the playground at PS234, the proposed plaza adds another link to the emerald necklace that the "Greening of Greenwich" plan promises. It also may recall the "pleasure garden" formerly near the site. To the west of this plaza, the massing of the project develops around a folding masonry form that addresses the two different scales of the context. This form begins its three-dimensional movement along the north side of the site and climbs vertically to clearly define a pedestrian-scaled masonry street wall along Warren Street. The height and material of this street wall relates directly to the scale and materials of its neighbors to the north and east. Folding to the south, the masonry form defines a podium for the tower above before it again climbs vertically along the south side of the site to the highest point in the massing. The larger scale of this southern face addresses the scale of the financial district and also creates a kind of "bookend" or complimentary bracket to the massing of Salomon Smith Barney to the north.

Around this masonry form are three distinct glass volumes. The first two volumes nestle under the masonry form and relate directly to their programs. At the southern edge of the site and at grade, a glass enclosed office lobby extends through the project and links Greenwich and West Street. This through block lobby reestablishes the strong east/west organization of the site present when the first piers extended into the Hudson from this location. The eastern end of the lobby extends out towards the plaza to create a clear entry and its chamfered end responds directly to the angle of Greenwich Street. To the north of this lobby, the second glass volume contains street level commercial space accessible from West and Warren Street as well as from the entrance plaza.

The third glass volume is placed above and north of the folding masonry form. The relationship between this volume and the masonry form is critical for two reasons. First, the taller and more solid masonry form acts as a passive solar screen for the glass volume. Shaded by the more solid masonry form, the glass volume can be very transparent, optimizing the quality of light inside and presenting an open, delicate "picture window" to the north. Second, by shifting the glass volume to the west, stepping profiles are created on the east and west faces of the tower that directly correspond to the angles of West and Greenwich Streets. With its northern and southern faces assuming the geometry of the dominant city grid and the stepping profiles of the eastern and western faces responding to the rotated grid sponsored by the Hudson, the tower is a direct manifestation and resolution of the complex grids that overlap the site.

The building is set back from Greenwich Street to create a landscaped plaza for the development. To the west of the plaza, the massing of the project develops around a folding masonry form that addresses the two different scales of the design. This form begins its three-dimensional movement along the north side of the site and climbs vertically to clearly define a pedestrian-scaled masonry street wall along Warren Street.

Around this masonry form are three distinct glass volumes. At the southern edge of the site and at grade, a glass enclosed office lobby extends through the project and links Greenwich and West Street. To the north of this lobby, the second glass volume contains street level commercial space accessible from West and Warren Street as well as from the entrance plaza.

The third glass volume is placed above and north of the folding masonry form. The relationship between this volume and the masonry form is critical for two reasons. First, the taller and more solid masonry form acts as a passive solar screen for the glass volume. Second, by shifting the glass volume to the west, stepping profiles are created on the east and west faces of the tower that directly correspond to the angles of West and Greenwich Streets.


http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b7sm_1283.jpg

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b11sm_1280.jpg

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b18_1282.jpg

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b12_1281.jpg

[Edward]

270 Greenwich (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/default.htm) will be erected on this parking lot. The view on 22 June 2002 from the corner of Greenwich and Warren Streets, with the 4 World Financial Center (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wfc/4wfc/default.htm) beyond.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/images/270greenwich_warren_22june02.jpg



A stretch of cobblestone Washington Street divides the lot of 270 Greenwich (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/default.htm). 101 Barclay building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/101_barclay.htm) is across the Murray Street.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/images/270greenwich_washington_22june02.jpg

[Zoe]

Here is the buildings web site http://www.270greenwich.com/
As I remember there were not alot of fans of this building on this forum, but I still like it.

[kliq6]

Has anyone heard anything on this, has it been cancelled?

[TLOZ Link5]

I believe it's been cancelled, or will be cancelled shortly. They are considering a taller residential building on that site now.

I say good riddance. It was typical SOM blah.

"Salomon Smith Barney Building?" Are they referring to 7 WTC?

[kliq6]

further proof, Lower Manhattan is no longer the Finacial Capital of the World, that title is now Jersey City

[Stern]

I can tell you that Jersey City is not the Financial Capital of the world.

[kliq6]

85% of trades are processed over there and large firms like merrill and Morgan have more empoloyees in that state then in the city. Keeping an official headquaters someplace is one thing, but man power and job numbers are what counts and more and more Jersey City is on top of NYC, i should know, i work for Morgan. But this argument is for another place

[alejo]

"Lower Manhattan is no longer the Finacial Capital of the World, that title is now Jersey City"


hahahahahahahaha!

[JMC]

Actually...you're both wrong. Bear, Morgan Stanley and Goldman (an seon, BNY) all have their back offices in, or around, Metro Tech, in Brooklyn. JC is home to Pershing and Lord Abbott.

The world's largest trading floor is up in Stamford, and it belongs to UBS.

7 WTC was *all* asset management.

[TLOZ Link5]

There are more employees of the NYC financial industry than there are residents of Jersey City.

[DominicanoNYC]

I actually like the contrast of the black and clear glass. It's not that bad.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Substitute London for Jersey City, and at least the debate would be credible.

JC is the financial capital of NJ.

[NYguy]

Originally planned as an office tower to be completed by 2004, 270 Greenwich is now a mixed tower of 730 residential units and 240,000 sf of retail space. (Possibly 700 ft)


The site of 270 Greenwich Street in relation to other high profile projects in the area...


http://www.pbase.com/image/30274991/large.jpg

[krulltime]

This is good news then...wow so many towers happening in downtown. I am so happy for the city! :mrgreen:

[NYCResident]

Is there any more info on this development? I haven't heard anything new on this for a while..

[billyblancoNYC]

Is there any more info on this development? I haven't heard anything new on this for a while..

Nope. Not sure if this will happen, or a new developer and/or project will be chosen. This was stated a few posts earlier.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The site has a history of failed development - Drexell Burnham, the Commodity Exchanges.

[NYguy]

Not sure if this will happen, or a new developer and/or project will be chosen. This was stated a few posts earlier.

It will happen. The city is pushing this development (particularly because its residential) and seeking a developer...Minskoff wants to stay on, but we'll just have to see what the city does...


JUNE 19th, the 270 Greenwich St development will rise on this parking lot...


http://www.pbase.com/image/30352009/large.jpg


A view down Greenwich Street towards the looming 7 WTC...(parking lot on the right)

http://www.pbase.com/image/30352012/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/30352014/large.jpg

[kliq6]

Nothing will happen on this site till a deal is made at site 5-c

[TLOZ Link5]

I hope SOM's atrocious design is not being considered.

[Archit_K]

yes, another box in downtown. :x

[NYguy]

I hope SOM's atrocious design is not being considered.

Doubtful, as it will now be a residential building. But there's a chance Minskoff could still be a developer...

[NYguy]

Not so great news for the site, but good for Downtown...

(Tribeca Trib)

Development Talks for Sites 5B and 5C Down to the Wire

by Carl Glassman

It was looking less like a negotiation and more like a game of chicken late last month as City Councilman Alan Gerson and Bloomberg administration officials sought a last-minute agreement over massive new residential construction proposed for Tribeca.

Development plans for two city-owned parcels near P.S. 234, Sites 5B and 5C, have been the focus of complex negotiations for months.

On Sept. 9, following two days of committee hearings and concluding a required 60-day review process, the City Council is scheduled to vote on the sale of one of those sites, 5C at West and Chambers Streets, to developer Scott Resnick.

But much more is at stake than Resnick's plans for a 300-foot-high apartment tower.

Community leaders and city officials appear to have reached an agreement on Resnick's project. It is expected to include a 300-foot-high residential tower, nearly 28,000 square feet of space for a community center (with a 75-foot pool) run by Manhattan Youth, and a 10-classroom pre-k and kindergarten feeder school. Though important financial details were yet to be worked out, Gerson and Community Board 1 representatives said they were pleased with the deal after much haggling over the size of the community center (now more than twice what Resnick originally offered) and the height of the building (100 feet shorter than first proposed).

The catch is that the city has plans for a much bigger project-which faces more resistance from the community-on the larger Site 5B, bordered by Greenwich, Warren, Murray and West Streets.

City officials have linked the negotiations on the two sites. Looking to avert future community opposition to the large-scale development on Site 5B, community leaders said the city wants them to agree in advance to the size and placement of the apartment buildings that the designated developer, Edward Minskoff, will put there.

And the community has its own demand: a commitment from the city to build a k-8th grade school east of Broadway, to relieve the pressure on P.S. 234 when families move into all those new apartments.

"We are not going to allow any development without assurance of the school," Gerson said.

All this appeared hopelessly unresolved as time ticked away in the waning days of summer, when many of the principals in the negotiations were not even in the city.

In an Aug. 30 letter to Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, who heads the city's side of the negotiations, CB1 chairwoman Madelyn Wils said it would be a "prudent path" to finalize an understanding on Site 5C and defer discussion on 5B.

But as the Trib went to press on Sept. 3, it was unclear how the administration would proceed. Would it be willing to go ahead with an agreement with the community on 5C-community center and all-without one on 5B? Would it withdraw the land sale from a vote altogether, leaving an agreement on 5C up in the air?

"We're going to have no comment on that," said a spokeswoman for Doctoroff.

"I am prepared to kill the whole thing if it is not satisfactory to the community," declared Gerson, who said he believed the City Council would back him if he made good on his threat to oppose the sale.

Two years ago, Minskoff met stiff community resistance when he proposed a 600-foot-tall office tower for Site 5B. Having scrapped that plan, he now wants to build a residential/retail complex.

In a telephone interview, Minskoff said he intends to build "two residential towers and a retail pavilion connecting the two." He said that his project, which would be designed by Skidmore Owings & Merrill, would include two floors of retail. "We're working on the tenant mix right now," he said.

According to people familiar with the negotiations on Site 5B, the city is proposing a height limit of 370 feet on West Street, 245 feet on Murray Street between Greenwich and Washington Streets and 135 feet on Greenwich Street between Warren and Murray.

Wils said the tallest tower could be acceptable because it would be perpendicular to West Street, minimizing its shadow on Washington Market Park and its impact on river views. But she called the 245-foot building, with half its apartments at below-market rents, "very unsatisfactory."

Gerson said an administration proposal faxed to him on Aug. 27 left the two sides even further apart. The city added another building to the mix and pushed for a shallower setback for the building on Greenwich Street, he said.

"We don't know if [the proposal] is coming from the developer or the administration but I want to get to the bottom of this," Gerson said.

Community negotiators said they have been pushing for an "upscale" food store on the site. Minskoff promised only "retail uses that are absent right now."

"There will always be somebody who will be disappointed," said the developer, who claimed to be detached from the negotiations. "But the majority will be happy."


http://tribecatrib.com/photos/news/sept04/mapoutline.jpg

[NewYorkYankee]

Why is it that "Community members" have such a hard problem with large projects in NYC!? I mean, you live IN A CITY FOR FREAKING SAKE, there are going to be skyscrapers all around you!!!! Gte over it!!! Is this just NY or do other citites go through this B.S. too?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The 2 sites have an extensive history of bad blood between the city and the community. The battle has taken on a momentum all it's own.

The main problem is the school that sits across the street. 5B and 5C are the last city owned vacant plots in lower Manhattan. The city tried to maximize profits in the 80s by selling the land to Drexel Burnham, an investment company that threatened to leave NYC. Besides permission to build a hugh office tower, they were offered a sizable tax incentive. The community fought the project. In the meantime, Drexel had their own problems with Michael Milken, the junk bond king. Milken went to jail and Drexel went bankrupt.

Next up was the commodity exchanges, who also threatened to leave the city. The city offered site 5B, the community resisted. The NYMEX was built in BPC, and nobody left.

Minskoff actually shot himself in the foot by taking advantage of the turmoil of 09/11. I forget exactly what it was, but a ruling regarding the site expired unnoticed soon after 09/11, and Minskoff was able to increase the height of his commercial building. This galvanized community opposition.

I hope this explains the "BS" to you.

In my opinion, if the city had originally transferred 5C to the school/community as a bargaining concession, they probably could have gotten what they wanted on the larger 5B. Now the fight goes on, and the school is overcrowded.

[BrooklynRider]

When you consider these developments along with the two new buildings across West Street in BPC, there is a big influx of residents. I would support their negotiation for expanded school facilities - a new school to be exact. However, the people in that particular section of CB1 come off as snobs more interested in protecting their views and keeping their public schools "elite". Each time I read anything of CB1, I almost always find something underlying their argument that, for lack of a better catch-all decription, I would call "obnoxious".

[NYguy]

Not only that, but when you consider how close these sites are to the Freedom Tower and the new Goldman Sachs tower, its borderline absurd.

I always felt that was the wrong location for that school though...

[ZippyTheChimp]

Not only that, but when you consider how close these sites are to the Freedom Tower and the new Goldman Sachs tower, its borderline absurd
That indicates that the issue is not views, but the proximity of the school. The school was built when the entire area was slated for residential development.

[kliq6]

Site 5-B is so large that any use but a office building for a financial firm is a waste, its perfect size for trading floors on the lower floors just like the BPC site for Goldman.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I guess you don't have children...

or you might see that the two sites are different.

[BrooklynRider]

Zip-

Living in BPC, what is / has been the impact of residential growth up to, but excluding, these two new towers on school capacity? There are the new BPC residential buildings, plus River Lofts and other buildings I'm too tired to research. Why so much haggling over capacity with these two proposed buildings? Do they push the capacity over the brink?

[ZippyTheChimp]

I disagree with the current objections over height limitations on 5B and 5C. My objection has always been to a commercial building, especially with trading floors, which is service intensive. The issues should be: more schools and a higher percentage of affordable housing. Last year, there was a proposal to expand PS 234 onto site 5C, but it was rejected. I don't understand why.

Restricting heights on these 2 sites will not solve the school overcrowding problem. In BPC south, there are 2 sites along West St that are zoned for tall towers. In the north neighborhood, they have started construction of the 4th building around Teardrop Park. There are 2 remaining narrow sites adjacent to the ballfields. North of River Lofts on West Desbrosses and Watts Sts, another development is planned.

Walk around the neighborhood in the late afternoon, and you'll see a lot of yellow buses and little people with bookbags.

Much of the resistance to any development is what I call - last one in lock the door.

As I said previously, Minskoff helped revive a dormant group that originally fought the Drexel tower. Within a week of his slipping in the height addition, flyers began appearing all over Tribeca. Now it's like a moving freight train.

[BrooklynRider]

A lot of CB's seem to negotiate for a "community center" in these development's, as CB1 is doing. The arguments for new schools is just so fundmental and, as you said, if not here now, where and when do they build it.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.thevillager.com/

Overcrowding problem is growing at P.S. 234

By Ronda Kaysen

Sandy Bridges, principal of P.S. 234, has about 10 more students in her small Tribeca neighborhood school than she did last year and nowhere to put them. Desperate for classrooms, the computer lab suddenly looks like a viable option.

“We had to close our computer lab and put our computers onto laptops and carts,” said Bridges. She hired a new teacher and added an additional kindergarten and first grade class to this year’s roster. “My problem isn’t staffing, it’s space,” she said.

P.S. 234 is facing another year of overcrowding. With a housing boom in full swing, the school cannot keep up. In 1980, according to census figures, there were 15,918 people living south of Canal St. and west of Park Row; in 2000, the neighborhood population had ballooned to a staggering 34,420; of those, 6,280 are families. With P.S. 234’s test scores among the highest in the city, residents generally opt for public school for their children.

P.S. 234’s zone is one of the largest in the city, and although Bridges has requested that the Department of Education create a new zone, she is not optimistic. “It will take years [to create a new zone] and a hideous battle,” she said. “I don’t want the powers that be let this problem become such a crisis that they run a wonderful school into the ground.”

Enrollment at P.S. 234 jumped by 12 percent over the past two years from 640 students in the 2002 school year to about 715 this year. The school has a capacity of 585. Most of the new students are in the lower grades.

“I walk past Washington Market [Park] and see loads of three year olds,” said Bridges. For Bridges, toddlers milling about the park that abuts her school translate to future kindergarteners. “Their public school is so good, it’s saving [parents] $20,000 a year” in private school costs.

Neighboring P.S. 150, the Tribeca Learning Center, is not faced with an overcrowding crisis because it is an option school and therefore not required to accept all students in its zone. “I don’t have to take anyone,” said Principal Alyssa Pollack. “When I’m full I’m full.” P.S. 150 is close to full enrollment now with about 190 students.

There are plans in the works to alleviate P.S. 234’s overcrowding crisis. The vacant lot behind P.S. 234, Site 5C, is slated for development by Jack Resnick & Sons. The Resnick company unveiled plans at a June Economic Development Corporation meeting for a 35-story, market-rate rental building with about 480 apartments, 12,000 square feet of retail space, a 90-car parking garage and a community facility. The Resnick company offered about 10,000 square feet of space to the Department of Education — space that will be used to build eight additional P.S. 234 classrooms.

But the development of lot 5C, which will also bring additional families to the neighborhood, is still a long way off — the plan still must complete a lengthy public review process before ground can break and many residents oppose the building because of its proposed size. In the meantime, the Department of Education has proposed bringing in trailers next year to use as additional classrooms. For Bridges, the proposal is problematic, to say the least. “Where would we put a trailer?” she said. “We have a playground, which we actually desperately need. There’s a dog run and those dog people don’t want to lose that.”

The Department of Education did not return calls for comment.

Until more permanent space is built, Bridges sees the problem escalating with each passing year. Because she added a new kindergarten class last year, she needed to respond with a new first grade classroom this year. Next year, the new first grade class will need a second grade classroom. This year’s new kindergarten class will also need a new first grade class of its own next year.

“We’ve managed to adjust so far,” said Kevin Fisher, P.T.A. president and a parent of two P.S. 234 students. “As each year passes it gets harder and harder to make that adjustment.”

Bridges is considering shuttering the school’s pre-kindergarten program and replacing it with an art room so that the old art room can serve as a new classroom. “If we had to lose the pre-K, that’s the program that’s been really valuable,” said Fisher. “It ushers the kids into [P.S. 234] in a really good way. That would be a detriment to the school.”

Despite the crowding problem, Bridges is confident that she can maintain the school’s excellent reputation — at least for a while. “We’re a wonderful school, we’ll manage,” said Bridges. “But to lose a science room, you can’t really affectively teach science on a cart. It breaks my heart.”

The Villager is published by
Community Media LLC.
The Villager | 487 Greenwich St., Suite 6A | New York, NY 10013

Email: news@thevillager.com

[NYguy]

Not only that, but when you consider how close these sites are to the Freedom Tower and the new Goldman Sachs tower, its borderline absurd
That indicates that the issue is not views, but the proximity of the school. The school was built when the entire area was slated for residential development.

That's the problem - with Downtown at a loss of sites for expansion, clearly the city should have had the foresight. But it doesn't matter, even if there were no school there, the same people would be bitchin over the towers....

[ZippyTheChimp]

That's true, but to understand the psychology that's driving this particular site, you have to look at it over the last 15 years. For many, although they may not admit it, the issue is no longer what is built, but beating city hall.

The city built the school there for the same reason they wanted to maximize development on 5B and C - they own the land. Once the school was built and became successful, everything changed.

If I were in city hall, I would start looking for a new school site in north Tribeca.

[NYCResident]

From Downtown Express...

Gerson, city sign Downtown school deal

By Josh Rogers


The city and community leaders have reached a deal to build residential towers on two Tribeca sites and a new pre-K - 8 school on the East Side of Lower Manhattan.


The deal also includes a 10,000-square-foot annex to relieve the overcrowding at P.S. 234, a 30,000-square-foot rec center with a gym and a regulation-size pool, according to City Councilmember Alan Gerson who signed the deal with Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff Wed., Sept. 8. Madelyn Wils, chairperson of Community Board 1, was part of the months-long negotiations and Gerson said he would not have signed the deal without her approval.


The first choice for the school site is 250 Water St. in the South Street Seaport Historic District and the city would likely have to acquire the parking-lot site from Milstein Properties through eminent domain. Gerson said the city is required to make its best efforts to find a school site south of the Brooklyn Bridge and east of Broadway and if the city fails to get a site somewhere Downtown, it will make it extremely difficult for the city to proceed with the rest of its development plans in Tribeca.


The City Council on Thursday approved the plans for a 300-foot building at Site 5C, located behind P.S. 234, but the buildings planned for Site 5B across the street have not yet come before the Council. Site 5B would have buildings of 375, 200 and 135 feet, with the larger two on West St. Under the agreement, the developer must make sincere efforts to bring in a supermarket, and according to one source, representatives of the developer, Edward Minskoff, suggested they would try to get the popular Whole Foods to open in Tribeca. Minskoff did not return a call for comment.


Gerson called the deal a “major accomplishment” and added, “there was more than one shouting match with the deputy mayor. In the end, the community came out really well.”

Possibly 2007 Site 5C
Scott Resnick
3 residential buildings between 85- 300 feet, retail space, a 30,000-square-foot rec center with a pool and gym, a 10,000-square-foot school annex to P.S. 234 for younger children
Possibly 2006

Gerson said Site 5C will have the 300-foot building along West St., an 85-foot building with the community rec center and school annex on Warren St., and an 85-foot residential building. Norman Foster, a prominent British architect who was in the running to design the new World Trade Center, will design the apartment buildings for developer Scott Resnick, who did not return a call for comment.


Doctoroff declined to speak about the deal’s specifics but said it includes “very, very attractive community facilities and amenities that the community really needs.” Speaking to reporters as he was leaving a meeting of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Doctoroff said a school site has been picked but he did not confirm it was 250 Water St. Several sources who either participated in the negotiations or who were briefed regularly said 250 Water St. is the first choice.


Wils, who attended the same L.M.D.C. meeting, was considerably less enthusiastic about the deal than Gerson. “Compromise is when everybody is a little unhappy,” she said. “I’m a little unhappy.”


Gerson said he and Wils fought as hard as they could to make the buildings as small as possible and to maximize the school and community space.


School needs and zoning

Paul Hovitz, chairperson of C.B. 1’s Youth and Education committee, said there’s a desperate need for a new school in Lower Manhattan and he was pleased that it would be on the East Side. “All of our schools are overpopulated,” he said.


P.S. 234 at Greenwich and Chambers Sts. is the most overcrowded school in Lower Manhattan and it consistently is a leader in reading and math scores across the city. Hovitz said the new school would have to be academically rigorous — otherwise parents in the Seaport and the Financial District will still fight to get into 234.


Gerson said school zoning issues have not been decided, but under the agreement, only children living in areas that have first priority for P.S. 234 and P.S. 89 in Battery Park City will be eligible to have first priority in the new school. Currently, children living in Tribeca, the Seaport and the Financial District are guaranteed seats at 234 and B.P.C. children have first dibs at 89.


The new agreement means children living in the nearby Smith Houses will not be guaranteed a spot in the new school. At least a few parents living in the new school’s zone have quietly expressed concerns about Smith House residents attending the new school, fearing the housing complex’s less affluent residents might make the school less desirable. Gerson said in all likelihood, Smith residents would be able to attend the new elementary school if it is not filled with children living in the first-priority boundaries. Presumably these boundaries would include the Seaport and the Financial District. They could include Tribeca and B.P.C., but they may not.


The Tribeca school annex on the same block as P.S. 234 will include pre-K classes and may include kindergarten too. P.S. 234, which has 715 students in a building built for 585, will have more room for older children once the annex is built, which could be in two years. Sandy Bridges, the school’s principal told Downtown Express last week that she had to use her computer room as a classroom this year and she will have to make more sacrifices next year.


Gerson said the new school should open in 2006 or 2007 before the Site 5B buildings.


Water St. site

The Site 5B plans could be before the community board within a few months and Gerson said it would be reasonable for C.B. 1 to expect the city to acquire the school site before the board recommends approving Site 5B.


George Arzt, a spokesperson for Milstein, said there is pending litigation with the city over 250 Water St. and his client would resist any effort to take it.


The vacant site was in the landmark district when the Milsteins bought it almost 20 years ago. They have proposed many designs for the block, but all but one were blocked by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which said the proposed towers were too tall for a district made up mostly of 19th century, structures of five and six stories. The commission approved one 14-story office building 10 years ago, but the project stalled because of a crumbling real estate market. Last year, the city changed the zoning in the landmark district and Milstein sued.


“Not only do we contend that it was an illegal act to downgrade the zoning, now they want to be punitive and take it away entirely,” Arzt said Thursday.


Gerson said the eminent domain proceedings would supersede the lawsuit and the Milsteins could make the same arguments about the zoning in a new forum. Gerson said if the Milsteins proved the zoning change was illegal, it would cost the city more to acquire the site. He said the whole issue could be resolved this year.


The city has $44 million in its capital budget for the school and Gerson said it will cost $25 million more to build. Doctoroff said Thursday that he expected the L.M.D.C. would contribute an unspecified amount for the school. The city controls half the L.M.D.C. board and it may not be difficult for Doctoroff to get $25 million out of the agency’s remaining $860 million.


The L.M.D.C. has already designated $50 million to build 315 affordable housing units at Site 5B, but Doctoroff said the city will spend the money other places in Lower Manhattan to build and preserve “substantially more” affordable apartments than would have been built at 5B.


Gerson agreed this would be a much more efficient use of the money and said Knickerbocker Village and Lands End 1 on the East Side, and Gateway Plaza in Battery Park City are three possible places the money could be used to keep middle class people in Lower Manhattan.



Details on Sites 5B and 5C

Many residents oppose tall buildings on the two Tribeca sites because they say the structures would dwarf buildings nearby and cast too many shadows on Washington Market Park and the P.S. 234 schoolyard. Gerson said putting the taller buildings on West St. would take the office bulk further away from smaller buildings. The 370-foot building would have a few large setbacks after 330 feet so it will not seem as tall as it is, he added.


Gerson said Minskoff wanted to build a fourth building at Site 5B and one of the last sticking points was giving C.B. 1 the power to veto a fourth residential building. The block will also have low-rise retail structures, possibly with the supermarket. Sheldrake Organization, an experienced residential developer has been talking with Minskoff about joining the project, according to two sources not connected with the developers.


At Site 5C, there would be 300-foot and 285-foot buildings on West St. along with the two 85-foot buildings with the rec center, annex and more apartments.


Gerson said there were many details that held up the talks along the way. Making sure the pool would be regulation – 75 feet and one inch – took time, as did moving a column off the basketball court. In addition to Wils, Gerson said Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, the expected operator of the Site 5C rec center, signed off on the 5C center details.


And there was one more item that the community representatives fought for and won. On the hot days when noisy construction is going on all around them, P.S. 234 students will be able to ask their teachers to close the gym windows, because they are getting air-conditioning in the gym, the only part of the building that doesn’t have it.

[NYguy]

DOWNTOWN EXPRESS

Site 5B and 5C: Giving a lot to get a lot

Some of Lower Manhattan’s most important needs were included in an agreement between the city and the Downtown community, signed two weeks ago. Downtown will get a new elementary and middle school, a youth recreation center and a school annex for overcrowded P.S. 234 in exchange for accepting two huge Tribeca development projects that won’t be as humongous as they may have been otherwise.

Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff signed the agreement this month with Lower Manhattan Councilmember Alan Gerson, who included in the negotiations two important community leaders – Madelyn Wils, chairperson of Community Board 1 and Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, the group slated to run the rec center.

By signing the deal, Mayor Bloomberg’s office recognizes that even after 9/11, Lower Manhattan thankfully remains the fastest growing part of the city and this population is in dire need of residential amenities to keep up, particularly with school and recreation space. This was not some giveaway to an affluent, political-savvy community, but a partial remedy to what would have been an urban planning mistake.

And make no mistake, the community gave away a lot. The day after the agreement was signed, Gerson and his Council colleagues approved one of the two residential projects, a 300-foot tower behind P.S. 234 on Site 5C that will also include the school annex and rec center. The tower will cast shadows on Washington Market Park, schoolyards and the Battery Park City ballfields. In addition to this project, under the agreement developers can build three towers across the street on Site 5B – 370 feet, 200 feet and 135 feet.

The deal in all likelihood means that the open-space feel of West St. between Chambers and Murray Sts. will no longer seem part of low-rise Tribeca, but will become a part of the Financial District-World Trade Center area. Let’s not forget Scott Resnick, the Site 5C developer, was once willing to build half as tall as he gets to build now under the agreement, for less money and without Liberty Bonds.

That was before the 2001 attacks, but the Tribeca residential market is as strong as it was then. About 50 years ago, the city took over the 5B and 5C land under an urban renewal plan that was supposed to benefit the community.

Gerson told us two weeks ago that the community should expect the city to have acquired a new school site before it recommends approving the larger Site 5B project. We agree. We’d also like to see recognition that all this noise and construction will be scheduled to minimize the effects on the six nearby schools – P.S. 89, P.S. 234, I.S. 89, Stuyvesant High School, the Borough of Manhattan Community College and St. John’s insurance college. And the Dept. of Education must begin a discussion with Downtown over the complicated and sensitive zoning issues for the new schools.

[Stern]

The day after the agreement was signed, Gerson and his Council colleagues approved one of the two residential projects, a 300-foot tower behind P.S. 234 on Site 5C that will also include the school annex and rec center.

Too bad Foster wont be designing it.

[NYCResident]

From Tribeca Trib...

I have one question... From the article - "With the reconstruction of Chambers Street from Broadway to West Street scheduled to begin in January and take 14 to 18 months" - Does anyone know what exactly the reconstruction is for?


Way Cleared for Huge Development

by Etta Sanders

A deal reached last month between community representatives and the city will bring the most sweeping changes to the face of Tribeca since the construction of Independence Plaza North 30 years ago.

Three residential towers, a 27,000-square-foot community center, and a pre-k and kindergarten feeder school are included in the development plans for two sites near P.S. 234, on the blocks bordered by Greenwich, Chambers, West and Murray Streets. A new pre-k-through-8th-grade school east of Broadway is also part of the agreement hammered out by City Councilman Alan Gerson and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff.

The agreement clears the way for the development of the two city-owned lots, known as 5B and 5C, next to P.S. 234, where the community has been fighting various city-supported projects for more than 15 years.
“It’s not everything we wanted, but it is the best possible outcome for the community given this administration’s position,” said Gerson, who had threatened to block City Council approval of the sale of Site 5C to developer Scott Resnick if a satisfactory deal for the community could not be worked out.

The Council okayed the sale to Resnick on Sept. 9 and construction on Site 5C, behind P.S. 234, may begin by the end of this year. Edward Minskoff, the developer of site 5B, across Warren Street from the school, still has to go through an additional approval process for his project, but with community negotiations completed he should face few obstacles. Minskoff said he hopes to break ground by the second quarter of next year and have the buildings completed the following year, “if everyone cooperates.”

The agreement was the result of months of negotiations between city officials and community representatives, including Gerson, Community Board 1 chairwoman Madelyn Wils and Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, which will run the planned community center.

Those meetings were sometimes heated, Gerson recalled. “There were a few shouting matches between me and the deputy mayor,” he said.

The most contentious issue, according to Wils, was the heights of the buildings. “There was some ingenuity that had to go into not creating just two huge, massive buildings that covered the entire spaces,” she said. “This took a lot of work.”

The plans for 5C include:
A residential building up to 300 feet tall.
A 27,000-square-foot community center with a 75-foot-long pool.
A pre-k and kindergarten early learning center with 10 classrooms, intended to ease crowding at P.S. 234.
For site 5B, bordered by Greenwich, West, Murray and Warren Streets, the agreement calls for:
A residential condominium tower with a maximum height of 370 feet on West Street. That building, Minskoff said, will have mostly two- and three-bedroom apartments.
A residential tower up to 200 feet tall at the corner of Murray and Greenwich Streets. Fifty percent of those rental units will be subsidized.
A non-residential building no taller than 70 feet directly across from P.S. 234 on Warren Street.
A commitment by the developer to try to find a “quality supermarket tenant” for retail space on the site.
Although the deal provides a broad outline for the development of the two sites and the creation of a new east-side school, significant challenges lie ahead and many details are still to be determined, including the financing for the public amenities, the zoning and administration of the new schools (see story, page 4) and how to minimize the effects of years of construction on P.S. 234.

Manhattan Youth will need to raise nearly $5 million to outfit the community center. (If the budget exceeds that amount, the city has committed to pay $900,000). That fundraising effort got a boost last spring when Goldman Sachs promised $1 million for the facility. According to last month’s agreement, the community may also help finance the community center by allowing a building taller than 70 feet on Warren Street across from P.S. 234.

Development of the sites will mean that P.S. 234 will be in the midst of massive construction projects for the next several years. With the reconstruction of Chambers Street from Broadway to West Street scheduled to begin in January and take 14 to 18 months, the school will be surrounded by construction on three sides for a year or more.

In addition, P.S. 234 may temporarily lose access to the playground behind the school that is used by younger children.

“It’s going to be dusty and it’s going to be unpleasant,” principal Sandy Bridges said, adding that the building’s air conditioning may need to be kept running during school hours for the sake of air quality. The school also has several air filters that were installed after Sept. 11.

Kevin Fisher, president of P.S. 234’s PTA, said that the PTA and Bridges will need to be in contact with the developers to minimize impacts on the school.

“We probably have to make ourselves known to the developer to have some impact,” Fisher said, “Let’s assume there’s a good faith effort and maybe we can get some mitigation.”

Wils said that the community board will also work on mitigation steps, including the placement of staging areas for construction vehicles in the least disruptive spots and the reduction of work during key school testing periods, as was done last year during construction near P.S./I.S. 89.

Wils said she had hoped that the development issues would have been resolved months ago, so that the construction on 5C could have begun over the summer. Minskoff said that if the approval process for the Site 5B project goes smoothly, contractors may be able to dig the foundations during the summer of 2005 when school is out. Whether that will require the use of pile drivers is still to be determined, he said.

One P.S. 234 parent, who had strongly opposed the development, was more than a little unhappy with the outcome. “It’s an outrage,” said Catherine Weinstock, the mother of a first-grader. “Why is it that the infrastructure and needs of the community are an afterthought and the profits of the real estate developers come first?”

But Andy Koutsoudakis, owner of Gee Whiz restaurant at the corner of Greenwich and Warren Streets, said that the sites’ development was long awaited. When he signed his lease in 1988, he said, the real estate broker assured him that a 60-story building was about to go up in the parking lot across the street. Now that the buildings are finally coming, along with a community center, he sees something positive for everyone.

“If they do things for the community, for the kids, I think that is good,” he said. “And businesswise, no question about it, I think it’s going to be good, too.”

[ZippyTheChimp]

Chambers Street - new water mains and sewers, and a new roadbed.

[NYguy]

Here's a better look at those sites...(Tribeca Trib)


http://tribecatrib.com/photos/news/oct04/site-overview.jpg

[billyblancoNYC]

Nearby Construction Brings Worries to P.S. 234 Parents
by Etta Sanders
http://tribecatrib.com/


New renderings of Site 5B

http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244781659odqTBz


http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244782623IjKjyY

[BrooklynRider]

It seems I can't access the renderings without a password.

[billyblancoNYC]

Damnit. I tried posting it to the site, but it didn't seem to work. Any ideas?

[Kolbster]

speaking about that...anyone know how to do the quote thing? Like whne it quotes what other people have said before???

[ZippyTheChimp]

Just hit the "quote" button on the right side of the post you want to quote. But don't use it if you are quoting an article someone posted. It will appear as if the person made the statement.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Damnit. I tried posting it to the site, but it didn't seem to work. Any ideas?
If you have the password, then I assume you have permission to use the renderings. If so, you can hot-link them here as images.

[billyblancoNYC]

Damnit. I tried posting it to the site, but it didn't seem to work. Any ideas?
If you have the password, then I assume you have permission to use the renderings. If so, you can hot-link them here as images.

I copied the renderings to my "file" so that's not an issue. I now have to see what hot-linking is...

[Stern]

Too bad Foster's tower was killed I like this building alot, it would've been a good companion! Bravo SOM for giving the city one of the glassier residential buildings.

[kliq6]

This site should be commercial, even Goldman Sachs has sad that they dont like the idea of building in WFC were everything being built is residential, but have no choice

[Stern]

This site should be commercial, even Goldman Sachs has sad that they dont like the idea of building in WFC were everything being built is residential, but have no choice

It definetly should be, another park, what the community wants, would make the entire area look undeveloped. The community board killed plans for office development, so Im happy with what looks to be one of the cities better residential towers. This will be a first of many more to come in lower-manhattan. With an influx of luxury condo's it will have an effect like midtown of high-priced condo's and offices in the same district, in turn the honcho's occupying these towers and penthouses will command additional corporate development.

[Derek2k3]

Too bad Foster's tower was killed I like this building alot, it would've been a good companion! Bravo SOM for giving the city one of the glassier residential buildings.

It wasn't really killed, the developer is building basically what Foster designed. Also the community didn't kill the commercial building but the market did. Minskoff waited years for a tenant. However, they did kill the prospect for a much taller residential tower.

[Stern]

Also the community didn't kill the commercial building but the market did. Minskoff waited years for a tenant. However, they did kill the prospect for a much taller residential tower.

They didn't kill it, but they wouldn't have allowed it either. So its a lose lose situation.

[Kolbster]

[/quote]


Graciassss....did it work?

[Kolbster]

Just hit the "quote" button on the right side of the post you want to quote. But don't use it if you are quoting an article someone posted. It will appear as if the person made the statement.


ahhh i understand now, thankyou very much

[billyblancoNYC]

Nearby Construction Brings Worries to P.S. 234 Parents
by Etta Sanders
http://tribecatrib.com/


New renderings of Site 5B

http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244781659odqTBz


http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244782623IjKjyY

Can't get the hot-link to work, maybe the site doesn't allow it.

Can everyone see the pics with the abot link, though?

[Derek2k3]

Yea, webshots doesn't allow hotlinking. You just have to copy and paste the link into the address bar.

[kliq6]

Bloomberg and his administration actually killed the Office Tower, the Board wanted it to be lowered in height. Bloomberg only wants to develop the Far West side for his stupid Olympic bid and would rather Lower Manhattan just become a residential district. If you went back to the 1980's and said to some that in 20 year more people would live below Chambers Street then work, you'd be called crazy, its a dahm shame what's happened Down there. Working here in Midtown having uses to work there makes it even more sad for me

[NewYorkYankee]

ehhh....It's okay. This is going to be residential correct?

[kliq6]

Its in Lower Manhattan, what else would it be these days

[NewYorkYankee]

True

[ZippyTheChimp]

Bloomberg and his administration actually killed the Office Tower, the Board wanted it to be lowered in height. Bloomberg only wants to develop the Far West side for his stupid Olympic bid and would rather Lower Manhattan just become a residential district. If you went back to the 1980's and said to some that in 20 year more people would live below Chambers Street then work, you'd be called crazy, its a dahm shame what's happened Down there. Working here in Midtown having uses to work there makes it even more sad for me
Do some research on the history of business exodus from Lower Manhattan.

[kliq6]

I work for Citigroup, i have all the history i need

[ZippyTheChimp]

OK, but what's your analysis of what happened to downtown business?

I think you're going to have to go back further than the 80s for an accurate picture.

[kliq6]

What happened to downtown is very simple, in the 1960's firms, as employees moved more and more to the suburbs started to relocate and locate there firms in Midtown, closer to Suburban commuting facilities based on closeness to transportation and because Downtown had no available spaces. To try and buck that they built the WTC complex to revitalize the whole westside of the Financial district that was lacking adequate space already on the eastern side, thus also helping the exodus to Midtown gain further and also the WFC, thus creating a River to rive financial district.

However in the 1980's as the financial industry became a more technologically driven industry, many of the older building in downtown became outdated and there was lack of space to build anything new. Thus again the tide of business moving to Midtown started up again, but this time the business also started moving out to Jersey and many other places as lack of space, higher construction costs and other factors became involved.

So facing this exodus what did the city and the State do, NOTHING. Instead of promoting the renovation/demolition of outdated offices in Lower Manhattan and encourage the development of new spaces, they provided no incentive for firms to stay there, so they moved out and built office in Midtown were these incentive were given. Thus all the older buildings have bees converted.

If i missed anythign let me know

[ZippyTheChimp]

During most of the 20th century, although dominated by financial market employment, Lower Manhattan had a more diverse business community than it now has. Port of New York shipping was still dominant. Piers 1-20 (now BPC) were mainly food import/export piers, which served Washington Market (now Tribeca). This was the main food processing center for NYC before the move to Hunt’s Point. The wholesale textile industry was centered at Worth St (Textile Building on Leonard St).

After WWII these industries began to decline and eventually disappeared from Lower Manhattan. But other things were happening. Postwar economic boom, and returning servicemen began moving to suburbs (Levittown). Inner cities were increasingly viewed as not the ideal environment. As flight continued, supporting areas around CBDs began to decay, but businesses still needed them to centralize a workforce.

What changed were the places business searched for employee talent. There was little interest in attracting people from inner city neighborhoods – the focus was the suburbs, so the need was commuter transportation. There was also the need to dispel the perception of the dangerous city.

Lower Manhattan was at a disadvantage to Midtown on both counts. Midtown had direct links to Long Island and Westchester. Although crime was a citywide problem, Midtown still had amenities that projected the glamorous city. (Think about the 1950s and 60s films about people coming to New York to make it in the big city.Were they located on Wall St or Park Ave? Downtown, on the other hand, emptied after dark.

And I mean EMPTY. With no one living there and most workers gone home, it was an eerie and (perceived) dangerous place. If you think Lower Manhattan is a little desolate at night now, you should have seen it in the 70s. At the time, I worked on Worth St, and frequently worked late. A daughter of neighbors of my parents got a job with Merrill Lynch and sometimes had to stay after market close. Her parents were terrified, and asked me on days when I worked late, if I would accompany her home.

For a business either contemplating leasing or building new space, the considerations are not just the quality of the space and the price, but the ability to attract employees. Everything else being equal, Company A in Midtown would have a distinct advantage over Company B in Lower Manhattan.

The trend in loss of business never really stopped, but was masked by increases in rent. It wasn’t so much that companies could not find space in Lower Manhattan, but that the demand to build the space was in Midtown.

One of Lower Manhattan’s problems began to change in the 80s – the perception of the neighborhood, and that was the result of the influx of residents to Tribeca, BPC, and the Financial District. When Merrill Lynch vacated 1 Liberty Plaza, they considered moving across the Hudson (they took space at 101 Hudson in JC). Instead they moved into two towers of the WFC. The neighborhood had amenities. One of the positives of the WTC beside the office space, was the retail mall and the PATH hub. It attracted workers from suburbs in New Jersey.

In a 2002 report Rebuilding Lower Manhattan for the Creative Age author Richard Florida (Economic Development professor at Carnegie Melon) writes about the importance of neighborhood amenities in attracting what he defines as the Creative Class of workers.
Consumer activities and amenities are an important part of the mix. Lower Manhattan
must be seen as a center for consumption as well as production. As shown in research by the
economist Edward Glaeser and the sociologists Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark, the
new city is becoming defined more and more as a city of consumption, experiences, lifestyle
and entertainment: creative workers “increasingly act like tourists in their own city,” write
Lloyd and Clark. This means thinking of Lower Manhattan as a diverse, integrated live-worklearn-
play community where the distinctions between them all begin to blur. Retail is part of
this strategy as is lifestyle in general.


In my opinion, focusing on Lower Manhattan as the center of finance to the exclusion of everything else is old-thinking and dangerous. As electronic trading began in the late 60s, the need for firms to be physically near Wall St has diminished. Wall St doesn’t need to be on Wall St. These firms could move out in the blink of an eye.

It’s time for Lower Manhattan to confront the 21st Century.

[kliq6]

DON'T get me wrong I agree Zippy, but the general feeling of business is that the city no longer wants the Financial district to have any business, thus every city owned site, like 5-B and 5-C that are large and would be able to hold large floor plates, as well as the city okaying every single conversion, even in some building that are borderline class A and currently have tenants that are forced to move out.

Do you feel this is a misinterpretation? How long will it be till there is no business promotion in Lower Manhattan

[ZippyTheChimp]

Where we differ is in the cause of business leaving Lower Manhattan, and what is keeping that business from returning. Your view is that residential pressure and city policy in that direction play a major role. I don’t think that was ever the case, although it is not quite as easy for business to move back as it was 20 years ago.

Sites 5b and 5c are the only city-owned vacant land Downtown. They were cleared in the 60s, and were always available for development. The school wasn’t there, neither was the St John’s building. The residential buildings across Greenwich St were boarded-up tenements that could have been acquired for a song. The present situation at sites 5b and 5c is the result of market conditions, not city or community policy. The CBs have no decision-making power; they can only make recommendations. The city was set to approve the project, if Minskoff had an anchor tenant.

Sites were available along Broadway near Fulton St.

Residential population in the Financial District was very low before 1990. One of the first conversions was Sinclair Oil in 1981. Excluding Tribeca and BPC, Financial District population began to significantly grow in the mid 90s. At that time, the vacancy rate for class-B office space downtown was over 25%. I know that commercial tenants are being evicted from some of these buildings, but if they were occupied to the point of reasonable profitability, I don’t think they would be undergoing costly renovations – especially landmarked buildings.

If the sentiment of business is that it is being squeezed out of Lower Manhattan, why is there no long line at Silverstein’s door? If and when these buildings come on line, we’ll see if they are really interested.

At any rate, so far I am happy at the direction Lower Manhattan has taken – assuming the infrastructure improvements are made. Although the loss of business is troubling, I am more concerned with the lack of NEW businesses to New York City in general. Of all the new industries that have grown in the last 30 years, how many have developed in New York? All the Manhattan corporate giants were once start-up companies. That’s where real growth is. An example was given in the report I previously mentioned – Detroit and Seattle.
Seattle and Detroit. Both have major research universities. Thirty years ago, both had dominant industries — aerospace in Seattle, the automotive industry in Detroit — that were very technically sophisticated, but mature and non-growing. Since then, Seattle has enjoyed new growth in a host of industries that didn’t even exist 30 years ago — from software production, biotechnology and Internet services to coffee house chains — while Detroit has been notoriously unable to generate much of anything new.

The author goes on to explain that places like Seattle have created environments that attract creative people, with new ideas. There should be no reason why the two guys that turned a university project into Goggle couldn’t have done it in a garage in LIC.


From Downtown Express

Whole Food hopes for Tribeca tower

By Ronda Kaysen

Whole Foods Market, the high-end grocery store that has New Yorkers salivating for sushi grade tuna and calamata olive bread, may soon plant itself on Greenwich St.


When plans for a 1 million sq. ft. development on Site 5B in Tribeca were unveiled at a Jan. 5th public scoping session, the familiar green Whole Foods Market awning was sketched into the Skidmore, Owens & Merrill-designed illustrations.

“There is a very good chance that we’ll get a Whole Foods,” Ben McGrath, C.F.O. to Minskoff Equities Inc., the site’s developer, told Downtown Express. “We’ll know for certain in the next month or so.”

Whole Foods is less committal about the possibility. “We don’t have anything finalized yet,” said Angela Rakis, a spokesperson for Whole Foods Market, in a telephone interview. “We’re always looking at new locations.”

Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff and City Councilmember Alan Gerson signed a deal in September giving developer Edward Minskoff the go ahead to build on the city-owned undeveloped site at 270 Greenwich St. At the time, Gerson said Minskoff indicated he had hopes for a 170,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods Market, but the councilmember did not know how likely the chances were. Part of the agreement requires Minskoff to make his best efforts to secure a large grocery store for the space, which will lie on the Greenwich St. side of the development.

The Economic Development Corporation-led public scoping session for the site bounded by West, Murray, Greenwich and Warren Sts., opened the public comment period for the project’s environmental review process. The comment period will end on Jan. 18th at 5 p.m.

In addition to a possible Whole Foods Market, the developer revealed other details for the site. Residents will enter the building’s condo tower, which may increase in height to 382 ft., on Warren St. According to Chris Cooper, an S.O.M. architect on the project, the increase in height will not affect the tower’s square footage.

A separate Warren St. entrance, closer to Greenwich St., will be reserved for the townhouse properties. Most of the retail space will be located on the bottom two floors beneath the townhouses, separated by a garden terrace, and along Greenwich St. Additional retail space is located at the corner of West and Warren Sts. Rental tenants will enter the building from Murray St.

“The proposal departs from some of the aspects of the agreement,” said Robert Davis, a lawyer for Minskoff, at the session.

The main point of community concern, voiced by various members of the public, was the proposed 64-foot height increase along the Warren St. side of the site, across the street from P.S. 234. According to the agreement, any stray from the 70-foot street wall would require C.B. 1 and city approval. In exchange for an increase in height, Minskoff would contribute money to the planned community center at 5C, where construction is expected to begin in several months.

“It would be a substantial amount of money,” said McGrath, estimating a contribution of anywhere from $1 million to $10 million. The exact number will have to be worked out with the city, he said. “We would love to be able to find that number.”

George Olsen, a member of C.B. 1, found the height increase problematic because of the effects of the added shadows. “This is excessive,” he said at the session. “I believe there are reasonable alternatives to this.” Olsen also voiced concern about increased traffic on Warren St., a concern echoed by Kevin Doherty, a Tribeca resident.

The long term construction project, not just at 270 Greenwich St., but also at neighboring Site 5C and at the new World Trade Center — part of which will be designed by S.O.M — concerned Kevin Fisher, president of P.S. 234’s P.T.A. “We have a perfect storm of construction in the area,” he said at the session. “The 720 children of P.S. 234 will be living through four or five years of major construction. There’s going to be dust and incredible amounts of noise. One wonders whether some analysis of the structural effects on the school should be looked at as well.”

Albert Capsouto, chairperson of C.B. 1’s Tribeca Committee, did not make a formal comment at the session, but was pleased to see that the plan did not call for a Floor Area Ratio increase. All other conflicts between the developer and the community, he said, could be resolved. “There are ways of addressing the school’s concerns and the developers concerns either through architectural or schematic ways of dealing with Warren St.,” he said. The Warren St. changes will need C.B. 1 approval to go forward.

For years, neighbors have been objecting to various tower proposals for Sites 5B and 5C, with some more concerned about the shadow effects to Washington Market Park and P.S. 234 and others focused on increasing the size of the rec center. Minskoff’s proposed change could reopen this debate over competing concerns.

Public comments can be mailed to Marilyn Lee, New York City Economic Development Corporation, 110 Williams St., 10038, or faxed to 212-312-3989 before 5 p.m. on Jan. 18th.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_87/plan.gif

Ronda@DowntownExpress.com

Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.

Downtown Express
487 Greenwich St.,
Suite 6A | New York, NY 10013

Email: josh@downtownexpress.com

Email: news@downtownexpress.com

Site plan info, clockwise from upper left:
382 ft condo tower - retail at street
134 ft townhouses - retail at street
Supermarket, retail
139 ft rental building.

[kliq6]

A quote from a guy involved with lower manhattan develop, again making my point that this site should have been commercial and it was Bloomberg not the area boards that killed this. This guy is not pro-business at all


(T)he city wants to oust Edward J. Minskoff, whom it chose in April 2001 to develop a 600-foot commercial building, and find a new developer for what could be an even taller residential tower.
In pushing for a new central business district on the far west side, the City administration is saying in effect that developable sites in midtown and downtown are nearly gone. Yet here the City is removing a prime downtown site from commercial development. The Minskoff tower would have added 1.5 million square feet of Class A office space.

The effort to create a 24-hour downtown is long overdue, and there are many old buildings and small parcels where residential development will work well. But the Minskoff site can accomodate large floor plates that modern office towers require. It should be left for that purpose, even if it has to be land-banked until the market is ready.

The City hasn't fully explained why it wants to swap the airports for the WTC site. Is it possible that they wish to eliminate downtown commercial sites that would compete with their proposed West Side office district?

[ZippyTheChimp]

When was this statement made? It seems tied to the airport-WTC land swap, which fueled suspicions that the city wanted to remove commercial development from the WTC. But that didn't happen.

So with 7 WTC coming on line, the WTC getting most or all of its commercial space replaced, Goldman Sachs moving into a new building and creating more vacancy in their existing property, continued development in Midtown, and future Westside development - how long should the city have deferred any tax revenue from the property by land-banking?

[kliq6]

I don't want to be the only one to say this but did anyone ever think the reason that know one is moving into the WTC towers is because they don't want to be on a graveyard???????????

A for Goldman, the West street tunnel has become such an issue to the firm, they are ready to abandon there plans, as told to me be a person who works at the architectural firm. Why should they care, they have a 2 million sf building 10 minutes away waiting for them.

Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better

[TonyO]

I don't want to be the only one to say this but did anyone ever think the reason that know one is moving into the WTC towers is because they don't want to be on a graveyard???????????

A for Goldman, the West street tunnel has become such an issue to the firm, they are ready to abandon there plans, as told to me be a person who works at the architectural firm. Why should they care, they have a 2 million sf building 10 minutes away waiting for them.

Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better

Downtown is not dead. The WTC buildings are paid for entirely from insurance proceeds unlike other projects which need tenants to receive financing. They have hired CBRE to lease them and have been reported in final negotiations with more than one client.

Goldman's own employees are part of the reason why they are going to build in Manhattan. They want to work here. Hearsay doesn't cut it, if you have a source quote them.

[kliq6]

Silverstein only got funding to build Seven and Freedom Tower and has only one half, $400 million of the $800 million plus. SO far no tenants are lined up for Seven or Freedom Tower, but even i will give it time. Fact is that if they don't get tenants, with the city already giving the Liberty Bonds to Commercial Projects in Midtown and Conversion Residential projects in lower Manhattan, there is just no money.

And I don't know who you work for but in most companies, they don't take a poll and ask were employees want to work, if the firm wants to move or relocate jobs they do it, money and profit motivate business, not employee opinions.

Plus I have quotes from a employee of a firm that designed the Goldman project, cant give out a name based on his signing a confidentiality agreement and thus I could put his job in jeopardy.

Its okay to admit that Lower Manhattan futures is as aresidential districtr, but its not okay to fool yourself into thinking that it is a relative place to do businees, its just not anymore.

[TonyO]

I suggest you read the Goldman and the 30 Hudson St. threads. There are several articles that highlight the company's intentions.

As far as downtown being residential only, that's just not a realistic statement. It's in the top few largest business districts in the country.

[kliq6]

Tonyo, i dont want to argue but fact is fact. It may still be a top businees dirrict but that not wear its heading. Over 40 million sf of office space has been converted to residential. There are not many spaces left for large office construction as well. Large firms left and right are leaving the dowtown area for Midtown and Jersey, its just fact. The trade center will probally fail as well. Coming from a person that went to college and started my career in lower manhattan, ive seen enough to know, plus i work in finance, so i know more abotu the dowtwon exodus then anyone.

Wee do you live and work Tonyo?

[ZippyTheChimp]

You've contradicted your own argument that sites 5b and 5c should be developed commercially with...
Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better
Why would you want to build something that is doomed to fail?

And I don't know who you work for but in most companies, they don't take a poll and ask were employees want to work, if the firm wants to move or relocate jobs they do it, money and profit motivate business, not employee opinions.
That is outmoded thinking. Why do companies bother with the expense of putting up buildings? Obviously to fill them with employees. As I stated a few posts back, business moved to Midtown (long before residents moved in) to reach employees in the suburbs.

Change has been occurring over the last decade or so that has implications (good or bad) for the city.

1. People have become increasingly more mobile. If they don't like a place, they leave. Lifestyle is important.

2. Business has become more mobile. Telecommuting, virtual offices - companies are not tied down to centralized locations.

This sounds like bad news for urban centers. But many people are becoming dissatisfied with surburban life, and the increasingly longer commutes as these areas become more dense. Cities are becoming more and more popular as preferred places to live. Anyone who reads the real estate threads in this forum knows that.

A quote from a speech by HP CEO Carly Fiorina at a governors' conference:
“Keep your tax and
financial incentives, we will go where the highly skilled people are.”

[kliq6]

Im done arguing about Lower Manhattan, im working on bonding issues for the Far West Side at work now, so anyone that thinks Downtown is as important as Midtown, ill let have that opinion. I don't like arguing a pointless topic. Its been fun however zippy, good to have different ideas all around.

Maybe in Ten years we can see who was right or wrong

[billyblancoNYC]

New Whole Foods Tied to Height of Proposed Building
http://tribecatrib.com/

by Etta Sanders

Downtown residents have long craved new food stores. But whether a 55,000 square foot Whole Foods supermarket opens on Warren Street may depend upon the height of the building that rises above it.

A rendering of the 370-foot residential tower at West and Warren Streets on Site 5B. Rendering: Skidmore Owings & Merrill/The Tribeca Trib

That building, a part of the development of the lot bordered by Warren, West, Murray and Greenwich Streets known as Site 5B, was limited to a height of 70 feet in a September 2004 agreement between the city and Councilman Alan Gerson.

The site’s developer, Minskoff Equities, now says that a supermarket would only be financially viable if the height of the Warren Street building were increased to nearly 135 feet to allow for the creation of 48 condominium townhouses.


”Using all of that ground-floor space for Whole Foods is less economically attractive to the developer than breaking it up into small stores along Warren Street, so there’s a cost of having Whole Foods in place,” said Benjamin McGrath, CFO of Minskoff Equities. “Having the additional apartment space above does help the economics of the project.”

Raising the height of the building could also give a funding boost to a community center that will be part of another new residential building on a lot behind P.S. 234. In the September agreement, the city promises to contribute one-third of the increased proceeds from the sale of the property if Community Board 1 approves a taller building. According to both the developer and Gerson, that would mean more than $1 million for Manhattan Youth, which will run the center.

But some neighborhood parents say that if the building casts shadows on P.S. 234 and Washington Market Park it would be too high a price to pay. Many classrooms, the cafeteria and the school’s library have windows that face Warren Street.

At a public “scoping” session on Jan. 5 to determine what will be examined in a required environment impact statement (EIS) before the development can move forward, George Olsen, former P.S. 234 PTA president and a CB1 member, called the 135-foot height “excessive” and urged that the city and CB1 consider, “all reasonable alternatives without sacrificing the needs of the developer, but keeping the concerns of PS 234 for light and air in mind.”

McGrath, and the project's architect, Chris Cooper of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, said the current design will have less of a shadow impact on the school than the original plan. The 135-foot building will have setbacks at 46 feet and 112 feet, and by moving some apartments to Warren Street they were able to reduce the height of another building at Murray and Greenwich Streets.

Community residents also told the Economic Development Corporation, which held the session, to carefully consider the effects of increased traffic, noise and air pollution during the simultaneous construction of several new buildings, as well as crowding once the proposed 420 new apartments are occupied.

“The 720 children at P.S. 234 are going to be living through what I expect will be four or five years of major construction adjacent to their school. During that period there’s going to be dust and incredible amounts of noise and vibrations,” Kevin Fisher, P.S. 234 PTA president said at the scoping session.
A Whole Foods, opposite P.S. 234, may be part of the 5B complex. Rendering: Skidmore Owings & Merrill/The Tribeca Trib

Fisher also said that relying on apartment size to estimate the number of children who will be living in the new residential buildings near the school could be a mistake. “People will live in studio and one-bedroom apartments for a good school,” said Fisher.

Wils said the community board would consider the project after the EIS has been issued. A new supermarket is a "very important" part of the development, she said, but admitted that there may be no way to ensure that Minskoff will lease to a supermarket even if the height increase is approved.

After the session, McGrath said the deal could fall through if there are delays because Whole Foods is on a tight schedule to find new locations. And in the September agreement Minskoff promised only to "make reasonable best efforts to find a quality supermarket tenant provided that the space is ready to be occupied by 2006."

[Stern]

MINSKOFF WOOS FOODIE FAVE

By LOIS WEISS

Edward J. Minskoff told Professional Women in Construction yesterday he is in "serious discussions" with Whole Foods for 55,000 square feet on the street level of his new downtown residential project.

"This is the best retail residential site in lower Manhattan today," he said.

"This will be the nicest apartment building in New York, trust me. The marketing people call it 'Wholesome Living.' "

The downtown property is bounded by West, Warren, Murray and Washington streets. A previous design for an office tower was scrapped after 9/11.

During a developers' panel at the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen, Minskoff said there will be a luxury 382-foot condo tower on the West St. corner with 180 units that will have clear views over P.S. 234.

The Warren Street side will have 44-condo townhomes above three stories of retail. There will also be 162 market rate and "affordable" rentals in a shorter tower along Greenwich and Murray streets.

The project is being designed by Skidmore Ownings Merrill.

[Stern]

Tribeca Tribune:

http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/mar05/5b-architect.jpg

'5B' Developer Seeks Local Support

by Carl Glassman

After some 15 years of opposing one project after another proposed for the city-owned lot known as Site 5B, Community Board 1 seems poised to give its blessing to a residential-retail complex that will put hundreds of apartments and two levels of retail shops across the street from P.S. 234

The board will not take an official position on the development, planned for the block bordered by Greenwich, Warren, West and Murray Streets, until an environmental impact study is issued and a city-mandated land-use review process is begun. But most members of the Tribeca Committee, which last month was given its first detailed presentation on the one million-square-foot project, seemed persuaded that this was the best development plan that they could expect.

"At the end of the day we found there was a design that was more in line with the context of the neighborhood and would lead to additional benefits to the community," said CB1 chairwoman Madelyn Wils who was involved in negotians with the developer, Minskoff Equities, Inc.

Minskoff proposes rental apartment buildings on Greenwich Street and Murray Street, condominium townhouses on Warren Street and a condominium tower on West Street. Two floors of retail would occupy the entire perimeter of the site.

Last September, the Bloomberg administration reached an agreement with City Councilman Alan Gerson on the placement and maximum height of buildings on the site, including a 70-foot-tall building across the street from P.S. 234. Seeking to raise that allowable height to nearly 135 feet, to make room for 48 more condominium townhouses, Minskoff representatives appeared before the CB1 committee to explain their revised plans.

They presented shadow studies in hopes of persuading the committee that the new design would not have a greater overall impact on P.S. 234. In fact, the studies showed less shadow cast over the school during morning hours. In the afternoon the school would be so eclipsed by the planned Goldman Sachs headquarters in Battery Park City and the Freedom Tower on the World Trade Center site that the impact from the Site 5B structures would be insignificant, said Minskoff CFO Benjamin McGrath.

The height of the condominium tower on West Street would also increase, from 370 feet in the earlier proposal to 382 feet. But what had been planned as a 200-foot-tall building at the corner of Murray and Greenwich Street would be reduced by half.

"They dealt with it in a very smart way," said board member George Olsen, former president of the P.S. 234 PTA who earlier had expressed grave concerns about the higher building looming over the school.

If the board accepts the revisions, Minskoff is expected to contribute more than $1 million towards the community center planned for a new residential tower across the street on Site 5C, on the west side of P.S. 234. A Whole Foods store at Greenwich and Warren Streets in the Minskoff complex also appears likely to be part of the deal.

In January, McGrath told the Trib that leasing to the grocery would be "less economically attractive" if the developer can not create the additional townhouses on Warren Street.

When pressed about that statement by a board member last month, McGrath sidestepped the question of a tradeoff for the food store but said a decision had to be made soon.

"[Whole Foods] said to us, 'We ain't waiting around for this deal,'" McGrath told the committee. "In other words, if we can't demonstrate that we can deliver to them within a certain time period then they'll pull the plug."

For years, the operator of the parking lot on Site 5B has paid the maintenance costs for nearby Washington Market Park-now $46,000 a month-in lieu of taxes. Once Minskoff takes over the site the developer will be required to continue supporting the upkeep of the park. But how much he will pay and other details of of the arrangement remain unclear.

Alex Adams, a vice-president for the city's Economic Development Corp., told the committee that the city "fully intends" to make sure the allocation to the park is met. "Exactly how we do it remains to be seen," he said. "It's one of those things that was simple in concept and difficult to actually execute."

The new Minskoff complex, together with the residential tower to go up next to P.S. 234 on Site 5C, will transform the landscape around P.S. 234. Minskoff's design, presented by its architect Chris Cooper of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, received mixed reviews by the committee, and several members requested a separate meeting on the design.

"The surface architecture on such an enormous site is so ordinary," said committee member Bruce Ehrmann. "It looks like a mediocre high-rise midtown street as opposed to our Downtown low-rise."

Eric Anderson, an architect on the community board, was more positive. But he, too, expressed reservations. "I think it's an attractive building but
it's got an institutional character to it. The building has the look of a modernist past period and maybe that's fine. But I think it's worth discussing."

Whatever misgivings the committee may have about the design, most members expressed support for the overall plan. That is a dramatic change from the battles that have ensued during the past 15 years over abandoned tower proposals by long-defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert, the Commodities and Mercantile Exchanges, and the Cotton, Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa exchanges.

In October 2002, Anna Switzer, then P.S. 234's principal, and local elected officials stood outside the school to protest a 600-foot-tall office tower proposed by Edward Minskoff himself. "Stop the Minskoff Tower: Save Tribeca and Save P.S. 234." read a big banner hung on the school's fence.

[sfenn1117]

I walked past the 5C lot I think it is (Chambers St, behind the school, accross from the community college). I was wondering what was going on there. Fences are up surronding the lot (The ones that go up on construction sites). These are awesome lots and something great needs to be built on them. I would be disappointed by something ~130 feet high.


So has construction actually begun?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Construction has begun on site 5C. There is a thread for that site.

[sfenn1117]

Thank you. It said construction began Feb 1st. The area really isn't too lowrise.....BPC has a lot of hi-rises after all. It's good for the neighborhood, better than an empty decaying lot.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Tribeca tower gets nod from C.B. 1
By Josh Rogers


Developer Edward Minskoff moved one step closer to building a million square foot residential complex and Whole Foods Market in Tribeca by winning approval of a Community Board 1 committee last Thursday.


Under an agreement signed by Councilmember Alan Gerson and Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff in September, the community board has the rare power to veto the current proposal at Greenwich, Murray, Warren and West Sts., but Albert Capsouto, chairperson of C.B. 1’s Tribeca Committee, said there are so many positive components to the agreement, that the committee was not inclined to ask for more from Minskoff. The full board is expected to vote on the plan May 17.


The developer agreed to kick in an additional $1 million for a community recreation center being built across the street behind P.S.234. When Minskoff looked to make changes to the proposed buildings on the parking lot known as Site 5B, it obligated him to invest $2 million to help pay for the center and gave the C.B. 1 the power to veto the changes.


“Ed Minskoff has met his obligations to the community,” Madelyn Wils, former C.B. 1 chairperson who helped negotiate the agreement, said at last week’s meeting. “He’s changed this entire plan to meet the community’s plan. He’s done more than most developers would have done and I think he deserves to have this go through in a timely manner.”


Minskoff agreed to reduce the height of the buildings closer to their residential Tribeca neighbors and shifted height to the tallest tower on West and Warren Sts. from 370 to 382 feet. The Greenwich St. building has been reduced from 138 feet to 101 and the one on Murray St. from 200 feet to 139.


The lone voice of dissent at the meeting was board member Paul Sipos who said, “It’s going to be so overwhelmingly large it’s going to change the whole [complexion] of this part of the neighborhood.”


Beth Terrell, a Tribeca mother, said a community center for teens is essential particularly since they can no longer spend time in the World Trade Center shopping center. “For older teenagers we lost our mall,” she said. “We’ve got teenagers that have no place to go.”


The community center will be run by Manhattan Youth.


The project is expected to be approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council over the summer and construction is expected to begin in September.


The developer had hoped for approval earlier so pile driving could begin over the summer and not be too disruptive to P.S. 234 but they could not get it scheduled before City Planning, Wils said. Carlos Olivieri, Minskoff’s vice president of construction, said because the soil conditions are worse at Site 5B than the development site across the street, they will have to do drive 800 to 850 piles rather than implementing the less noisy methods being used across the street.


Minskoff has also agreed to pay $7.5 million into a Parks Dept. trust fund for Washington Market Park. A spokesperson for Minskoff said the developer will pay money into the park fund regardless of whether C.B. 1 approves the changes to the project.


The Doctoroff-Gerson letter also provides for the rec center and a public school annex next to P.S. 234, and it led to the agreement to build a K-8 school on Beekman St. Capsouto said given the addition of school and community space, park and rec center money, and the fact that Minskoff was not looking to increase the overall size of the project, it is a good deal for the neighborhood.


The project includes 230 condos and 162 rental apartments. Of the rentals, half will below market rate, with 60 percent of the 81 apartments set aside for moderate income apartments and 40 percent for low income. Subsidies for this are likely to come from a $50-million fund the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation identified in 2003. Originally, 300 affordable units were to be built on the Minskoff site, but Doctoroff announced last September that some of the money will be used to preserve affordable apartments in Lower Manhattan and the city is expected to release a plan for this money in a few months.


The city’s Economic Development Corp. announced in April 2001 that they would sell the lot to Minskoff to build a 32-story office tower and over the years the project’s height and prospects have risen and fallen before settling on a 382 foot apartment building. After the committee vote, Ben McGrath, Minskoff’s chief financial officer, said it took a long time and a lot of negotiations but he was happy that the project was nearing the construction point.


“I’m relieved,” he said. “We’ve made extraordinary efforts with community leaders.”

Josh@DowntownExpress.com

There are drilling rigs on the site making test borings.

[Stern]

New York Mag.:

A Tribeca school fights developers for its place in the sun; kids “perform better” in natural light.

By Will Doig

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/shadowstudies050620_400.jpg
(Photo credit: Pak Fung Wong)

Tribeca’s BoBo parents aren’t about to let their kids’ intellectual development be stunted by a lack of sunlight. So when developer Edward Minskoff announced plans for a nineteen-story tower just south of P.S. 234, the coveted three-story brick schoolhouse on Greenwich, they fought back. City Councilman Alan Gerson got Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff to make the developer commission a “shadow study” indicating “no negative impacts” on P.S. 234’s classrooms. They’re “delightfully sunny,” explains principal Sandy Bridges.

Though shadow studies are occasionally launched in response to community pressure (Woody Allen–led shadow protests have stymied developers in Carnegie Hill), Minskoff Equities CFO Ben McGrath says, “99 percent are concerned with the impact on open space,” not a building.

“It was a lot of work to produce this study,” he adds. Not to mention to redesign the building after calculating how the sun’s angles would strike the school hour-by-hour on March 21 and September 21—the midpoints between high summer and low winter. Using this as a guide, Minskoff added setbacks, allowing light to reach the classrooms during most of the school day.

The solar coup is state-of-the-art education theory. “Schoolchildren perform better in buildings with diffuse daylight,” says architect Lisa Heschong, who has studied the effects of natural light on 9,000 students.

Still, P.S. 234 isn’t out of the shade yet. With Minskoff’s building currently in the approval process, developer Scott Resnick recently broke ground for a nearby 300-foot tower. Bridges seems resigned. “Tribeca,” she says, and sighs. “I remember when it was like an empty field of heather.”

-----------------------------------------------
I'll restrain myself.

[billyblancoNYC]

New York Mag.:

A Tribeca school fights developers for its place in the sun; kids “perform better” in natural light.

By Will Doig

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/shadowstudies050620_400.jpg
(Photo credit: Pak Fung Wong)

Tribeca’s BoBo parents aren’t about to let their kids’ intellectual development be stunted by a lack of sunlight. So when developer Edward Minskoff announced plans for a nineteen-story tower just south of P.S. 234, the coveted three-story brick schoolhouse on Greenwich, they fought back. City Councilman Alan Gerson got Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff to make the developer commission a “shadow study” indicating “no negative impacts” on P.S. 234’s classrooms. They’re “delightfully sunny,” explains principal Sandy Bridges.

Though shadow studies are occasionally launched in response to community pressure (Woody Allen–led shadow protests have stymied developers in Carnegie Hill), Minskoff Equities CFO Ben McGrath says, “99 percent are concerned with the impact on open space,” not a building.

“It was a lot of work to produce this study,” he adds. Not to mention to redesign the building after calculating how the sun’s angles would strike the school hour-by-hour on March 21 and September 21—the midpoints between high summer and low winter. Using this as a guide, Minskoff added setbacks, allowing light to reach the classrooms during most of the school day.

The solar coup is state-of-the-art education theory. “Schoolchildren perform better in buildings with diffuse daylight,” says architect Lisa Heschong, who has studied the effects of natural light on 9,000 students.

Still, P.S. 234 isn’t out of the shade yet. With Minskoff’s building currently in the approval process, developer Scott Resnick recently broke ground for a nearby 300-foot tower. Bridges seems resigned. “Tribeca,” she says, and sighs. “I remember when it was like an empty field of heather.”

-----------------------------------------------
I'll restrain myself.


Wow, this jerk-off must be in her early 200s. Did she look good...had some work done, I suppose.

[lofter1]

Truth be told you really only have to go back about 20 years to remember when there was just an expanse of sand where Battery Park City & WFC now stand.

And up until 1990 (aside from some early homesteaders) lots people went to Tribeca only for the wild club scene (Area, etc.).

[lofter1]

To jog your memories, here's a couple of photos from 1984 of northern BPC.

This is an installation called "Freedom of Expression" from Creative Time's "Art on the Beach". Back then BPC was a almost literally a beach -- acres of sand. (This piece was recently re-installed in Foley Plaza.)

http://www.creativetime.org/programs/archive/1984/Art_Beach6/Art_Beach6.htm


http://www.creativetime.org/programs/archive/1984/Art_Beach6/ArtBeach8.jpg


NJ in the background...
http://www.creativetime.org/programs/archive/1984/Art_Beach6/ArtBeach3.jpg

[billyblancoNYC]

Well, sortof, but TriBeCa has been a major hub of activity for many years now, and surely wasn't field-like.

[sfenn1117]

It may once have been low-rise, but then BPC was built up, and those 3 big apartment towers north of Chambers Street, that office building with the terraced roofs north of 7WTC. These sites could certainly handle buildings of significant height (~500 ft?). Instead they've been nimbyfied.

BTW is site 5c out of the ground yet?

[ZippyTheChimp]

If you check the history of the area, the city owned sites 5b and 5c were cleared for development, but they never followed through. Gradually, the park was built, then the school, and the residential buildings along the east side of Greenwich. By the time the city realized the value of the property and tried to peddle it to the highest bidder, the area had turned residential and it was too late.

There has been test drilling all over the site the past few weeks. The area is landfill, similar to the WTC.

[pianoman11686]

From http://cityrealty.com:

City Planning Commission reviews plans for 270 Greenwich Street 13-JUL-05

Six years ago, the city designated Edward J. Minskoff Equities to build a 1-million sq. ft. office tower in the Washington Market Urban Renewal District to the north of the World Trade Center site. Shortly before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the plans were revised to use the site for housing. After negotiations with the community, plans were recently scaled back and today the City Planning Commission closed its public hearing on the proposal, which now calls for a 32-story condominium apartment tower and a lower rental apartment tower on a two-story podium that will contain a 55,000-sq. ft. Whole Foods store.

The plan calls for 230 condominium apartments and 132 rental apartments. Half of the rental units will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

About 180 of the condominium units will be in the tower at the corner of West and Warren Streets, just to the south of another new condo tower at 200 Chambers Street. The rest of the condos will be in an adjacent mid-rise structure on Warren Street and they will have loggias screened by two-story-high stone piers. The façade of the condo section of the development will have a checkerboard fenestration pattern and be faced with a sand-colored textured granite from India and the condos will have a fitness center and space and landscaped roof terrace designed by Thomas Balsey on the third floor on the roof of the two-story retail platform.

The rental units will be in another mid-rise structure with its own entrance that will rise six-stories (100 feet) along Greenwich Street and 10 stories (138 feet) along Murray Street.

The building will also have a garage for 400 cars. The developer will contribute $7.5 million for the maintenance of the Washington Market Park and another $3 million for a community center on an adjacent block.

[Jake]

The plan calls for 230 condominium apartments and 132 rental apartments. Half of the rental units will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

I never undersood the reasoning behind stuff like that, so you're gonna have "projects" on floors 1-?, then mid class people on 3-? and the rich folks on 6-?

"Look honey, that's where the poor people live"

This is so ridiculous, why don't we just put some hobos at One Chase Manhattan to show some diversity of income?

[macreator]

This is really a disappointment and quite shortsighted on the City's part. The demand for office space will come back and probably right around the time this building is completed but alas we'll be stuck with a mediocre Battery Park City-inspired blah apartment building.

[sfenn1117]

The world trade center will provide sooo much office space, we don't even know if there will be enough demand for it. Meanwhile I'm for these residentials, while I wish they may be taller and have better designs, Lower Manhattan continues to become a 24/7 community.

[Citytect]

I never undersood the reasoning behind stuff like that, so you're gonna have "projects" on floors 1-?, then mid class people on 3-? and the rich folks on 6-?
I believe the units are spread out throughout buildings like this and it is stipulated in receiving the incentives for provided mixed income housing that the units are all to be comparable - all of them, market-rate or not.

[tmg]

I never undersood the reasoning behind stuff like that, so you're gonna have "projects" on floors 1-?, then mid class people on 3-? and the rich folks on 6-?

"Look honey, that's where the poor people live"

This is so ridiculous, why don't we just put some hobos at One Chase Manhattan to show some diversity of income?

This is becoming a fundamental ethic of New York City, not seen in any other American city, as far as I know. Rich and poor live side by side. We no longer ghettoize the poor, and we no longer build exclusive enclaves for the rich. (Or at least we say we don't do these things). I think it is a wonderful urban ideal, something to be proud of.

As for it is carried out in practice, I imagine that the below-market-rate apartments might be smaller, and not have the same quality finishings (hardwood floors, granite counters, etc.) as the market rate apartments. But a mix of incomes will be represented in a building.

And by the way, don't think of this as simply a mix of rich and poor. These policies help also neighborhoods to have "lifecycle" diversity, i.e. single yuppies, families with children, and retirees all living together.

[BrooklynRider]

The world trade center will provide sooo much office space, we don't even know if there will be enough demand for it. Meanwhile I'm for these residentials, while I wish they may be taller and have better designs, Lower Manhattan continues to become a 24/7 community.

The rate at which older office stock is being absorbed for residential conversion offers no guarantee that the WTC will fill the future gap. This is going to do more to spur back-office moves to Jersey City and Brooklyn as the cheaper office stock dimishes.

[lofter1]

City Planning Commission reviews plans for 270 Greenwich Street 13-JUL-05

The plan calls for 230 condominium apartments and 132 rental apartments. Half of the rental units will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

Those figures add up to 462 residential units.

Documents from City Planning state that this building will contain "approximately 402 residential units".

( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/dispo/071305cal.pdf - Scroll down to "III. Public Hearings / Borough of Manhattan" and click on "Nos 24, 25 & 26" ).

[pianoman11686]

230 + 132 = 362

[lofter1]

230 + 132 = 362

Thanks pianoman ... what can I say, it's too darned hot to be doing math today!!

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.downtownexpress.com/


Gerson stalls Tribeca development

By Ronda Kaysen

City Councilmember Alan Gerson stalled a City Council vote last week on a Tribeca development, leaving the project’s future in doubt and setting the stage for a possible standoff between the mayor’s office and the City Council.

A dispute between developers of the Greenwich St. site and officials from P.S. 234, an elementary school located across the street, about construction noise was not resolved in time for a City Council vote on the project’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, a crucial step in authorizing the development.

Insisting a resolution must be hashed out before the development can move forward, Gerson delayed the vote until the Sept. 22 deadline. If an agreement is not reached, Gerson says he has the votes in the Council to reject the ULURP, a move that would derail the seven-month-long process, unless the mayor steps in and overrules the vote. The City Council would then have the power to veto the mayor’s decision by a 2/3 vote.

Developer Edward Minskoff has long maintained he intends to pile drive — a noisy excavation process — directly outside the school. With 65 of the school’s windows facing onto the construction site, parents and school officials balked at the possibility that their students might be subjected to as much as 12 weeks of mind numbing noise.

“Kids can’t go anywhere. Kids are essentially required to be in a classroom from 8:30 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon and that’s when they’re doing the pile driving,” said Kevin Doherty, president of the P.S. 234 P.T.A.

One proposed solution was to schedule the pile driving betw