Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 428

Thread: New York University Expansion

  1. #106
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default


  2. #107
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Render as propaganda. (But then, when is a render not that?). In this case NYU fails to show how this new tower would rise along Bleecker (the street at the left in the last shot). The proposal is that the tower would rise from the edge of the side walk straight up 40 stories, and they're requesting a variance to get around the set back regulations. Plus it would mean the removal of ~1/3 of the mature grove of tress that now grow within the landmarked open space along Bleecker.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NYUBleeckerTower1.jpg 
Views:	175 
Size:	87.5 KB 
ID:	11105

    Also in both of the two tower renders the new one is made to appear shorter or equal to the height of the Pei towers, when in reality the new one (at 40 stories) is 10 stories taller than the existing trio. Plus they made the as-of-right proposal (last shot) appear as deadly dull as possible. If they were to show the as-of-right proposal from the same angle as seen in the first two shots it would be barely be visible from those POVs.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NYUBleeckerTower2.jpg 
Views:	161 
Size:	74.7 KB 
ID:	11106
    Last edited by lofter1; October 8th, 2010 at 12:23 PM.

  3. #108

    Default

    Where's the supermarket?

  4. #109
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    In NYU's hoped for proposal the supermarket would probably go into the new "zipper" building along Mercer (the brownish rectangle at the right). But nothing is definite on this project. That's one of the irritations for those who live nearby. Chances are a supermarket would be out of the picture for a couple of years, as it seems this site is higher on their list than the "zipper" building site along Mercer. Which leaves few options for those living in this immediate area. There's one funky Gristede's a few blocks away at Mercer / 3rd, but it's 1/4 the size of the existing supermarket. The other closest supermarkets are ~ 10 blocks away (which is problematic for oldsters and others).

    The timeline for demo / rebuilding becomes a big issue here. So far NYU hasn't clarified the building timeline and seemingly can't (or won't) make public their timelines until they know how LPC and CPC rule in regards to the tower within the protected block and the necessary zoning changes.

  5. #110
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Notice when looking at those two plot diagrams above that even NYU's "as-of-right" proposal seems to infringe upon the Landmarked plot (at the east and southern edges). The images indicate that NYU would remove existing protected green space (some 10-15 trees at my count). And dig down under the protected plaza for parking below. So perhaps they really don't have the full rights to fulfill their vision of what they term "as-of-right."

  6. #111
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    N.Y.U. Bleecker St. high-rise would be tallest in the Village

    THE VILLAGER
    By Albert Amateau
    October 14, 2010

    New York University last week filed its plan with the Landmarks Preservation Commission to build a fourth tower in the landmarked I.M. Pei-designed Silver Towers part of the university’s southern superblock between LaGuardia Place and Mercer St.

    If approved, the proposed 399-foot-tall tower, in which N.Y.U. intends to include a hotel, would be the tallest building in the Village and about 100 feet taller than the existing towers in the plaza where the 36-foot-tall concrete statute of Picasso’s “Portrait of Sylvette” is located.

    L.P.C. has not yet scheduled a hearing on the project, the first official submission of any part of the “NYU 2031” plan to add 3 million square feet of space in and around the Village in the next 20 years — with more than half of that square footage planned for N.Y.U.’s Washington Square Village and the Silver Towers superblocks.

    The proposed tower, which needs L.P.C. approval because it is within the designated landmarked Silver Towers site, has been a focus of preservationist and neighborhood opposition.

    “We’re opposed to N.Y.U.’s 400-foot tower plan, which would compromise the award-winning Pei design, block views of the Picasso sculpture and overwhelm its surroundings,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. Berman repeated his demand that the university plan its future development outside of the Village.

    Sean Sweeney, president of the Soho Alliance and co-chairperson of Community Board 2’s Landmarks and Public Aesthetics Committee, also said the tower would degrade the prizewinning I.M. Pei design. But the university’s plan to include a hotel in the proposed tower was the underlying reason for Sweeney’s resentment of the project.

    “I can’t believe that they need another hotel in the area,” said Sweeney, noting that there are more than a dozen existing or soon-to-open boutique hotels in Soho south of the superblocks. “Maybe [N.Y.U. President] John Sexton and Donald Trump should get together and talk about the hotel business,” said Sweeney, adding that the Trump Soho condo-hotel on Spring and Varick Sts. has had disappointing condo sales.

    However, Jo Hamilton, C.B. 2 chairperson, noted on Tuesday that the L.P.C. review must consider only whether the project is aesthetically appropriate for the designated landmarked complex.

    “There is a lot of concern about the hotel among board members, and of course we’ll mention it. But the Landmarks Preservation review cannot consider the uses of the project,” she said. Hamilton said the necessity to consider the landmark issue before land-use and environmental issues makes community board reviews of major projects very difficult.

    The N.Y.U. submission to L.P.C. said the fourth-tower proposal would continue Pei’s “pinwheel” configuration of the existing towers and preserve the view corridors from the existing towers. The proposal would also add a half-acre public green space to the superblock, according to N.Y.U.’s submission.

    In an earlier plan, N.Y.U. had proposed a shorter, mixed-use building for the site of the existing low-rise Morton Williams supermarket on the northeast corner of the south superblock between Bleecker and West Houston Sts.

    Because the Morton Williams site was excluded from the Silver Towers complex when it was designated a landmark in 2008, a project on that site would not require L.P.C. approval. Moreover, when the university purchased the Morton Williams property in 2001, there was an old urban renewal area deed restriction that allowed “as of right” redevelopment (not requiring any special approval or special permit) up to 225,000 square feet — but a project there can only be built after 2021, when the deed restriction expires.

    N.Y.U. designers came up with the current design with a taller tower on a smaller footprint to the east of the supermarket site and within the landmarked Silver Towers complex. The university says this design, submitted to L.P.C. on Oct. 7, completes Pei’s pinwheel arrangement of buildings and maintains the unobstructed views from each of the three existing towers. The new plan also adds green space on the site of the Morton Williams market, which N.Y.U. intends to move to a new development that will replace its Coles gym on the Mercer St. side of the south superblock.

    If L.P.C decides against issuing a certificate of appropriateness for the planned fourth tower, N.Y.U. would propose developing the Morton Williams site and would include the site in the uniform land use review procedure, or ULURP, for the two superblocks. The ULURP, only one of several reviews required for the N.Y.U. large-scale development, is expected to begin next year.

    From the neighborhood preservation angle, Berman said that a major development on the current supermarket site would be “terrible,” even though it wouldn’t be as tall as the 399-foot tower in the landmarked plaza area to the east.

    “N.Y.U is holding a gun to the community’s head and saying, ‘Pick your poison.’ That’s not a game we’re playing,” Berman said.

    Sweeney said if it came to a choice between the Morton Williams site and the proposed location, he would pick Morton Williams rather than compromise the I.M. Pei design. Commenting on the N.Y.U. statement that the proposed location complements the Pei arrangement, Sweeney said, “If they got I.M. Pei himself to say that, I might believe it more.”

    Hamilton said C.B. 2 would schedule a joint public forum of its Landmarks and Public Aesthetics Committee and its Arts and Institutions Committees to hear the issue before the L.P.C. hearing, which is yet to be announced.

    In addition, there will be a joint meeting of C.B. 2’s Arts and Institutions Committee and its Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee on Mon., Oct. 18, at 6:30 p.m., at P.S. 41, 106 W. 11th St., auditorium, for the community to discuss N.Y.U.’s plan to take over the public open spaces on Mercer St. and LaGuardia Place on the two superblocks. A history of the strips will be discussed, and ideas will be aired about transferring the land from the Department of Transportation to the Parks Department, according to the meeting agenda.

    © 2010 Community Media, LLC

  7. #112
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    N.Y.U. growth plan adds up to one massive impact

    Talking Point

    THE VILLAGER
    By Andrew Berman
    October 14, 2010

    Earlier this month, New York University submitted its application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission to build a 400-foot-tall hotel and residence on Bleecker St. in the landmarked Silver Towers complex. This is the beginning of N.Y.U.’s long, multistage approval process for its massive 20-year expansion plan. “NYU 2031,” as it is called, would add 3 million square feet of space in Greenwich Village, the East Village and environs (roughly doubling N.Y.U.’s rate of growth compared to the last several decades), and would be far and away the biggest development plan to hit the Village in decades — possibly ever.

    N.Y.U. also says it plans to add another 3 million square feet of space outside of the Village, but this is mostly expansions of its medical facilities and its newly acquired engineering school, which are already located outside of the Village, respectively, on the East Side and in Downtown Brooklyn.

    Almost 2 million of the 3 million square feet of space N.Y.U. is seeking to add in the Village would be shoved into nine blocks to the southeast of Washington Square, but would require extensive public approvals to be built. For this reason, we are getting a great deal of detail about what the 2 million square feet would look like. The other 1 million-plus square feet of space will be developed opportunistically by N.Y.U. throughout the Village, East Village, Noho and Union Square without necessarily requiring public approvals, and thus N.Y.U. is supplying no information about what it would look like.

    However, to give a sense of the magnitude of these figures, N.Y.U.’s new 26-story mega-dorm on E. 12th St. — the tallest building in the East Village — is 175,000 square feet. Thus, the 3 million square feet of space N.Y.U. wishes to add to the neighborhood is the equivalent of 17 more of these.

    N.Y.U. is seeking public approvals to build:

    • The tallest building ever erected in the Village, the aforementioned 399-foot-tall Bleecker St. hotel and residence.

    • A massive, nearly 1-million-square-foot building, about 200 feet high, replacing the one-story Coles Gym on Mercer St. between Bleecker and Houston Sts., which would include (among other uses) a 1,400-bed dorm — more than twice the number of beds in the school’s E. 12th St. mega-dorm. This would be one of the largest buildings ever built in the Village, if not the largest.

    • Two enormous, curving buildings on the open space between the slabs of Washington Square Village, one slightly shorter than the existing buildings and one slightly taller.

    • A series of buildings about which N.Y.U. has provided little detail that would replace the few remaining lower-scale buildings between Eighth, Fourth and Mercer Sts., east of the park.

    Perhaps as important as what N.Y.U. is proposing to build are the public approvals it would need in order to be able to do so:

    • Unprecedented landmarks approvals allowing high-rise construction on open space within a landmarked complex.

    • A lifting of longstanding zoning protections requiring the maintenance of open space in one of the most open-space-starved areas of New York City.

    • A change in zoning in the neighborhood from residential to commercial, allowing the development of hotels and large-scale, regional, retail uses.

    • The transfer to N.Y.U. of six pieces of publicly owned land, much of which is currently used for parks or recreational space.

    • The lifting of deed restrictions on formerly publicly owned land that currently restrict N.Y.U.’s ability to build during the next 11 years.

    All of these proposed developments will require advisory votes from Community Board 2 and Borough President Stringer, but must receive the approval of both the City Planning Commission and the City Council in order to be built.

    While the votes of the community board and borough president are only advisory, they play an important role in influencing the process; final disapproval of the N.Y.U. plan is highly unlikely without rejection first by the board and borough president.

    While a majority of members of the City Planning Commission are appointed by the mayor (the remainder are appointed by the five borough presidents and the public advocate), the City Council’s vote will largely come down to two people — the local councilmember, Margaret Chin, who represents the affected area, and the Council speaker, Christine Quinn, who coincidentally represents the adjacent district.

    On land-use issues, the Council typically defers to the wishes of the affected councilmember — in this case, Chin. However, sometimes on land-use issues considered to be of broader citywide significance, the Council may go its own way, against the wishes of the local councilmember. The Council speaker is generally key in determining whether or not this is the case. That’s why these two elected officials, who represent much of the Village, will likely determine whether or not the N.Y.U. plan goes forward.

    Many individual community board members have expressed strong reservations about the N.Y.U. plan. But neither the full community board, nor any of the other elected officials who will vote on the plan, have yet staked out positions on it. That means regardless of what we might hope or believe they will do, as of right now, we do not know, and can take nothing for granted.

    Fortunately, for those government officials who see N.Y.U.’s growth as a boon to the city, this is not a choice between preserving the Village and encouraging needed economic development. The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and the Community Action Alliance on NYU 2031 have been calling on N.Y.U. to pursue other locations for its massive expansion plan, such as the Financial District, which is easily connected by mass transit to the Village and able to absorb this type of development. Lower Manhattan community leaders have echoed this call, and have urged N.Y.U. to consider their neighborhood for the new developments proposed for the Village, saying they would be welcomed and contextual there.

    Getting N.Y.U. to consider the Financial District or other satellite locations is vital to the Village’s future. N.Y.U.’s 20-year expansion plan, as massive as it is, is only slated to absorb the university’s growth for the next two decades. After that, if it does not consider alternate locations, N.Y.U. will come back seeking another 3 million square feet of space in our neighborhood, or more — tearing down and building up more and more, with more open space and low-rise buildings replaced by larger new ones for N.Y.U. And this pattern will only continue.

    So what’s at stake with the process that is starting now is not just the next 20 years, but the entire future of the Village.

    Berman is executive director, Greenwich Village Society
    for Historic Preservation, and a founding member, Community Action Alliance on NYU 2031 (CAAN 2031).

    © 2009 Community Media, LLC

  8. #113

    Default

    I am against the destruction of the city's architectural heritage to build 90% of the junk we get these days.

    But when it comes to absolutely underutilized, tower-in-the-park grassy patches, there really is no better place to build.

    The city *does* need new office and residential space, and there's no doubt that it will keep creating just that. Given that, I'd much, much rather see it built amid the postwar Warsaw environment of University Village or its lower-rent brethren -- the city's abundant housing projects, which, with their parking lots and grass lots, are space-wasters like nothing else. While I'd like to see scrutiny applied to NYU at all times, the outcry here strikes me as counterproductive NIMBYism -- much better to see this tower rise than 100 tenements razed and 20 10-story clunkers built to house the students that will be in the Pinwheel.

  9. #114
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The"Pinwheel" and surrounding area are protected by designation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, a designation that NYU backed. It is one of the few NYC landmarks that includes the open space around it. The buildings and open space together are what make this site special (like it or not).

    I wish that I.M. Pei would weigh in on this.

    This tower is not housing for students, but rather for faculty -- and a hotel for visiting whatevers. There are about 1 dozen new hotels that have opened or are opening within 20 blocks.

    What is the point of landmarking if the owner is then able to chop away at the landmarked site / structure?

    It sets a very bad precedent and undermines the purpose of landmarking in NYC.

    NYU is free to build on the Morton Williams corner site. If NYU wants additional space on that block beyond what is allowed by zoning then they should do what every other property owner in NYC has to do: Apply for that and present a worthy building for the corner lot.

  10. #115

    Default

    ^
    I have no idea why that site was landmarked in the first place, and why NYU backed it. The towers are unremarkable, and the siteing is active bad for the area. Infilling the site would make it look more in place.

    And who cares what the point of landmarking is? Like most things having to do with land use in NY, it was a political sop to the nimby's and luddites at the time who decried the demolition of the old Penn Station. It continues to serve as nothing more than a way curry favor with whatever political group the mayor at the time needs the support of. There no concept of precident. What ever the board votes on at any particular time goes. Andif they want to do one thing one year and another thing the next, they're free to do so. In reality, the whole concept of landmarking stinks to hell and should be eliminated. This situation is a prime display of that.

  11. #116
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post

    And who cares what the point of landmarking is?
    It happens to be NY law. That's the "point." Therefore procedures and regulations have to be followed.

    It doesn't matter that you or others don't get why the Silver Towers and surrounding site were landmarked. Both the LPC and NYU understand the architectural worthiness. And once the designation was made then the parties involved have to abide by the controls and benefits that go with it.

  12. #117
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post

    ... political sop to the nimby's and luddites ... continues to serve as nothing more than a way curry favor with whatever political group the mayor at the time needs the support of ... the whole concept of landmarking stinks to hell and should be eliminated.
    Your position is clear.

    So ... Tell us: What are you doing, besides posting, to put your view of reality into effect?

  13. #118

    Default

    Nothing. I'm outnumbered, and I'm not in the business (real estate). If it impacted me directly, and I had the (big) money for a legal fight, I might try something, but then again, it doesn't and I don't.

    But that doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean I can't publicize my dislike. I think this, along with a number of other laws in the city, has contributed to lot of the problems the city has (mainly the housing shortage, but also the budget problems.) But the people are getting what they want.

    As far as this block is concerned, legally you're correct. But it makes my point. Whatever justification was given for this landmarking, it was a politically inspired joke. The joke will get even bigger when the LPC gives them what they want this time around. But in point of fact, it will be the right thing to do, because there was no reason to landmark it in the first place, and nothing will be lost by letting them infill it.
    Last edited by BBMW; October 19th, 2010 at 12:47 AM.

  14. #119
    European Import KenNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manhattan - BPC
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Did you just say Silver Towers got landmarked?

  15. #120
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The 3 towers and surrounding site designated a NYC Landmark November 18, 2008.

    Designation Report [pdf]

Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Morgan Library & Museum Expansion - 29 East 36th Street - by Renzo Piano
    By NoyokA in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: October 29th, 2010, 09:57 AM
  2. Lower East Side Tenement Museum fights for expansion
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 6th, 2010, 06:38 PM
  3. Huge Expansion For Kings Plaza
    By muscle1313 in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2010, 07:25 AM
  4. Expansion of Museum of Jewish Heritage
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 9th, 2003, 06:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software