Page 33 of 93 FirstFirst ... 232930313233343536374383 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 1385

Thread: Con Ed site on the East River

  1. #481

    Default

    If its not to late the developers should save this building and inturn build taller buildings, with this concession the NIMBY's wouldn't have as much of a say.

  2. #482

    Default

    Exactly. A similar deal was reached in BPC, whereby the Little League Ballfields were saved in exchange for increasing the air rights in surrounding properties. The result was that the neighborhood got to keep the ballfields and landed the Goldman Sachs HQ. A similar deal needs to be worked out here. The problem is that the community does not care about the beautiful old brick plant; they want to preserve their river views. It was the Landmarks Commission that really dropped the ball here.

  3. #483
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Phila / Connecticut
    Posts
    521

    Default

    Why on earth would anyone want to keep an abandonned industrial plant in the middle of manhattan?? It's an eyesore and it just lowers the rents around it because no one wants to live next to it! Move the industry out to the Jersey turnpike or near the swamplands where it belongs with the rest of the plants.


    The NIMBY'sm on this site is far more absurd and stupid than most others. If someone wanted to build this on the upper east side I could understand why some people would oppose, but if you don't like skyscraper developments, move the freak outta midtown manhattan!!

  4. #484

    Default

    Becuase the plant is not an eyesore; it is beautiful. Not sure if you live in the City, but I pass the building every day on the way to work, and it is really an elegant building. As for being a NIMBY, this is not my "backyard" unless all of Manhattan is my backyard. I live Downtown. But you are the one arguing for change; I am the one arguing for stasis (in one very small respect), so it would seem to me that your "this is Manhattan, love it or leave it" argument would apply to you and not to me.

  5. #485
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stern
    If its not to late the developers should save this building and inturn build taller buildings, with this concession the NIMBY's wouldn't have as much of a say.
    From the earlier reports, these NIMBY's are not interested in saving the plant. What they ARE against is any building higher than the UN Secretariat. If it was up to them, there shouldn't be any buildings at all (tall, short or otherwise) except for the ones they occupy, of course.

    BPC, no you are NOT a NIMBY for wanting to save the plant. But realize that the community does not share your opinion. Your desire is not the same as theirs. Let me repeat, their problem with this development is not losing the plant but with buildings higher than 500 ft.

    From article in post # 470:
    Edward Rubin, the chairman of the land-use committee, noted, however, that a 12 FAR was based on the project’s "demapped" streets and that if the streets were "remapped" the actual FAR was about 13.5. He noted that several large residential towers just to the south had FARs of about 10.5 and many in the audience indicated in their comments that they felt the present plan was too dense.
    Mr. Rubin said that Donald Trump’s Trump World Tower on First Avenue at 47th Street "dealt a serious blow" to the community by not respecting the 505-feet height of the Secretariat Building at the United Nations and was "out of scale and color." One member of the audience, which included many neighborhood residents, said that in comparison with the Solow scheme the Trump World Tower was "very elegant," a notion, she added, she thought she "never could say."
    Last edited by antinimby; December 11th, 2005 at 07:31 PM.

  6. #486
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    From that article excerpt above, you can see that the NIMBY's themselves probably realized how absurd their argument was (against height and color) so they decided to align with the preservationists' argument for saving the plant.

    This exposes the NIMBY's for what they are: using any and all arguments and tactics, be it legitimate or not, to stop developments in their backyards.
    BTW, it should be noted that Mr. Rubin, the chairman of the Land Use Committee is an Eastside resident. Bias opinion / conflict of interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by from post # 495
    Edward Rubin, an East Side resident, thinks a similar idea would be perfect for the former Con Edison facility on First Avenue, between 39th and 40th streets.

    But Alan Solow, the developer who bought the land from Con Ed for more than $600 million, has other ideas: high-rises designed by well-known architects Richard Meier and David Childs as well as a park and ice rink. Solow already has demolition permits, but Rubin drafted a letter yesterday to urge the developer to reconsider.

    “I realize that condo values and smoke stacks don’t rise hand-in-hand,” Rubin said, “but this building is a cathedral. You can’t replicate its brickwork.” The area doesn’t need more tall buildings, he said, nor a park. “We need more indoor, year-round activities here.”

    Rubin understood the psychological barriers that some people have to preserving these industrial buildings. “Tudor City was built with tiny windows facing the East River because that’s where the meatpacking factories were. But this is not [that same] East River anymore.”

    Rubin wants the city to protect buildings that tell the story of the city’s industrial past. “You can’t leave it up to developers; they’re just trying to maximize their own profit.”

  7. #487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC
    It was the Landmarks Commission that really dropped the ball here.
    Getting to be a habit with that crew of fumblers.

  8. #488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby
    This exposes the NIMBY's for what they are: using any and all arguments and tactics, be it legitimate or not, to stop developments in their backyards.
    For a person to be a NIMBY he needs to live or work near the premises in question; he's personally impacted by proximity, and so he has ulterior motives however ardently he may play the role of preservationist.

    Instead of attaching extra weight to such people's opinions, it would make at least equal sense to disregard or discount them.

  9. #489

    Default

    is that the irt powerhouse- are they going to tear it down. thats a historic building .

  10. #490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expose05
    is that the irt powerhouse- are they going to tear it down. thats a historic building .
    Tell that to the Landmarks Commission.

    Wolves guarding sheep?

  11. #491
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc
    For a person to be a NIMBY he needs to live or work near the premises in question; he's personally impacted by proximity, and so he has ulterior motives however ardently he may play the role of preservationist.

    Instead of attaching extra weight to such people's opinions, it would make at least equal sense to disregard or discount them.
    Thank you. I also like to add that besides being impacted by proximity, a NIMBY is very much different than a preservationist due to their hidden intentions or agendas.

    As you've mentioned before, the preservationists aren't necessarily against development and certainly don't care about the height or size of it, but just interestd in seeing objects of significant age or artistic value and importance preserved. Nothing wrong with that.

    On the other hand, the NIMBY's intentions are much more selfish and not as noble as they would like you to believe. Their motives are based mainly on fear, some of which may be understandable, but most are absurdly unfounded. Fear of gentrification, fear of congestion, fear of losing their views, fear of outsiders moving in, fear of traffic, fear of losing sunlight/air, etc. I can go on but you get the idea.

  12. #492

    Default

    Someone please tell me that this isn't happening. Why isn't the landmarks commision doing anything. They made a big scence over 2 columbus circle and this building was built in 1904!!!!! Im mad and sad. Is there any chance this building can survive? Oh im praying to god a miracle happens. someone please answer my question

  13. #493

    Default

    THe IRT powerhouse is on the West Side, between 58th and 59th Sts. It is still in use.

  14. #494

    Default

    This building was built in 1905 and, in my view, is equally historic.

  15. #495

    Default

    "On the other hand, the NIMBY's intentions are much more selfish and not as noble as they would like you to believe. Their motives are based mainly on fear, some of which may be understandable, but most are absurdly unfounded. Fear of gentrification, fear of congestion, fear of losing their views, fear of outsiders moving in, fear of traffic, fear of losing sunlight/air, etc. I can go on but you get the idea."

    Everyone is a NIMBY. Everyone. Letīs see a show of hands of those who would do nothing if they felt that their quaility of life were to be serverly altered by nearby development.

    BTW: The saving of the Village, Soho...etc..the landmarking of whole swaths of the city... the tight controls on Manhattans wealthiest , most desirable areas ....were/are due to NIMBYs...people who LIVE in those areas. You can put your "preservationist" spin on things but you canīt hide the facts.

Similar Threads

  1. Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2014, 06:21 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, 05:00 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, 11:58 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2011, 05:09 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, 07:36 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