Page 17 of 93 FirstFirst ... 71314151617181920212767 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 1385

Thread: Con Ed site on the East River

  1. #241
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    I don't think that NYC Zoning Res. would allow "by right" an 80 story building to be built on Chambers St. So if a developer wanted to build such a building (a building that does not comply with the local zoning laws), then the developer would have to go through the land use process to get special OK's to allow the building to be built. This is when the public can chime in.

    The process often leads to compromise on both sides. And while neither side might end up with what they precisely want, the process can lead to a final result that better serves multiple constituencies.

    And don't forget that many of these large projects are laden with "tax incentives" bestowed upon them by the powers that be, so tax payers as a whole are directly affected.

  2. #242
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex ballard
    Well, then here's my next question:

    Let's say I'm Developer Bob and I want to build an 80 story building at Chambers st. CD 1 holds a meeting where a few people are upset (for un-serious reasons). Now, my buidling has meet codes, zoning and approval from the city, how can the NIMBYs stop this from happening like they always do?

    Is it the Media? Politicans? Interest groups stopping construction?
    If everyone who has to approve this has done so, then I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be in the clear. The main concern about NIMBY's is when they start holding public rallies, petitioning politicians, and then gaining the support of certain influential people who have a big say on what gets built and what doesn't. We know this from what happened with the Jets stadium. Silver, Fields, Miller, Weiner - they all ended up representing powerful districts in Manhattan. Once the politicians get involved, then the media brings the issue to everyone else, and if you get a lot of negative publicity, you're screwed.

    I feel that the most important single skill a developer can have, especially in a city like New York, is the ability to compromise. Going into a project with an iron fist will get you nowhere. Just think of Trump's failure with Television City, or, to a similar extent, the big players behind the Jets stadium. Now, look at Ratner. For his Beekman Street Tower, which is still far from being built, he has already included a school, height reductions, and I'm sure a bunch of other things that I can't list off the top of my head. In Atlantic Yards, he's buying up literally every apartment on the site. He's had height reductions, a lot of affordable housing concessions, and has managed to garner the support of Markowitz. This is someone who has a good idea of how to build big in New York. I look forward to seeing him embark on other, bigger projects in the future. In the meantime, have Developer Bob set up a conference call with Ratner, with a secretary taking notes.

  3. #243
    Forum Veteran macreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    So on this subject, what kind of zoning rights does SOLOW have? Let's say the community puts up a huge opposition, what can SOLOW build without the community's help?

    I mean Trump put up the Trump World Monolith while high powered neighbors weeped because he had the zoning rights....what kind of rights does SOLOW have?

  4. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686
    If everyone who has to approve this has done so, then I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be in the clear. The main concern about NIMBY's is when they start holding public rallies, petitioning politicians, and then gaining the support of certain influential people who have a big say on what gets built and what doesn't. We know this from what happened with the Jets stadium. Silver, Fields, Miller, Weiner - they all ended up representing powerful districts in Manhattan. Once the politicians get involved, then the media brings the issue to everyone else, and if you get a lot of negative publicity, you're screwed.

    I feel that the most important single skill a developer can have, especially in a city like New York, is the ability to compromise. Going into a project with an iron fist will get you nowhere. Just think of Trump's failure with Television City, or, to a similar extent, the big players behind the Jets stadium. Now, look at Ratner. For his Beekman Street Tower, which is still far from being built, he has already included a school, height reductions, and I'm sure a bunch of other things that I can't list off the top of my head. In Atlantic Yards, he's buying up literally every apartment on the site. He's had height reductions, a lot of affordable housing concessions, and has managed to garner the support of Markowitz. This is someone who has a good idea of how to build big in New York. I look forward to seeing him embark on other, bigger projects in the future. In the meantime, have Developer Bob set up a conference call with Ratner, with a secretary taking notes.

    But wait:

    CD 1 has 34,000 residents. The NIMBYs may be 30-40 people. If the other 33,000 support the project, how can a few crash it?

  5. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686
    If everyone who has to approve this has done so, then I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be in the clear. The main concern about NIMBY's is when they start holding public rallies, petitioning politicians, and then gaining the support of certain influential people who have a big say on what gets built and what doesn't. We know this from what happened with the Jets stadium. Silver, Fields, Miller, Weiner - they all ended up representing powerful districts in Manhattan. Once the politicians get involved, then the media brings the issue to everyone else, and if you get a lot of negative publicity, you're screwed.

    I feel that the most important single skill a developer can have, especially in a city like New York, is the ability to compromise. Going into a project with an iron fist will get you nowhere. Just think of Trump's failure with Television City, or, to a similar extent, the big players behind the Jets stadium. Now, look at Ratner. For his Beekman Street Tower, which is still far from being built, he has already included a school, height reductions, and I'm sure a bunch of other things that I can't list off the top of my head. In Atlantic Yards, he's buying up literally every apartment on the site. He's had height reductions, a lot of affordable housing concessions, and has managed to garner the support of Markowitz. This is someone who has a good idea of how to build big in New York. I look forward to seeing him embark on other, bigger projects in the future. In the meantime, have Developer Bob set up a conference call with Ratner, with a secretary taking notes.
    Not to nitpick but Ratner raised the heights of both projects.

  6. #246
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Alex Ballard: Let's say I'm Developer Bob and I want to build an 80 story building at Chambers st. CD 1 holds a meeting where a few people are upset (for un-serious reasons). Now, my buidling has meet codes, zoning and approval from the city, how can the NIMBYs stop this from happening like they always do?
    Pianoman: If everyone who has to approve this has done so, then I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be in the clear.
    The course of this question / response seems flawed:

    The 80 story building Alex proposes for that area is too big under the Zoning regs, so it must go through the public process before it will be approved.

    Pianoman responds as if the 80 story building is OK'd sans public response, and therefore any public input after the supposed approval would be moot.

    This building as proposed would most likely never make it through the approval process without major input from the community, which would lead to changes + compromises.

    For example: 200 Chambers Street started as a much bigger plan which required variances to allow it to be built at the proposed size. But after much public input the height of the building was lessened -- and many more public amenities were added.

    The example of Trump World Tower @ "90 stories" is a great example of a builder who bought the required air rights which allowed him to build as he saw fit -- and therefore was not stymied by public input.

  7. #247

    Default

    "This building as proposed would most likely never make it through the approval process without major input from the community, which would lead to changes + compromises".


    "...input from the community".... how refreshingly democratic.

  8. #248
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    The course of this question / response seems flawed:

    The 80 story building Alex proposes for that area is too big under the Zoning regs, so it must go through the public process before it will be approved.

    Pianoman responds as if the 80 story building is OK'd sans public response, and therefore any public input after the supposed approval would be moot.

    This building as proposed would most likely never make it through the approval process without major input from the community, which would lead to changes + compromises.

    For example: 200 Chambers Street started as a much bigger plan which required variances to allow it to be built at the proposed size. But after much public input the height of the building was lessened -- and many more public amenities were added.

    The example of Trump World Tower @ "90 stories" is a great example of a builder who bought the required air rights which allowed him to build as he saw fit -- and therefore was not stymied by public input.
    My response was not meant to specifically say, "Okay, Developer Bob can build an 80 story building on a lot on Chambers Street." I thought Alex was using that location as an illustrative example. I don't doubt that that kind of building is not zoned for that specific area. My point is: if, as Alex said, the building met all codes, requirements, and was already approved by the city, I don't see how NIMBY's could block it, e.g. Trump World Tower. My subsequent argument about about the importance of compromise was meant to address the more likely situation that, a) the building has met most requirements but still needs approval from the city; b) NIMBY's have won the support of important local politicians who have the sway to block/alter the project.

  9. #249

    Default

    /\ Right. I was simply using an example.

    Anyway, how come NIMBYs hold such power over politicans. It's only a few people. And they don't have the money developers do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I thought money talks!!!!!!

  10. #250
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Who ever said NIMBY's can't have money? What about all the people donating thousands of dollars to Gifford Miller's mayoral campaign? Why do you think he led the charge against the new garbage transfer station proposed by Bloomberg in his neighborhood? It's almost always about the money. On the other hand, there are also your do-gooder politicians who will always take the side of the little-guy, those artists and lower-middle class people who form the watch-dog committies opposing development in Brooklyn.

  11. #251
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex ballard
    /\ Right. I was simply using an example.

    Anyway, how come NIMBYs hold such power over politicans. It's only a few people. And they don't have the money developers do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I thought money talks!!!!!!
    MSG is the most prominent NIMBY right now. Trump was a NIMBY to TWC. Walter Cronkite was a NIMBY to TWT. Jaqueline Kennedy was a NIMBY to the original NY coliseum plan. American Express was a NIMBY to Goldman Sachs HQ height on site 26.

  12. #252
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    American Express was a NIMBY to Goldman Sachs HQ height on site 26.
    Really?

  13. #253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex ballard
    /\ Right. I was simply using an example.

    Anyway, how come NIMBYs hold such power over politicans. It's only a few people. And they don't have the money developers do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I thought money talks!!!!!!
    Jesus

    well in NYC and a lot of other places, a group of angry people, set on perserving thier neiborhoods and halting developements and will halt at no end, can get a lottt of things done, especially of they have money to take developers to court or can get someone to take their case to court solely on sympathy. And that, my friend, is when money starts to talk, and talk reallll fast

  14. #254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    MSG is the most prominent NIMBY right now. Trump was a NIMBY to TWC. Walter Cronkite was a NIMBY to TWT. Jaqueline Kennedy was a NIMBY to the original NY coliseum plan. American Express was a NIMBY to Goldman Sachs HQ height on site 26.

    I wasn't aware of the goldman Sachs example, but this does happen. Although generally not clothing stores, because in most cases they welcome more people because it equals more business, but then in immediate contrast is more competition. So it is common place for a big store or even a group of small restaurants to go NIMBYB, and oppose such developements
    Last edited by Kolbster; June 25th, 2005 at 03:25 PM.

  15. #255
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Rider is correct they wanted there building to remain the tallest in the WFC area

Similar Threads

  1. Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2014, 05:21 PM
  2. Pier 57 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: December 17th, 2013, 04:00 PM
  3. Pier 45 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 10th, 2012, 10:58 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2011, 04:09 AM
  5. Third Avenue Bridge - Across Harlem River
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 10th, 2002, 06:36 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