Con Ed site on the East River

[MidtownGuy]

What an unfortunate lineup. The plan that created a plaza in the middle was better. I liked the "outdoor room" effect.

[...CREATE]

I also liked the Rem Koolhaas/OMA scheme for this site.

[NYguy]

http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/

Community Board 6 proposes changes in plans for Con Ed site

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1192220287_conedrivn.jpg

12-OCT-07

Community Board 8 approved a resolution Wednesday night that calls for a lot of changes in Sheldon H. Solow's plans to redevelop the Con Edison sites along First Avenue south of the United Nations.
The final text of the resolution is still be worked on and will probably not be finished for several more days.

The development, which requires numerous public approvals, consists of two separated parcels fronting on First Avenue between 35th and 41st Streets.

The larger of the two parcels is T-shaped and comprises about two-thirds of the block between 39th and 40th Streets on the west side of First Avenue, identified as 685 First Avenue, and the three blocks to the east of First Avenue between 38th and 41st Streets and the FDR Drive, the southern part identified as 700 First Avenue and the northern part identified as 708 First Avenue.

The 685 First Avenue development would consist of a 721-foot-tall, 69-story apartment building and the 700 First Avenue development would consist of three apartment buildings, a 705-foot-high, 66-story building, a 606-foot-high, 57-story building, and a 650-foot-high, 60-story building. The 708 First Avenue development, the northernmost, she continued, would be a 686-foot-high, 47-story office building with about 1.4 million square feet of office space.

The second "parcel" of the proposed Solow plan is identified as 616 First Avenue and consists of the full block bounded by 35th and 36th Streets east of First Avenue and would contain 827 residential units in a 506-foot-high, 47-story building and a 433-foot-high, 37-story building and a five-story "community facility" structure.

The project now calls for 4,166 residential units and 1.4-million square feet of office space and a 119,936-square community facility that might be used to house a new school.

The resolution passed by the board wants a considerably lower zoning for the site that would not permit buildings as tall as in the Solow plan, and that would not allow office space and would allow considerably fewer housing units.

Lou Sepersky, the chairman of the board's transportation committee, told Cityrealty.com today that the resolution will also ask that the project include an affordable housing component.

In addition, Mr. Sepersky said, the number of the project's parking units should be substantially reduced and limited to use by its residents. The proposed Solow plan, he said, runs counter to the efforts by the city to reduce traffic congestion in midtown.

Mr. Sepersky also said the board's resolution will urge that the project improve pedestrian walkways to the west where the Second Avenue Subway will eventually have a stop and an underground passageway that can connect with Grand Central Terminal.

The project's size will have a significant impact on the area's traffic, and Mr. Sepersky noted that First Avenue is one of five streets where the city plans, over the next few years, to introduce a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) system to improve traffic flow.

The board's resolution will also address environmental, public safety and community facilities concerns.

___________________________________

The resolution passed by the board wants a considerably lower zoning for the site that would not permit buildings as tall as in the Solow plan, and that would not allow office space and would allow considerably fewer housing units.

Solow should propose one, massive 10-story superstructure that covers the entire site, with no connections to the waterfront (except for development residents), but has half the residential units now planned and no office space.

These people make me want to pull my eyes out. The city pushes for massive, "exciting" plans for the waterfront on the west side railyards, with a new defining skyline element. Yet here, in an area of the city that screams for a skyline element, everything is constantly watered down. Thank god for the west side, the future of New York.

[MidtownGuy]

The area needs TALL exciting architecture. I hope this opportunity isn't wasted because of these SOBs!

[TonyO]

NY Times
November 5, 2007

Developer Would Include Low-Cost Units in East Side Towers

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

A developer seeking to build seven high-rise buildings on a former Con Ed property by the East River has agreed to set aside hundreds of apartments for poor and working-class tenants, as well as space for a school.

Community leaders and elected officials who negotiated with the developer, Sheldon H. Solow, planned to announce the agreement at a news conference today. The Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer, and the congresswoman who represents the area, Carolyn B. Maloney, described the concessions as a significant breakthrough, but concerns remain.

Mr. Solow bought the land, including the former Waterside steam plant, from Con Edison in 2000. He is seeking rezoning in the onetime industrial area for high-rise development. The property consists of three parcels along First Avenue south of 42nd Street.

The developer is proposing a project of 6.1 million square feet, which would include a 1.5-million-square-foot office tower and six residential towers with a total of 4,166 apartments. Designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill and by Richard Meier, the buildings would range from 47 to 69 stories. The tallest would be outside the rezoned area and not part of the agreement.

The proposal also calls for 1,554 parking spaces and for nearly five acres of green space accessible to the public.

Under the terms of the agreement, the rezoned parcels east of First Avenue would become part of the city’s “inclusionary housing area,” which requires the developer to permanently set aside 20 percent of the apartments, or in this case as many as 600 units, for low- and moderate-income families. The developer is also working with the city’s School Construction Authority to build a school for an estimated 650 students on the site.

Mr. Stringer, who is holding a public hearing on the project before the Manhattan Borough Board on Nov. 15, said the commitments from the developer were “major victories” and a testament to the community’s hard work and advocacy.

“This was one of the last great pieces of turf in Manhattan,” Representative Maloney said. “How it’s treated will affect the quality of life on the entire East Side.”

Daniel Garodnick, who represents the area on the City Council, said that because the neighborhood is already overcrowded, he would not have considered the rezoning without the affordable housing and the school. Ultimately, the project requires the approval of the Council.

Community Board 6, which covers the East Side, had developed its own rezoning plan for the land, but the Bloomberg administration put that plan aside in favor of the developer’s proposal. The board does not oppose development on the site so much as it is leery of Mr. Solow’s towering buildings in a neighborhood of 40-story structures. The board also wants 39th and 40th Streets east of First Avenue reopened to traffic; the city turned them over to Con Ed decades ago.

The community board, like the borough board, makes recommendations to the City Council.

The community board and the Municipal Art Society, a nonprofit urban design and planning group, have also called for the rebuilding of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive in the area to allow public access to the waterfront.

[investordude]

Have New York's politics become so distorted we view affordable housing as more important than reconnecting the city to the waterfront? Why not allow Solow to build all luxury buildings but also reconnect the city to the water if we're going to force him to subsidize something.

[alonzo-ny]

Miss Jane xiu will be pleased.

[NYguy]

Just when you thought it wouldn't get worse...
http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/

Solow agrees to affordable housing and a school at Con Ed site

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1194297254_conedaaaa.jpg

05-NOV-07

Elected officials and community leaders today announced commitments from the East River Realty Corporation for the inclusion of permanently affordable housing as well as dedicated space for a new public school at the company's proposed development on the site of the former Con Edison Waterside plant on First Avenue.

The announcement was made by Lyle Frank, the chair of Community Board 6, Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer, Council members Dan Garodnick, Jessica Lappin and Rosie Mendez, Congresswman Carolyn Maloney, State Senators Liz Krueger and Tom Duane, and Assembly Member, Brian Kavanagh.

ERRC has also committed to making space available and working with the City's School Construction Authority to achieve the construction of a new public school on the properties. The space being provided is large enough to house a school of some 650 students -- the size that the City's School Construction Authority is targeting for the area.

"I am pleased that we have gotten these essential first commitments on this project - they are major victories for the City and a testament to the developer and to the community's hard work and advocacy," said Borough President Stringer, adding that he looks forward "to hearing from neighborhood residents and the developer at my public hearing November 15 on accommodating the community's other important concerns - including open space, waterfront access, and the height and density of new construction."

The elected officials indicated that they remain united in calling for additional changes to the Solow plan, maintaining that the seven planned towers are too large for the neighborhood and that there remains a need for "permanently accessible public open space and access to the waterfront."

The proposal is currently before the Manhattan Borough President for his review, and he will issue a formal recommendation by the end of the month.

[londonlawyer]

When are the dolts that live there going to admit that this area is an utter dump but for Tudor City and that's completed separated as its own neighborhood. These jerks have chutzpah.

[econ_tim]

i think community board 6 should also be guaranteed central park and statue of liberty views. bring on the wrecking balls!

[NYguy]

http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-housing1106,0,7545790.story

Board irked about Manhattan affordable housing

By Ryan Chatelain
November 6, 2007

A developer's plans to add affordable housing and space for a school at a controversial East River development project represents progress, but many community concerns remain, a Manhattan community leader said Monday.

The developer, Sheldon H. Solow, plans to construct seven high-rise buildings, mostly apartments, on property once owned by Con Edison along the East River near Murray Hill. Solow announced he would dedicate 20 percent of the apartments, up to 600 units, for low- and moderate-income families and is working with the city to build a school on site.

The project would require the city to rezone the land, along First Avenue south of East 42nd Street, from industrial to residential. The rezoning approval process is under way and the City Council is expected to vote on it early next year. Manhattan Community Board 6 issued its recommendation last week, opposing the rezoning unless significant changes to Solow's proposal are made.

"Our resolution and our rezoning plans have called for affordable housing and called for a school," said Lyle Frank, the community board chairman. "Any time that somebody comes in and says that they're going to do that, it's a step in the right direction.

"There's still many issues to be dealt with. Our resolution is 10 pages long. This maybe satisfies a quarter-page of that."

Among the board's chief concerns are that Solow's plans call for 47- to 69-story buildings, including one for commercial use. Frank said he would like to see the buildings limited to residential use and stand no taller than 400 feet.

Solow's office did not return a call yesterday seeking comment.

[NYatKNIGHT]

A 400 ft. building blocks their views as much as 1000 ft. building, and it's nothing special.

[brianac]

Towering Vision by Developer Stirs East Side

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/15/nyregion/15solow-600.jpg Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Sheldon H. Solow, 79, proposes to build seven luxury towers on the site of a former Con Edison plant along the East River.

By CHARLES V. BAGLI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/charles_v_bagli/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: November 15, 2007

Sheldon H. Solow’s black Mercedes 500 glided across a wind-swept lot near the East River where he is seeking to turn the former site of Con Edison’s Waterside power plants into a luxury development on what is the largest stretch of undeveloped, privately owned land in Manhattan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/newyork/newyorkcity/manhattan/?inline=nyt-geo).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/15/nyregion/solow190.jpg The New York Times
Three towers would loom over a United Nations landmark.

After alighting from the sedan, Mr. Solow surveyed the rubble-strewn property along First Avenue, south of 42nd Street, and a smile crossed his face. At 79, he is embarking on the biggest project of his life: a $4 billion development of seven glassy towers, a public pavilion designed by Richard Meier (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/richard_meier/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and 4.8 acres of gardens, lawns and Parisian-style esplanades.

It has not sparked the controversy of Columbia University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s plunge northward or the developer Bruce Ratner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/bruce_ratner/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s sprawling Atlantic Yards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/atlantic_yards_brooklyn/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) project in Brooklyn (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/newyork/newyorkcity/brooklyn/?inline=nyt-geo). Still, its oversize buildings, which would rise above the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Secretariat tower just two blocks to the north, are upsetting many people in the genteel precincts of the East Side.

Mr. Solow, a tall man with a full head of gray hair who is customarily dressed in a blue blazer and gray slacks, contends that his new towers will be as iconic as the swooping, 50-story tower he built 34 years ago at 9 West 57th Street, one of the most sought-after office spaces in Manhattan.

“Anyone driving down the F.D.R. or taking the ferry up the East River will have a new sense of the city,” he said.

Right or wrong, his absolute conviction in his own vision of the world has made him a billionaire with a half-dozen hugely successful commercial and residential buildings in Manhattan. It is also the reason that many politicians and his real estate brethren regard him as impossible to deal with and their absolute last choice for a partner. He has a reputation for being litigious, having sued blue-chip tenants, rival moguls, a neighbor in the Hamptons (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/classifieds/realestate/locations/newyork/longisland/hamptons/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) and even a friend. That reputation infuriates him.

“He isn’t the easiest guy to deal with,” said Irving Fisher, a retired construction industry executive who is advising Mr. Solow, “because he knows a lot. He is a very hands-on person. He doesn’t skimp. He spends money to get what he wants.”

His 6.1 million-square-foot East River project is now wending its way through the public approval process, 10 years this month after he signed a $630 million contract to buy nine acres at three sites between 35th and 41st Streets. Scott M. Stringer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/scott_m_stringer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the Manhattan borough president, will hold a public hearing on the project today. The project requires approval by the City Planning Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/city_planning_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org), but the real battle will probably come in the City Council, which is generally more sensitive to community outcry and to a coalition of elected officials seeking substantive changes in the plan.

“The community is very nervous about the height and the number of the buildings the developer has shown us,” said Liz Krueger (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/liz_krueger/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a state senator who represents the area. “This is a negotiation between the people of the city of New York and one developer’s dreams of maximizing his profits.”

Mr. Solow, the son of a bricklayer, made his name in real estate in the late 1960s, buying 17 parcels on 57th Street and ultimately building 9 West 57th Street. The tower, which was designed by Gordon Bunshaft with, Mr. Solow says, his help, commands some of the highest rents in the city and offers breathtaking views.

In an interview at his office, Mr. Solow called his son Stefan, 32, his “heir apparent,” a notion that caused Stefan to roll his eyes and squirm uncomfortably in his chair, while his father sat seemingly oblivious. Although Stefan Solow now oversees the family’s residential properties, he also runs a grain farm in Kansas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/kansas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).

Self-taught in art appreciation, Sheldon Solow has amassed what Philippe de Montebello (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/philippe_de_montebello/index.html?inline=nyt-per), director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/metropolitan_museum_of_art/index.html?inline=nyt-org), calls a vast, eclectic and “distinguished collection,” with works by Balthus, Picasso (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/pablo_picasso/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Matisse (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/henri_matisse/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Botticelli, Morris Louis and Rothko, as well as Egyptian antiquities and African art.

“He’s one of these people who is curious,” Mr. de Montebello said. “This is somebody who buys things he reacts very strongly to, not in an academic way.”

Mr. Solow also has a finely tuned sense of injustice when it comes to himself. He is credited with having filed more than 200 lawsuits. He is currently suing Conseco, the insurance company, over what he claimed was a fraudulent bidding process in its $1.4 billion sale of the General Motors Building in 2003 to Harry Macklowe (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/harry_macklowe/index.html?inline=nyt-per). Mr. Solow, who covets the tower as a matching bookend to 9 West 57th Street, routinely describes himself as the “owner” of the G.M. Building.

Mr. Solow, whose friend and litigator of choice is David Boies (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/david_boies/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a former lawyer for President Clinton, has chalked up a couple of hard-fought victories, including a $30 million judgment against W. R. Grace. But he has lost more cases. He and his lawyers have been chastised and sanctioned for bringing “frivolous” cases.

Since buying the Con Ed land, Mr. Solow has spent another $125 million cleaning the site of toxic soil, shed a partner and dumped the original architect, Pei Cobb Freed & Partners. Mr. Solow’s quest for control ruptured relations with his original partner, the Fisher real estate family, and after a series of unrelated family tragedies, the Fishers quit the project, according to several real estate executives.

On the southernmost Con Ed parcel, between 35th and 36th Streets, Mr. Solow has proposed building a 32-story and a 47-story tower, with what will probably be a five-story school. Trees would line the walkways leading from First Avenue to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive and the river.
The tallest building, a 69-story residential tower, would rise on the west side of First Avenue, between 39th and 40th Streets.

The largest parcel, which stretches from 38th to 41st Streets, on the east side of First Avenue, would be lushly landscaped, with walkways lined by four rows of trees. A semicircular public pavilion was designed, like the residential buildings, by Mr. Meier. It was inspired by Mr. Meier’s Jubilee Church in Rome, a well-regarded example of contemporary architecture, with white concrete sails, and a favorite of Mr. Solow’s.

It is on this parcel that Mr. Solow plans to build a 47-story, 688-foot-tall office tower, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, as well as three residential towers of 57 to 66 stories.

In all, there would be about 4,166 apartments and more than 6,000 new residents.

Community Board 6, which is by no means anti-development, strongly opposes rezoning the property for Mr. Solow’s project unless he makes a series of modifications. It opposes putting a commercial tower in what it describes as a residential neighborhood and allowing 50- and 60-story towers in an area where 40-story buildings are the norm.

Edward Rubin, an architect and longtime member of the board, said that the parklike spaces would be overwhelmed and shadowed by the towers. He also said that 39th and 40th Streets, east of First Avenue, should be reopened to traffic, while the proposed 1,500 parking spaces should be sharply reduced in keeping with the mayor’s plan to reduce congestion.

“This doesn’t make sense,” Mr. Rubin said. “The buildings, from the first 10 stories, look very handsome. But are 70-story buildings suddenly the new thing? It’s out of character.”

Daniel R. Garodnick, who represents the area in the City Council, agreed. “The buildings are too big,” he said. “This is a community that very much wants development, but it wants it done in a reasonable way.”

Mr. Solow recently agreed to provide two other things sought by the community and a coalition of elected officials: a public school for 650 students and an agreement that as many as 600 apartments would be permanently set aside for low- and moderate-income families.

Months ago, he also cut the height of his proposed towers. His critics, however, contended that Mr. Solow had, in the time-honored tradition of New York developers, requested more than he wanted knowing that he could later shave their size to appear to be willing to compromise. Under the current proposal, three of his seven towers would rise well above the 505-foot United Nations Secretariat building.

As the project awaits review by the City Planning Commission and the City Council, where elected officials are already lobbying for changes, Mr. Solow has hired an army of lobbyists, publicists and planners for the battle.

Executives who work with Mr. Solow say that he is unlikely to eliminate the office tower, which in his mind is “sacrosanct, a deal buster,” though he may whittle it down some.

Mr. Solow is interested in a separate proposal that is backed by both the community board and the Municipal Art Society (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/municipal_art_society/index.html?inline=nyt-org), which would involve rebuilding a section of the F.D.R. Drive and providing access to the waterfront and a newly built park. But city officials are not as enthusiastic, perhaps fearing that it would slow progress on Mr. Solow’s project.

“It’s going to be exactly the way he wants it to happen,” said the developer’s son Stefan. “I don’t ever see him taking anyone else’s advice, or letting anyone stop what his overall vision is.”

The New York Times.

[MidtownGuy]

It opposes putting a commercial tower in what it describes as a residential neighborhood and allowing 50- and 60-story towers in an area where 40-story buildings are the norm.

The norm. I nominate this for the most retarded sentiment of the week.

[alonzo-ny]

'towering' and 'vision' are not words i would use to describe this project, not after what we have seen at MOMA, in fact even before that. I would say 'squat blindness'

[lofter1]

Me fears that this one is a lost cause.

Sadly that whole area is now a "dead zone" -- too much security, no street life. And apparently there is a huge number of dull and fearful residents in the nearby buildings (most of which -- particularly to the south / southwest) are banal to the extreme). Let Solow build more of the same. Those who want that (and it seems there are plenty) can move there.

Just give the rest of us a good open and inviting zone along the river and something somewhat interesting to look at street level & up above.

[investordude]

The elected officials continue to guarantee their neighborhood remains a place limited by narrow vision and small ideas. Here's a report on the community meeting about the proposal.

http://www.globest.com/news/1037_1037/gsrwest/166048-1.html

[investordude]

Here's the link to the community meeting. Disregard the other link.

http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/news.cr?noteid=21142

[MidtownGuy]

This is such an obvious place for supertall towers. Anything less is a waste and the aging NIMBYs in the area should be completely ignored.

[investordude]

I've read through the issue again. The 1 thing I agree with the NIMBYs on is opening the street grid. They could probably do it in exchange for less parks between the buildings - towers in the park isn't what we need.

But we definitely need supertalls here - this is midtown Manhattan for crying out loud.

[alonzo-ny]

i think the developer has no intentions of pushing up the heights back up, lost cause.

[Dynamicdezzy]

I think the WORST proposal for the Hudson yards makes this look bad. Although the scope cannot be compared, the same elements can be found on both sites. Waterfront connection, close to subway expansion (7 train & 2nd ave subway - which would benefit the entire east side), close proximity to Penn station/ Grand Central terminal.

[NYguy]

I think the WORST proposal for the Hudson yards makes this look bad. Although the scope cannot be compared, the same elements can be found on both sites.

It's comparable if you take the individual railyards. This is just a case where the public has been allowed to whittle down what could have been a grand development for New York. We have to be careful this doesn't happen on the west side.

[antinimby]

It all comes down to the same thing we've all known: once you have people living in the area, they become an obstacle to build what you call "grand" projects because New Yorkers for the most part don't want it in their backyards.

Unlike the east side, the area around the westside railyards is relatively uninhabited, so resistance won't be as fierce but once they build all those residential towers and people have moved in, future big developments there will suffer the same fate.

[alonzo-ny]

If they do build residential there first, no one can say they moved in under the impression that they didnt know massive development was going up next to them.

[Optimus Prime]

You'd be surprised how shameless some NIMBYs can be, alonzo. And while they might let the rest of the Hudson Yards development happen, they will probably fight anything on the periphery of the site. And there's a lot of proposed development around there.

[NYguy]

You'd be surprised how shameless some NIMBYs can be, alonzo. And while they might let the rest of the Hudson Yards development happen, they will probably fight anything on the periphery of the site. And there's a lot of proposed development around there.

Fortunately, most of that was already rezoned by the city a couple of years ago. It's the target of the city's newest business district, and the only place designated for Midtown to grow. Other than that, it would be in Jersey (which is still cheaper than Brooklyn or Queens). This is the most desolate area of Manhattan, they're not gonna move it to any other neighborhood. There's very little the NIMBYs can do there, except that which they will do anyway - complain.

[NYguy]

Why build anything at all, when this can go on forever?

http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/news.cr
Solow plans for Con Ed site still debated

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1195244003_conedv.jpg

16-NOV-07

The recently revised plans of the East River Realty Corporation for the redevelopment of the former Con Edison sites on First Avenue south of the United Nations did not quell many objections from community activists at a hearing on the project held last night by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

Elected officials and community leaders announced November 5, 2007 commitments from the corporation, which is headed by Sheldon H. Solow, for the inclusion of permanently affordable housing as well as dedicated space for a new public school at the project.

The concessions marked a significant breakthrough for the elected officials and community, who put affordable housing and a new school for about 650 students high on their list of conditions before they would begin considering the developer's proposal to rezone his properties from low-scale manufacturing zoning to high-density mixed-use.

Under ERRC's revised plans, properties being upzoned would become part of a new "inclusionary housing" area, which will require the development to devote 20 percent of its floor area to permanently affordable housing.

The plan by ERRC, which is headed by Sheldon H. Solow, had previously had no provision for affordable units. The space being provided for a school is large enough to house a K-8 school of some 650 students.

"It is important to make clear that what the East River Realty Company owns is a nine-acre lot for manufacturing puposes. Unless and until the City elects to rezone these properties, there are no assurances that any new residential or commercial construction will take place," declared City Councilman Daniel Garodnick. "Regardless of any concessions the developer has already made, or the developer's own devotion to his vision, this Uniform Land Use Review Procedure is not a rubber-stamp."

In a statement submitted at the hearing, City Councilmember Jessica Lappin said she was "pleased that the applicant has heard our call to include affordable housing and a public school in its development plans," adding that "However, we still have a long way to go." She said that she found "offensive" a comment in an article in yesterday's edition of The New York Times by the developer's son that "It's going to be exactly the way he wants it to happen."

"The development of these parcels truly represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that New York City must get right," State Senator Liz Krueger declared in testimony submitted at the hearing.

"With these unique opportunities, however, there is the potential to make colossal mistakes," she said, adding that "Unfortunately, the rezoning proposal submitted by the ERRC does not take full advantage of the rare opportunities we have before us, and threatens to overwhelm the surrounding neighborhood....It would severely overburden local services and infrastructure, would have disastrous effects on the area's traffic and public transportation, fails to provide sufficient access to the waterfront, and would cast ...oppressive shadows on open space including St. Vartan's Park, Manhattan Place, and Manhattan Plaza as well as on the proposed open space on the First Avenue Properties....The developer's proposal to introduce more than 1.5 million square feet of office space into a residential community already struggling with major traffic congestion and inadequate public transportation does not make sense.

Senator Krueger also stated that "the cost of constructing the new school should not born solely by the taxpayers" and she argued that the project should include a higher percentage of "affordable housing" units.

Community Board 6 opposes this proposal, declared its chairman Lyle Frank, as "too big, too tall, too dense."

The development consists of two separated parcels fronting on First Avenue between 35th and 41st Streets.

James Schmidt, director of development for the project, told the meeting that "the dialogue will continue."

[TonyO]

Scott Stringer's office:

Centre Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-669-8300

Manhattan Borough President
Scott Stringer
bp@manhattanbp.org


Council Member Jessica Lappin's District Office information:

336 East 73rd Street, Suite C
New York, NY 10021

Tel: 212-535-5554


State Senator Liz Krueger's office:

New York: 211 East 43rd Street, Suite 1300, New York NY 10017
(P) 212. 490.9535

[ablarc]

She said that she found "offensive" a comment in an article in yesterday's edition of The New York Times by the developer's son that "It's going to be exactly the way he wants it to happen."
This woman obviously believes it's a zero-sum game.

[Fabrizio]

Build a super super tall.... surround it with medium to low rise buildings... right on down to 4 story town houses... on a rigid NY street grid. The only park should be along the river.

[alonzo-ny]

Id vote for that.

[ablarc]

^ And so would I.

[212]

Sounds nice for Hudson Yards, too.

[pianoman11686]

This thread is now nearly 70 pages long and 5 years old, with no real construction progress to show for.

It actually boggles the mind how long it takes for larger-than-average projects to get underway in New York. Turns out a successful developer needs not only deep pockets and political pull, but also limitless patience.

[RandySavage]

Does anyone know where I can find the rendering of an early concept/study that was done for the Con Ed site that was eight or nine tall, white, linked towers, reminiscent of the United Architects proposal for the WTC. I don't think it has ever been posted here. I came across this rendering a week or two ago and can't remember where I found it.

Thanks in advance.

[alonzo-ny]

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=188684&postcount=1000

[RandySavage]

Alonzo, thanks for the link, but that is not the rendering I'm referring to.

The one I'm talking about looks kind of like the one below, but is white lattice and taken from the East River:

http://www.moma.org/modernteachers/files/528144ca3101e953d.jpg

I don't think it was done by a Solow-commissioned architect, but by a random firm as a study for the potential for linked towers and sky lobbies.

[alonzo-ny]

That is a proposal for the Trade Center site though not the Con Ed site.

Google United architects world trade center and you will get a bunch of images.

[RandySavage]

I was using the United Architects WTC image above as an example of what this ConEd rendering looked like. It was basically a wall of touching skyscrapers similar to the UA WTC renders, but white.

I will post it here if I find it again.

[Derek2k3]

hmm...no clue. Any of these?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/2202488303_5988ef258a_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2261/2202488299_19dc102975_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2005/2202488307_fe9bb3566a_o.jpg

[RandySavage]

Yes! ^ The bottom one is the one I'm talking about. Thanks, Derek! Do you know if it was one of the competition entries? Who is the architect?

[Derek2k3]

No problem. It was just a study not affiliated with the developer.

http://www.archinode.com/tall.html

[212]

^ Alleys at the base, scrapers and skybridges on top.
It's very Blade Runner, in a good way.

[macreator]

What a fantastic proposal -- so sad that we're instead going to get some dreary, fat, featureless "modern" boxes. This "bladerunner-esque" design, as 212 has dubbed it, also looks a hell of a lot better than any of the Hudson Yards proposals save perhaps Brookfield's.

[MidtownGuy]

I love the way the third rendering has towers that sit above low bases with what the previous poster described as alleys...this would create great opportunities for intimate pedestrian experiences away from cars and smaller scale retail for interesting businesss.
This concept should be employed on the West Side as much as possible, and could have been done at Atlantic yards. I could imagine parts where the non-grid alleys open up into European-style piazzas as well.

[brianac]

$4B Solow Development Faces Panel Vote

By PETER KIEFER
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 28, 2008

The Bloomberg administration is poised today to clear the way for what would be Manhattan's largest residential development project, on 9 acres of land just south of the United Nations.

The $4 billion plan by developer Sheldon Solow calls for the construction of six large residential towers with about 4,000 apartments, one office tower, and more than 500 public parking spaces.

The city Planning Commission will vote today on the recommendations on zoning changes that could allow the project to move forward, including reductions in height and density and assurances from Mr. Solow that he is committed to including enough affordable housing in his final plan.

A person with knowledge of the review process who declined to speak on the record before the vote said it was "extremely likely that they commission will adopt the recommendations" today but was unsure whether the vote would be unanimous.

Some of the recommendations include lowering the height of a building on the west side of First Avenue to 600 feet from 721 feet, reducing the number of public parking spaces, a provision regarding public access to a park, and reducing the development's floor area ratio, a measurement of building density, to 10 from 12. Much of the negotiations with the Planning Commission has centered on imposing various incentives into the recommendations to push Mr. Solow to include more affordable housing, a source said.

The plan will now move on to the City Council, which must approve the project. Typically in land use issues, the council defers to the opinion of the council member whose district covers the project.

The local council member for the Solow project, Daniel Garodnick, is fighting on behalf of residents who say the project is out of scale for the neighborhood; he said more changes are necessary to win his approval.

"We will be looking to make changes to this plan when it comes to the council, and we hope to be able to develop this neighborhood," Mr. Garodnick said.

"The community has long supported significant development on this site, but the difference between the developer and the community board is mostly of degree," he said.

"Height and density issues are major, as is the affordable housing component and new units built on site. Generally, we want this neighborhood to be developed, but done in a responsible way."

After today's vote, the City Council will have 50 days to make proposed changes.

Mr. Solow has already shown a willingness to grant concessions to the community. The proposed height of his buildings have been dropped, and he agreed to leave space for a public school and set aside 600 of the apartments as affordable units.

According to the chairman of the Community Board 6, Charles Buchwald, the residents' concerns are myriad.

"There is unhappiness with it," he said. "It's too big, it's too dense, it destroys a street grid and doesn't leave access to the riverfront, and the affordable housing is not really affordable, or at least the way the community wants it."

Copyright 2008 The New York Sun

[ablarc]

the affordable housing is not really affordable, or at least the way the community wants it."
Who are these folks, and why do they want affordable housing?

[stache]

but they seem to have social consciousness.

[econ_tim]

Commission approves scaled-down version of project near U.N.


By KAREN MATTHEWS | Associated Press Writer 5:42 PM EST, January 28, 2008 Article tools


NEW YORK - The city Planning Commission on Monday approved a modified plan for a development that would sprout up just south of the United Nations and tower over the international landmark.

The decision set up a possible battle in the City Council over the project, which calls for building seven slender towers at the 8.7-acre site of a former Con Edison power plant.

The approved revisions to the plan shrink the tallest building from 721 feet to 600 feet, narrow the width of one office tower from 320 to 280 feet and reduce the parking garage from 651 to 400 spaces.





Even with the changes, the development would still stand taller than the 505-foot U.N. Secretariat. Neighborhood activists have said they would like to see buildings no higher than 400 feet in deference to the U.N., and they want apartments at the site but no office buildings.

The Planning Commission voted 10-2 with one abstention to approve the project, and it now goes to the City Council, which has 50 days to consider it.

Councilman Dan Garodnick, who represents the area, said the plan would have to undergo further changes before he could support it.

"I continue to have serious concerns about the size and scale of this plan," Garodnick said after the vote. "But this is a process. We will see if there is any way to allow development but to keep it to a more modest level."

Developer Sheldon Solow had earlier bowed to neighborhood pressure by agreeing to provide space for a public school and to set aside some 600 apartments for moderate-income residents.

The property along First Avenue between East 35th Street and East 41st Street is Manhattan's largest privately owned undeveloped piece of real estate.

A spokesman for Solow's company, East River Realty Co., said in a statement: "This exciting development will create more than 7,000 permanent jobs, enhance the East River waterfront, and significantly add to the economic and social vitality of the city."


More articles (http://www.amny.com/news/local/wire/newyork)
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Scraperfannyc]

Only one thing would make me think this has been all worthy. In Neon lights, each of these buildings would flash the original set of plans and read "this is what it could have been", and then flash "nimbys suck!"'

[londonlawyer]

Commission approves scaled-down version of project near U.N.


By KAREN MATTHEWS | Associated Press Writer 5:42 PM EST, January 28, 2008 Article tools


NEW YORK - The city Planning Commission on Monday approved a modified plan.... The approved revisions to the plan shrink the tallest building from 721 feet to 600 feet.....

NY is really starting to suck.

[alonzo-ny]

I have no interest in this project anymore.

[Derek2k3]

I still don't get what the complaint about height is about, either way their views are gone. There are buildings proposed on the Queens waterfront and in Gramercy that will be taller than the heights allowed for these building in Midtown. Maybe they honestly feel that U.N. is so great a landmark that nothing should dominate above it.

Well now we can expect a tabletop of 600' towers rising next to it. Beautiful.

[antinimby]

Okay, a couple of things...

1) When I went to the meeting last year, the vast majority of the opponents did not voice or show any concern for affordable housing. They only cared about the height of the buildings, the number of apartments, the office component and access to the river. There were only a few affordable housing supporters in the audience and they clearly were in a different camp than the rest of those people.

They were interested in getting more affordable units in the project, they were not against the scale of the project. It is the politicians that have since brought all these issues together and lumped them together as "community concerns and interests" and put a "the community" versus "the developer" sort of scenario on it, which isn't really an accurate picture.

2) Again, the people there are not really, truly concerned about the U.N. Secretariat building getting overshadowed. They just want shorter towers and are using it as an excuse to get it.

3) Keep in mind that the 600 foot figure is just what City Planning has approved. It isn't over yet. It could go further down, still.

[212]

I might be wrong, but I can't help thinking that a more generous plan for riverfront access and recreation would've balanced out the anti-height obsession.

[212]

^ And some inspiring architecture could've helped, too. Meier might have been the right guy for the job, but his early plans were a little vague.

[Optimus Prime]

I don't think architecture would have helped anything. The opponents of this plan only care about height and density. That's it.

[212]

^ I'll be ready to agree with you if the MoMA tower is defeated.

[antinimby]

Put the MOMA tower near these people and it will be. Optimus is right.

I was at the meeting. Architecture was the last thing on their minds. Short and ugly is preferable over tall and beautiful according to them.

[Optimus Prime]

Actually, I think density is the main issue for them, now that I think about it. Height is an issue in that it means more people. I don't even think they care about views that much, because even the people in low rise buildings who don't have a view now are complaining. They plain just don't want more people in their neighborhood.

[Stroika]

I don't know how representative these people are of the community. I went to the meeting in November (and spoke ... and was loudly booed and called "stupid" and "disgusting" by octogenarians in suits). It seemed like three-quarters of the people there were over the age of 75; Scott Stringer even cracked a joke about my youth. What proportion of the area is formed by the elderly, I don't know, but I doubt they're really representative of the community.

Much of the reason we're getting a limp proposal in place of anything worthy of the site is that many of these older people have the least interest in the long-term betterment of the area and simply don't want any sort of change in the neighborhood they've called home for years, regardless of whether that neighborhood is currently pretty cruddy or if the change is good. Construction noise is another likely true motive.

[stache]

Plus the geezers literally have nothing better to do than kvetch.

[investordude]

You guys don't get it if you think good architecture would have helped this project along. The most important architectural requirement government asks is that we be unimaginative comformists. That's why proposals for government architecture reviews, etc, are a bad idea and are dangerous.

The government should have asked for waterfront access, but instead all they want is communist affordable housing. That tells you everything you need to know about why Solow didn't propose more exciting buildings. The more interesting the architecture, the less likely it is to pass a government review.

[pianoman11686]

What a letdown.

It's ironic that, if all the above comments are true, the people with the smallest stake in the future of the community are having the largest influence on the outcome of a project that will likely remain for at least a hundred years.

If this is truly democracy, then it's a mockery.

[Stroika]

It's ironic that, if all the above comments are true, the people with the smallest stake in the future of the community are having the largest influence on the outcome of a project that will likely remain for at least a hundred years.

Exactly!

I wrote a few letters to Garodnick and the Community Board saying just that. Their secretaries wrote me back saying my comments would be taken into consideration.

Obviously, they were never interested in knowing what people thought. Taking on the evil, money-grubbing developer is a quick way to score political gain, in New York or elsewhere. For all the griping about Ratner and others' ties to city government, there are just as many politicians who can get easy re-election points from the people who vote in largest numbers (also the people who kvetch in largest numbers and those who have the least interest in the future: the retired) by shooting down a sensible development plan.

Beyond that, Garodnick seems like a pocket Lenin to me anyway. It seems every time his name comes up, he's trying to pull some oddly Socialist stunt, clamoring about subsidized housing or the preservation of a hideous mess like Stuy Town, etc.

[Stroika]

I encourage each and every one of you to write some of the people involved in this Faustian political bargain:

Michael Kent, with the Manhattan Borough President's Office: mkent@manhattanbp.org

Brian Kavanaugh, the local state rep: kavanaghb@assembly.ny.us

"Red" Daniel Garodnick, city councillor: garodnick@council.nyc.ny.us

His office: garodnickoffice@gmail.com

Community Board 6: mn06@cb.nyc.gov

If you're upset about the decision, take 5 seconds and pen off some letters. These people will be up for reelection -- they listen to the crowd, no matter what it says.

Once again, the geriatrics' main complaints about the proposal were:
-The proposal's too tall for the neighborhood, and doesn't look like the buildings that exist today. This neighborhood (all of what? 40 years of age?), doesn't look the way Solow's proposal does; therefore, the (hideously ugly and already 40-story tall) look of the neighborhood should never change.

-There's not enough affordable housing. ... And I always thought old rich white people didn't like affordable housing..? And since when does the world's premier business district need to be cheap?

-Additional neighbors and office workers will create traffic. Again, traffic is best dealt with via a congestion fee or better subway access, not by banning development.

-It'll create shadows. You're in MIDTOWN MANHATTAN! Your building is already 40 stories tall. No further comment.

-It'll make the air quality worse. Then stop driving your Lincoln around.

-The proposal contains too many offices. Once again: MIDTOWN MANHATTAN.

Behold -- these are the masterpieces of logic that have allowed the omnipresent ooze of architectural mediocrity to gurgle up to the East River.

The politicians can still be convinced otherwise...

[Derek2k3]

The Nimby response was expected but I'm more disappointed at city planning for paying them mind. With no reduction in density, these buildings will become boxy behemoths.

[TREPYE]

Short bad architecture is better than tall bad architecture.

[sfenn1117]

^and what about fat architecture?

[TREPYE]

If its a bad design then fat and short is ok with me. Nothing is worse than getting stuck with a tall giant terrible piece of archiecture you cant ignore in the skyline.

[lofter1]

Such as 425 Fifth (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3415) ...

:eek:

[sfenn1117]

If its a bad design then fat and short is ok with me. Nothing is worse than getting stuck with a tall giant terrible piece of archiecture you cant ignore in the skyline.

Well I have to disagree there. Goldman Sachs will really scar the skyline with its width. It's not a great design to begin with but we would be much better off if it was stretched to 1,000 feet with the same square footage.

These buildings are basically going to wall off the skyline for several blocks when they should be soaring waterfront towers.

[antinimby]

We could have gotten tall and beautiful here but the citizens of this city (at least the ones that write to their representatives and go to board meetings) don't like that and so we'll get short and ugly and then folks like TREPYE will be happy because the ugly is short.

It's like looking at McSams and being happy because they are only 20-story tall instead of 50.

[Stroika]

Antinimby, I agree this whole package sucks. I stand by you in condemning both the dangerous practice of giving "the community" (which in RE development questions is always disproportionately elderly cranks) a say on what gets built 5 or 6 blocks away from their apartment, as well as the obstinate, destructive NIMBYs themselves.

But let's not forget the complicity of developers in the wave of uninspired architecture we all like to criticize. If Solow weren't such a tremendous buffoon but instead acted like a quasi-normal human being, we wouldn't in the situation of looking forward to a bunch of squat, architecturally illiterate boxes.

1. The guy and his family have all the "strategery" and tact of a George W. Bush. Why did Jr. have to give an interview to the Times saying that "What my dad wants is what the city gets"? Is he retarded and spoiled? Probably. But those callous remarks were used against the plan at meetings by Stringer's people as well as the "neighbors" who may live blocks and blocks away. The comments were unrelated, but they revealed the Solows have no interest in putting on a show of cooperation. When you pull that in this imperfect system, you can't expect the sympathy you unfortunately need.

2. Solow never presented a coherent plan. If the guy had drawn up a fantastic proposal, with lots of well thought-out amenities, a renewed waterfront, and great architecture, people would have noticed. But he didn't -- or if he did, he sure as hell didn't market it. Even if the geezers are going to oppose anything and everything, if you take your case to the community with a good marketing campaign and lots of cool renderings, you'll win the support of the rest of us. But Solow 1. had no coherent plan 2. doesn't seem to really care about architecture or amenities and 3. can't market himself for d*%#. In other words, he's a moron.

3. The collective suckiness of NYC's developers has given them a bad name, and people are perhaps rightly suspicious of them. Beyond the mega-projects that are probably associated more with the governments that back them than with their developers, what tableaux of contemporary developers/development do people see?
Moinian and his banal crap. You destroy one of Columbus Square's greatest, most defining buildings to make it look like **nothing** and you deserve the name of mud.
Ratman and his backroom secrecy. The guy still hasn't shown a render of Beekman. AY, though as a Prospect Heights person can't wait for it, is obviously a PR disaster. Developers now have a worse name for secrecy than Robert Moses ever did, and the poison spills over to the city gov't forces that aid them. As a result, elected pols have to show they aren't playing those reindeer games.
Sitt's cheese. "Hey, I'll build an amusement park. Oh yeah, it'll be filled with hotels." Again, not a bad idea, but be open, be bold, be innovative, and get people to support you and you might not torpedo yourself.

NYC's developers and their archibots (with Costas as their king) don't make their case well. If they show the smallest slice of intelligence or ability to do anything other than negotiate with City Hall and find construction loans, they can turn their situation around. But they don't, and Solow et al. are as destructive to their own grand towers on the waterfront as the NIMBYs are.

If anyone out there is a normal human being with some taste and ability to interact with normal people, start developing land in NYC. There's a wide open market for someone like you.

[stache]

Why go through all the hassle when you could build a nice development elsewhere? It's more about money here in N.Y.

[TREPYE]

It's like looking at McSams and being happy because they are only 20-story tall instead of 50.

So you would rather have a 50 story piece of crap just because its taller?? I make this argument all the time to all these height advocates: height does not give a tower beauty. :rolleyes:

[antinimby]

I think it is fairly obvious to everyone that no one here wants a 50-story piece of crap. I find it odd that you would automatically assume that the 50 story would be crap.

The problem with your position is that you seem to be all right with crap just as long as it's not tall. Couldn't one draw the conclusion that you condone McSams because they're usually not tall?

[ramvid01]

^^But calling McSams crap is the understatement of the millenia. To call it crap would be insulting to the word crap. We wouldn't want this. :D

[TREPYE]

The problem with your position is that you seem to be all right with crap just as long as it's not tall. Couldn't one draw the conclusion that you condone McSams because they're usually not tall?

Wrong.

I find it odd that you would automatically assume that the 50 story would be crap.


Per its previous/latest renditions of the project I can call it crap....


http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_9_soloweast.jpg

So while it seems like we are gonna get crap, please give the short crap not the tall crap.

[antinimby]

Oh please. I've read enough of your rants over these past few years to know that anything without some kind of pointy or elaborate crown is considered crap by you.

They might not be gorgeous and I was the first to say so, but if you'd follow this development you'd know that those towers were NOT the original version.

They were the revised version that was shortened and waterdowned in response to community opposition.

[TREPYE]

I guess it is always easier for you to resort to inane generalizations and "drawing of conclusions" instead of putting some thought into your statements. I could turn around and say that you only loves only love tall towers but to me that is all...well, crap.

My preferences of having a crown I think go along with like 90% of the population, so I dont think that is very outlandish. I rant against developers being cheap about building design. And again I will tell you that you are irrevocably wrong in yet another one of your erroneous genralizations about what I consider crap. There are plenty of towers that do not have crowns that I like alot (ie- Hearst, 30 rock, 17 state st) as well as towers that do have crowns that I despise (7 WTC, 325 fifth).

I take every tower and draw my judments primarily on where it is going to be located, which is the case here the location calls for great/good architecture. No, they were not the first version (which were great) but they are the last and the most significant at this point.

[lofter1]

A person would be hard pressed to show us any sort of crown atop 7 WTC ...

[212]

Excellent post (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=212778&postcount=1075), Stroika.

[antinimby]

TREPYE, I'm not going to drag this much further but what I said about you was not "inane" nor was it a generalization. I follow this forum and the regular posters here very closely and I know pretty well what everyone is like including you.

First and foremost you love crowns and there's nothing wrong with that because most of us do too. Second you would forgive a building if it did have a flat top but the rest of the tower has an interesting shape. Am I not correct?

Again, that is perfectly normal but the problem with you is that you don't have any leeway. That is, just because a building is somewhat boxy and does not have a shapely top does not necessarily make it crap. They are designed by SOM and Richard Meier, not Kaufman and O'Hara. You can even say they are bland but they are not crap.

There is going to be a total of 7 buildings here, one cannot expect everyone of them to be standouts. First, that would be unrealistic and second, you wouldn't want that either. Some buildings are just meant to be in the background while letting others take the spotlight.

I have no problem with you criticizing the designs but to say that they should be shorter because they just don't meet your criteria for being gorgeous is ridiculous. If that was the case, this city would have no skyline at all except for a couple of peaks.

Okay, that's enough of this go-nowhere debate.

And oh yeah, how does 7 WTC have a crown again? (I'd bet you would say that the lit top is a form of a crown)

[TREPYE]

Re: 7WTC.
I meant the obscene crap that is 7 TS, times square tower. Sorry about that, I am actually ok with 7 WTC.

And your bet was wrong antinimby. Again. :rolleyes: I do not consider the upper portions of a tower that are continuation of the rest of the buildings to be crowns just because they are lit.

[TREPYE]

I have no problem with you criticizing the designs but to say that they should be shorter because they just don't meet your criteria for being gorgeous is ridiculous. If that was the case, this city would have no skyline at all except for a couple of peaks.


Yeah thats right, by my standards only the best peaks should stick out, but the skyline woud still be there. Imagine that? You wouldnt have that ridiculous plateau that midtown has and the likes of ESB, Chrysler...etc would stand out even more.

[antinimby]

One can argue that "plateau" is what makes the city's skyline so powerful. If you have just a couple needles from Chrysler and ESB standing among a bunch of lowrises, the greatness of the skyline would be diminished.

This is also why back in the first half of last century, Lower Manhattan's skyline was more awe-inspiring and famous than Midtown's because it had a lot of buildings that provided the bulk, whereas Midtown didn't.

Furthermore, many American cities have a few tall towers in their downtown but few have that great "plateau."

This site is on the waterfront, a continuing wall of short towers does more damage than several tall thin, albeit flat-top, towers.

[krulltime]

I hate to post news about this. What a joke of conceptual rendering from 'the officials and activists.' :rolleyes:


Rally for park at Solow's East River site


http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1203631124_solowpark1.jpg


21-FEB-08

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, City Councilman Dan Garodnick and some civic activists held a press conference today to campaign for a bridged park over the FDR Drive to the east of the huge mixed-use development project planned by the East River Realty Corporation, which is headed by Sheldon H. Solow on sites formerly owned by Con Edison on First Avenue south of the United Nations.

The officials and activists displayed a large rendering of a concept design prepared for the Municipal Art Society and shown at the right for such a park that was created by six landscape architects at a charette last spring. The proposal would require the city to give Mr. Solow an easement to modify his plans to accommodate the park.

A lot of things need to happen to turn the "concept of the park into a reality," according to Frank Sanchez, the vice president of the Municipal Arts Society.

The park design includes a bridge running over the FDR Drive from Mr. Solow's building to the East River. The speakers at today's rally indicated that Mr. Solow would need an easement to modify his building plans to accommodate the park.

An article by Lysandra Ohrstrom in today's online edition of The New York Observer quoted Charles Buchwald, a member of Community Board 6 and the East Midtown Coalition for Sensible Development that "The city has to push to get it done."

"Without the easement," Mr. Buchwald continued, "we wouldn't be able to build the bridge from Solow's property over the FDR. He said he'd be open to it, but that no one from the city has asked him to do anything about it so the state and city need to make this a priority."

The city has funds to renovate the FDR Drive, but lowering the "world's largest exit ramp," Mr. Garodnick was quoted as saying in the article, will require revised funding commitments from all stakeholders.

According to the article, Mr. Sanchez declared that he does not "believe the city is opposed to the park, but Mr. Solow is willing to grant the easement, so they just have to ask him and this is the moment to do that."

The City Council is holding a public hearing on the plan on Monday, February 25th at 3:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.

The recently revised plans of the East River Realty Corporation for the redevelopment of the former Con Edison sites on First Avenue south of the United Nations did not quell many objections from community activists at a recent hearing on the project held by Mr. Stringer.

Elected officials and community leaders announced November 5, 2007 commitments from the corporation for the inclusion of permanently affordable housing as well as dedicated space for a new public school at the project.

The concessions marked a significant breakthrough for the elected officials and community, who put affordable housing and a new school for about 650 students high on their list of conditions before they would begin considering the developer's proposal to rezone his properties from low-scale manufacturing zoning to high-density mixed-use.

Under the revised plans of the East River Realty Company, Mr. Solow's concern for the project, properties being upzoned would become part of a new "inclusionary housing" area, which will require the development to devote 20 percent of its floor area to permanently affordable housing.

The plan by ERRC had previously had no provision for affordable units. The space being provided for a school is large enough to house a K-8 school of some 650 students.

The development consists of two separated parcels fronting on First Avenue between 35th and 41st Streets. The proposed park along the East River would be next to the larger and northern parcel.


http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/

[Stroika]

Thank God those "towers" are shorter than the UN building. It would be a disaster if anything nice should be built around it and possibly complement it and enhance the area. Better some squat garbage to keep the shadows and traffic down (naturally 35-story buildings would have that effect), and leave the UN building the token 46-year-old single waitress in the nursing home rec room.

[brianac]

A Plan for a New Riverfront Park Faces a Struggle

By ANTHONY RAMIREZ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/anthony_ramirez/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: February 22, 2008

Federal, state and city officials, as well as several civic organizations, expressed support on Thursday for plans for a waterfront park to be built in the shadow of the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

The project faces many hurdles — including timing, the difficulty pedestrians in the park would have in reaching the East River bank, and finding up to $100 million to pay for it.

The park would be on four acres of city-owned land at the northern end of Glick Park, at 38th Street and Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive in Manhattan. The proposed park space is now decaying concrete, blocked by a gate and a fence with barbed wire and shadowed by an off-ramp to the drive.

The proposal comes at a time when Sheldon H. Solow, a real estate developer, plans to turn the adjacent former site of Consolidated Edison’s waterside power plants into a luxury development.

Mr. Solow’s $4 billion project, which involves the largest stretch of undeveloped, privately owned land in Manhattan, is under review by the City Council.

Daniel R. Garodnick, the council member whose district includes the waterfront area, told reporters Thursday morning at a news conference at the site that now was the ideal time to press for a new park.

He said the aging off-ramp towering over the site was to be rebuilt as part of the overall reconstruction of the F.D.R. Drive by the State Department of Transportation.

Mr. Garodnick conceded that developing the park would be a complicated process. The site is close to the United Nations, which is concerned that open public spaces nearby may make it vulnerable to terrorist attack. Mr. Solow’s private parcel across the street raises issues of access as well; officials say they would need an easement allowing passage from the Solow property to the park.

Kent Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/municipal_art_society/index.html?inline=nyt-org) of New York, told reporters at the news conference that his group and others had developed a detailed plan for a waterfront park.

He unveiled a large illustration and pointed to two plastic inflated palm trees, which kept falling over in the chilly East River winds. “Of course, there would be trees,” Mr. Barwick said, laughing.

Cost estimates for the park vary between $80 million and $100 million, said Mr. Garodnick, a Democrat whose Council district covers part of Midtown. He said his district had the least park space per capita of any in the city.

Mr. Garodnick was less precise about where the money would come from. “For the question about who would pay, we expect it will be a combination of forces,” he said.

He continued, “This is an opportunity for the city, and for the state and the federal government to come together and say we want to elevate people over cars.”

Edward Rubin, an architect and co-chairman of the land-use committee of Community Board 6, has studied the issue extensively.

“The East Side has been the poor stepsister of the West Side,” which has the Riverside Park promenade and other waterfront access, he said. “The East Side had a lot of piers, industrial stuff, a highway right next to the F.D.R. Drive — and it’s very hard to connect to the waterfront.”

Mr. Solow’s project and the state’s scheduled rebuilding of the off-ramp and other parts of the drive make the next six to eight years critical for developing the park, Mr. Rubin said.

“We have a unique opportunity to move the F.D.R. Drive to the west,” he said, and “shorten the exit ramp to 42nd Street.”

Mr. Solow “hasn’t said anything yet” about granting the easement, Mr. Rubin said. “If the city doesn’t allow these things to happen, you’ll lose this opportunity forever.”

Copyright 2008 The New york Times Company.

[antinimby]

Zero Hour Nears for Solow’s Massive East Side Project



by Eliot Brown | March 4, 2008 (http://www.observer.com/2008/zero-hour-nears-solow-s-massive-east-side-project)

Seven years after Consolidated Edison agreed to sell its 9.2-acre site south of the United Nations, a showdown over the land’s future appears to be drawing to a close, as a vote on the issue is expected at a City Council committee meeting on Thursday.

Councilman Daniel Garodnick, who represents the area, has been in constant talks recently with representatives of site owner Sheldon Solow, the developer who wants to erect seven buildings on the land at heights much taller than Mr. Garodnick and the surrounding community want to see.

Starting far apart on a number of issues on the $4 billion project—in addition to height, Mr. Garodnick wanted to change the use of a commercial building to residential and adjust some of the open-space design—Messrs. Garodnick and Solow seem to be coming down to the wire on hammering out an agreement. A zoning committee missed a vote on Tuesday on the issue, though a spokesperson for Mr. Garodnick said the vote is now slated for Thursday.

The Council must approve any zoning change, though it can impose changes of its own to an application. Without changing the zoning, Mr. Solow would be unable to develop any of the six residential buildings he desires.

If the Council votes down Mr. Solow’s application, the measure would mark a major defeat for a private developer in the land-use approval process.

While many developers drop out of the land-use process before it reaches the Council (it also must receive approval from the City Planning Commission), few, if any, have been handed a “no” vote by the Council.

The site is also unique for another reason: the land is likely Manhattan’s largest undeveloped, privately owned tract, magnifying the significance a “no” vote would have.

Mr. Garodnick’s office declined to comment on the talks with Mr. Solow’s East River Realty Company.

A spokesman for Mr. Solow, Michael Gross, said in a statement that the developer hopes for an agreement. “Over the past several days, both the City Council and Mr. Solow have worked cooperatively together so that the development can come to fruition,” Mr. Gross said.

Copyright ©, The New York Observer, L.P.

[alonzo-ny]

Can see him building commercial at this time anyway. This project is the vanilla of projects.

[brianac]

Council Aims To Downsize Solow Project

By PETER KIEFER
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 6, 2008

http://www.nysun.com/pics/72383_main_large.jpgFirst Avenue Properties Rezoning
A rendering of the proposed Sheldon Solow development program.

The City Council and developer Sheldon Solow are locked in last-minute negotiations over the fate of Mr. Solow's $4 billion mixed-use development project along the East River. The council's on Zoning and Franchises Committee canceled today's scheduled vote on the project, and sources close to both sides say that despite recent headway made toward finding a resolution, the two parties are divided on the fundamental issues of height and density in the proposed 6.2 million square-foot plan.

"It's too big in its present form," Council Member Tony Avella, who chairs the zoning and franchising committee, said.

If Mr. Avella's committee doesn't approve the project by a March 12 deadline, the developer would have to start essentially from scratch trying to make his way through the city's uniform land use review procedure.

Mr. Solow's development calls for the construction just south of the United Nations of six soaring residential towers with about 4,000 apartments, one office tower, and more than 500 public parking spaces.

A number of sources familiar with the negotiations said the height of the buildings, the use of a proposed commercial building, and aspects of the open-space design, which were challenged by the community board 6 and the local council member, Daniel Garodnick, have still not been resolved.

Discussions are also ongoing about public passageways from where the Solow property ends to where a proposed waterfront park has been envisioned, according to sources.

A spokesman for Mr. Solow, Michael Gross, declined to comment on details of the negotiations but said, "We hope the City Council will agree that this exciting development will benefit all New Yorkers, adding significantly to the economic and social vitality of the city. Over the past several days, both the City Council and Mr. Solow have worked cooperatively together so that the development can come to fruition."

The project involves what has been described as the largest stretch of undeveloped, privately owned land in Manhattan. It comes under council review at a time when New York City development projects have suffered a number of recent setbacks caused by a softening economy and the lack of financing caused by the credit crisis. Mr. Garodnick has been mentioned as a possible candidate for council speaker and he has staked out a strong public line against aspects of the proposal.

A senior policy analyst at the New York Municipal Art Society, Jasper Goldman, said the issues of public access are crucial to finding an agreement. "The consensus is that the design is very good, but who will control the space?" he asked. Mr. Goldman likened the current negotiations between the City Council and Mr. Solow to a game of chicken. He said he was optimistic that a deal will be struck.

"Solow has waited a long time for this and the council may feel that they can wait even longer. But everyone wants the plan to pass. It is probably the developer that has more to lose but every one has the chance to win in this. That is the dynamic," he said.

A series of high-profile projects have been rattled recently by funding setbacks and extended completion dates. The list of projects affected includes the Fulton Street Transit Center, the planned redevelopment of Penn Station and Forest City Ratner's $4 billion Atlantic Yards project near
downtown Brooklyn. Yesterday the New York Times reported that Morgan Stanley would back out of an effort with Tishman Speyer to build a new headquarters at the Hudson Yards Rail Yards on Manhattan's West Side.

At a press conference yesterday Mayor Bloomberg offered up his assessment of the challenges facing the city, state, and private developers.

"All of these things are going to be difficult to finance in this day and age.

And what people don't understand is the bond markets are saying we have an enormous problem in this country," he said. "I have no idea whether it is going to get worse or less but it will make financing the city more difficult. It will mean private developers have a more difficult time to do it."

Mr. Avella predicted that his committee would vote on Mr. Solow's plan by the March 12 deadline.

Copyright 2008 The New York Sun.

[Monumental]

I AM SO SICK OF THIS AVELLA A-HOLE!!!! :mad:

[econ_tim]

I AM SO SICK OF THIS AVELLA A-HOLE!!!! :mad:

http://www.baysidequeens.com/Local/OffaInfo.cfm?offalID=40&eoID=8

[TonyO]

NY Times
City Room blog
March 6, 2008, 2:49 pm

Developer Wants U.N. for His Proposed Tower

By Charles V. Bagli

The United Nations, which has long sought to renovate the Secretariat building on First Avenue and build a new office building, is considering a move to a proposed tower at a development site along the East River that is wending its way toward final approval by the city.

The project is owned by the developer Sheldon H. Solow, who hopes to persuade the City Council to grant his $4 billion project final approval next week. The project, which includes seven glass towers along First Avenue, between 35th and 41st Streets, has come under criticism from community groups and Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick who contend that the buildings are too big and have urged the developer to eliminate the sole office tower from what they say is a residential neighborhood. The six other buildings are apartment houses.

Mr. Solow may reduce the height of what is now a 47-story office tower planned for 41st Street, between First Avenue and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive, but he appears unwilling to eliminate it totally.

Today, the United Nations signed a short-term lease for 460,000 square feet at 380 Madison Avenue, a building owned by Mr. Solow. The move would allow the United Nations to vacate the Secretariat and renovate it all at once, rather than in stages, five floors at a time.

But the developer has another motive for the deal, aside for finding a tenant for vacant space. He is hoping the United Nations will be the anchor tenant for the office tower, which would be only three blocks south of the Secretariat. It would be an alternative to a long-stalled plan to build an office building for the U.N. on a park just to the north of Mr. Solow’s parcel, which the community board has reluctantly approved.

To make his case more convincing to the neighborhood’s residents, several executives who know him say that Mr. Solow plans to argue that if the U.N. moves to his tower and it is approved by the City Council, the community would not lose the park, between 41st and 42nd Streets.

“This is part of the major commitment Mr. Solow is making to developing the area around the U.N., including the $4 billion mixed-use development now under consideration by the City Council,” said a spokesman for the developer, Michael Gross. “The new development includes a commercial building virtually next door to the U.N., and at the end of its lease, the U.N. has said it would consider taking permanent space in this building if the Council approves the project.”

Michael Adlerstein, an assistant secretary general at the U.N. who is in charge of the renovation program, confirmed that he was interested but offered no commitment. “Four years from now,” Mr. Adlerstein said, “we will consider all possibilities at the time we need to consolidate.”

[londonlawyer]

Too bad these jackasses who fight every development don't acknowledge that, due to their opposition and developers' greed, NY takes a back seat to China, Dubai, etc. with respect to the creation of new landmarks. Instead of fighting height and density, these morons should fight mundane design and demand creativity.

I guess that we should look to China for leadership.

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii151/520foglio2008/21234.jpg

[Scraperfannyc]

I could not agree more. China and Dubai are making great strides ahead in architecture, and NYC is falling behind more and more. This reminds me of what is going with american cars and japanese cars. There was a time, not too long ago, that nobody would question why they would get a Ford Car, and american cars were the best to look at too..

NYC might be starting with some exciting proposals, but these proposals are getting trashed time and time again.

Do not give an inch to NIMBYs. The more you give in to NIMBYs, the more they want chopped off. The only thing that would truly satisfy a NIMBY is no development.

[alonzo-ny]

China and Dubai

China yes they are using Koolhaas and Herzog and de Meuron and Steven Holl etc but Dubai builds tacky crap, just really tall big tacky crap.

[MikeW]

Yes, but in Dubai or China, if you make a stink about sanctioned development, the cops come, get you, lock you in a room, and explain why you really don't want to be complaining. Then you don't any more.

Wait a minute, maybe that isn't such a bad idea.

[londonlawyer]

China yes they are using Koolhaas and Herzog and de Meuron and Steven Holl etc but Dubai builds tacky crap, just really tall big tacky crap.

Good point. Other than the Burj Dubai, Dubai does build a lot of dung.

[alonzo-ny]

Adrian Smith is the highest profile architect with a project there and he is far from the top.

[Stroika]

i agree heartily, londonlawyer, that new york's skyscrapers are quite miserable on the whole while certain high-profile developments in china and dubai are blowing our minds.

however, the economics of building are different in those places. china is still a third world nation with self-esteem issues and desperately trying to gain international respect. the buildings that impress us are the headquarters of the state television network/propaganda outlet; the airport; and olympic stadiums. they are government-built structures meant to attract your notice and mine and thereby gain prestige and legitimacy. (here's a good article on that topic: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/architecture_and_design/article3439582.ece)

there is no developer behind these projects trying to make money. look at the other structures in that picture of CCTV -- they're not so impressive, and indeed the vast majority of chinese construction is cheap, dangerous and definitely not up to the architectural snuff of herzog & demeuron.

and as mike w notes, just go ahead and try to speak out against those projects; you'll regret it mightily...

there is no profit motive as we know it behind what dubai is doing, either. it's a tiny emirate with a population of 1.5 million trying incongruously to become a world finance and tourism center before its oil runs out. that despite its small population, lack of financial professionals, and staggeringly hot climate. oil wealth that has never been more extravagant but may soon run out is propping up those buildings, not market demand or profit motives. again, it's a situation very different from what we have in new york.

at the end of the day, those of us who follow new york development closely and see that dozens and dozens of kaufman structures are built for every nouvel have a skewed perspective. uk papers reporting on the most exciting developments in the world always include the wtc with cctv and the olympic stadia in beijing, or the burj dubai, and americans on the whole are also pretty impressed by the construction going on here. although i personally hate what childs has done to the freedom tower, rogers' tower is pretty impressive -- as are gehry's iac, nouvel's moma tower, elements of brookfield's hudson yards proposal (RIP), and calatrava's south street building (fingers crossed).

i agree 100% that there's too much crap being built, and NIMBYs are responsible for too much of that. but developers' profit structure, city regulations and other factors play a part as well. we can and should press for better, but i don't think we should use the unanalogous examples of beijing and dubai to make ourselves feel even worse.

[antinimby]

Ugh, I give up.

Solow should just build a bunch of Avalon Chrystie-style 10 to 15 story chunky brick boxes surrounded by lots of green open spaces and fill them up with 80% low income apartments and be done with it so we don't have to hear any more of this saga.

If he needs advice on how to accomplish this, he should just call Sam Chang up and he'll hook him up with Gene Kaufman.

It can then be used as a testament on how the community can ruin a project that could have the potential to be a 21st century landmark.

[Hamilton]

Sorry, antinimby, that would be too tall.

I didn't move to Manhattan to have my light blocked by tall buildings. Think of the children!

[Jake]

I agree with Stroika on this one, Pyongyang has some of the world's "most" and "biggest" architectural things and yet there's no admiration flowing towards the DPRK. That's the same way I feel about Dubai and China desperately trying to replicate New York not realizing that it's the city that builds the buildings and not the other way around.

Similarly Washington National Cathedral may be stunning but it will never match any of the churches on the old continent.

[Optimus Prime]

While the community/activist plan is a little too frightened of height and density, I do have to admit that they are the ones bringing some important planning issues to the table. Their plan probably has more park than is needed (you can imagine some of those little green pockets becoming desolate and frightening...how many times do we need to see that towers in a park is a dumb idea?), but waterfront access is very important, as is site circulation, and decking the FDR and building a ferry pier are both outstanding ideas. NY needs to be thinking about these kinds of things, not because the community is owed anything but because it will make the neighborhood and the city better. As usual, MAS has half of a good idea.

[Monumental]

http://www.baysidequeens.com/Local/OffaInfo.cfm?offalID=40&eoID=8

You know, for about ten seconds today my dislike of this jerk abated....and then swung back in the other direction radically. This man has NO CLASS.
He reminds me why i hate politicians for the evil scum that they are.

I happened across a demonstration today, hundreds of people with flags out to show support for a Free Tibet. I support that (as much as just saying so means anything...) but its really REALLY important to a lot of people. They're singing and chanting and its all very sincere and genuine when they trot out...

AVELLA

"THank you for bringing my attention to your issue. I'm going to introduce a bill in City Council in protest of the Olympics (in China) <??!?!??!>. AND I'm going to be running for mayor in 2009!"

And with that he got off stage. First he showboats his way out there despite a protest about human rights violations and then he informs us he's running for mayor...?
Douche

Watch WNY, imagine this guy as mayor. I shudder to think.
Sorry about the tanjent...but...AAAARGH

[antinimby]

In the history of this city, there's been more bad mayors than great ones. So Avella (or some other schmuck) becoming mayor wouldn't surprise me if it does happen.

I personally think Thompson would make a good mayor.

[Monumental]

In the history of this city, there's been more bad mayors than great ones. So Avella (or some other schmuck) becoming mayor wouldn't surprise me if it does happen.

I personally think Thompson would make a good mayor.

*dejected sigh*

(slumps over and dies)

[stache]

but let's try to stay on topic. ;)

[Stroika]

"Red Dan" Garodnick and his Oldies But Goodies have killed this project. And New York moves closer to mediocrity as a result.

From Curbed:

"So Low"

As expected, a scaled-down version of Sheldon Solow's East River waterfront plan was approved by a City Council subcommittee today (http://www.observer.com/2008/council-gives-solow-green-light-towers-un). If it sails by all the other approvals, the tallest building on the former Con Edison property will be 595 feet, which is 90 feet taller than the nearby UN. The tallest building would also be shorter than the shortest building proposed by Solow in 2007.

[Scraperfannyc]

It has finally ended. This has been one of those painful events, where you see a nice proposal being chopped away again and again, and nice buldings being turned into bland ones.

The questioin I have to myself is which is better, this or trump place on the west side? Both very boring developments along the water that is making it difficult to take a nice picture of manhattan these days.

[RandySavage]

Only the early iteration of the design was decent:
http://www.curbed.com/2005_11_eastriver.jpg

The more recent one was pretty lame:
http://cityspaces.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/2007_9_soloweast.jpg

Not shedding any tears over that loss.

It's possible something decent could come out of a complete redesign, if that indeed is going to happen. Is Richard Meier still on board? His 43 story proposal for Philly:
http://www.mandevilleplace.com/images/photo2_lg.jpg

[Stroika]

I agree the most recent iteration was/is garbage. I can't tell if that's what was approved -- that design was used by all the papers in their lead-up to the City Council meeting.

It's just a shame that the stuffed-shirt pols who need to be greased to get anything done are so lacking in vision. That "Red Dan" Garodnick seizes on these bogus strawmen arguments of "shadows" and "traffic" -- classic NIMBY lines cobbled together when all else fails -- to knock down the height of this project is detrimental to the city in the long term.

Imagine if neighbors and politicians used their inordinate clout over the most sensible projects (somehow they have no say over the McSams of the world...?) for good rather than evil. Though legislating taste is a dangerous thing, imagine if their considerations were jobs creation, cultural improvements, the statement a project makes to visitors to the city and the outside world, effect on home values, amenities, and quality of design and materials.

Imagine if that last design -- probably a manifestation of Solow's frustration with his inability to do what he wants on land that belongs to him, is currently totally empty, and begs for an icon -- was ordered improved upon by the Community Board. Instead, they demand it be Hartford-ized for consumption by the provincials over in Midtown.

Unfortunately, Community Boards are the "American Idol" of New York politics -- a place for the Lowest Common Denominator to curl up and hunker down, and a place to drive common sense to drink.

[Stroika]

Here is the triumphant press release put out by City Council member "Red Dan" Garodnick's office today. With extraordinary fervor and bitterness, Garodnick dogged Solow's proposal, and it is thanks to his efforts that for at least 60 years we'll all get a piece of Hartford, CT, on the East River.

This document should be studied so that when the revolution comes we all see how people like him think and know never to let them get some crummy local government seat, whence they can wreak havoc on the city's development.

Just like George Bush's evangelispeak, Red Dan and his NIMBYs have a language unto themselves, full of words like "shadows," "traffic," "affordable housing," and "open space." In English, they roughly translate as: "nothing," "nothing," "a good idea generally, but perhaps not when ordered by a government," and "trash-strewn, vacant areas of brown grass 7 months per annum but kind of nice on weekends in May and June."

And because these people don't hold jobs in the private sector, they have a strange suspicion of it, viewing office buildings like some unsanitary bartering market, bad for one's health and corruptive among the young.

Where's Mayor Mike when we need him!?

Garodnick Announces Agreement on East River Development

Major Modifications to Plan to Address Height, Density, Open Space Concerns

Council Member Dan Garodnick today announced an agreement with the East River Realty Company (ERRC) on the rezoning of over nine acres of First Avenue from 35th to 41st Streets.

The plan, which was approved by the City Council’s Land Use Committee, allows for growth on the scale proposed by Community Board 6, and greatly reduces the environmental, traffic and shadow impacts that the proposed towers would have imposed on the surrounding neighborhood.

“This is a truly sensible development, and one that respects open space and will add value to our neighborhood,” said Council Member Garodnick. “The Council is amending the project to address every area of concern put forward by the local community, while clearing the way for development that will bring significant revenue to the City and create thousands of new jobs.”

Additionally, the plan creates five acres of new public open space, a new public school, affordable housing (with incentives to create moderate- and middle-income housing), and ground-level retail to establish a vibrant mixed-use community.

“From the beginning, I have supported significant development and job creation at this site, but demanded a plan that respects community planning goals, provides affordable housing and promotes the neighborhood’s waterfront and open spaces,” said Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer. “I am proud to have worked to achieve significant progress on those issues today, and I commend Speaker Quinn, Council Member Garodnick, and this determined and united community on their efforts to create one of New York’s great new places on the East Side waterfront.”

“The deal that Council Member Garodnick and the ERRC have come up with is a win-win-win situation: a big win for the community, a win for the developer, and a win for the City,” said Lyle Frank, Chair of Community Board 6. “It provides for permanently accessible public open space. It recognizes the need for middle- and moderate-income housing. It also provides funds toward a much-needed waterfront park, as well as the easements necessary for future access to such a park. We are also pleased that there have been significant steps taken toward minimizing the impacts of the commercial building, and toward creating a project that is similar in scale to what exists in the neighboring area.”

The plan approved by the Land Use Committee reflects significant departures from the proposal ERRC delivered to the Council, including:

Smaller Buildings

The heights and density of all the buildings were cut to address shadow, traffic and other environmental impacts. Under the new plan, the tallest building on the site is now 595 feet. When the discussions began, the shortest building on the site was 606 feet.

Fewer Shadows on Neighboring Parks
The proposed building adjacent to Tudor City, originally proposed for 721 feet has been reduced to 462 feet, with the result that the landmarked Tudor City Greens will now see very few additional shadows. In addition, the two buildings to rise at 616 First Avenue have been reoriented to greatly reduce the shadows on St. Vartan’s Park.

Scaling Down the Commercial Building
The height of the commercial building was cut from 688 to 550 feet, as part of a reduction of 100,000 square feet of commercial space — a move that will alleviate traffic generated by the building. Additionally, the public parking next to the office building was cut by 50 percent to discourage car use. The new plan also creates a performing arts space on the eastern side of the building — programmed by an independent not-for-profit organization — to ensure that there is activity on nights and weekends.

New Kinds of Affordable Housing
The affordable housing plan previously agreed to by ERRC has been revised to include an option for moderate- and middle-income housing, in addition to low-income housing, as in the Hudson Yards rezoning. It will represent at least 20 percent of the new residential space, at approximately 579 units, which will comprise both on-site new construction and permanently preserving the affordability of existing units in the neighborhood that would otherwise go market-rate in the next few years.

Enhanced Public Space
Half of the entire site is dedicated to open space — just under five acres. The approved plan also ensures the public’s access to the open green space by creating an independent 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation run by representatives of community stakeholders to monitor and program it. Additionally, the new open-air performing arts space on the eastern side of the commercial building is the first of its kind in this neighborhood. ERRC also committed $10 million toward the creation of a new waterfront park, long sought by local residents.

More School Seats
The new school to be built in this development will provide 630 seats for children in grades K-8. The school is slated to open in the fall of 2012, and serve children from the new residential buildings as well as the surrounding neighborhood. As a result of the Council’s modifications, the school will now front First Avenue instead of its proposed location adjacent to the FDR Drive.

[antinimby]

Plan for Ambitious East Side Project Clears Big Hurdle


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/13/nyregion/solow600.jpg
A rendering of the Solow project, which will face the East River south of the United Nations. After negotiations
with the city, the towers will no longer be as high as they are in this picture.


By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: March 13, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyregion/13solow.html)

More than seven years after he signed a contract to buy the last large undeveloped site on the East Side, the developer Sheldon H. Solow gained an important approval from a City Council committee on Wednesday for his $4 billion plan to build seven towers on nine acres along First Avenue.

The unanimous vote by the panel, the Council’s Land Use Committee, did not come without concessions in addition to those he had already made, involving further reductions in the height of some of the towers, which local residents feared would cast shadows across the neighborhood. At the north end of the site, at 41st Street, the sole office tower, for instance, was cut to 35 stories, or 553 feet tall, from 864 feet in the developer’s original plan.

Mr. Solow, a 79-year-old billionaire, also agreed to provide five acres of public gardens and walkways, a public school and middle-income housing. The full City Council is expected to vote on the project on March 26, but the deal approved on Wednesday came after weeks of sometimes acrimonious negotiations and is considered all but certain to be adopted.

The developer said he was elated, comparing the quality of his East River project to the 50-story skyscraper he owns at 9 West 57th Street, which has panoramic views of Central Park and Midtown.

“This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put a major mark on the Manhattan skyline and connect New Yorkers with the East River,” Mr. Solow said in a telephone interview after the vote. “It’s been a long time coming, and we have a wonderful plan to create a waterfront destination that will become every bit as iconic as 9 West 57th Street.”

The site, which is made up of three parcels between 35th and 41st Streets, has been cleared of a steam plant and other buildings that occupied the formerly industrial neighborhood. Mr. Solow said he hoped to begin construction of the first building next month.

A onetime critic of the project, Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick, said he was pleased with the outcome. The height and bulk of the seven towers had sparked criticism from the local community board and elected officials, including State Senator Liz Krueger and the Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer. As the proposal wended its way through the city approval process, they sought and won a series of concessions to reduce the size of the towers and to set aside more public space.

“This will become a vibrant, mixed-use community that both the neighborhood and the city can be proud of,” Mr. Garodnick said in a phone interview. “We addressed the concerns of the community on the impact of tall and dense buildings, limited the shadows and created an open space that will be truly public forever.”

Still, Mr. Solow kept his proposed office tower, something the officials had wanted to eliminate, saying it did not belong in a residential neighborhood.
Never one to compromise easily, he did significantly reduce the height of the proposed residential tower on the west side of First Avenue, between 39th and 40th Streets, from 69 stories to 44. Three other towers were also trimmed.

Mr. Solow also agreed to provide $10 million for a public pedestrian bridge over the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive, enabling residents and visitors to get from his property to a proposed waterfront park.

Ms. Krueger said the community was able to shape the project because the elected officials stuck together, even after the City Planning Commission voted to approve it. “I still think the city needs a better approach to urban planning,” she said. “We were the proactive urban planners here.”

Mr. Solow agreed to buy the land from Con Edison in 2000 for $630 million. He spent more than $100 million demolishing the buildings and decontaminating the land.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[alonzo-ny]

The really retarded thing i