Page 43 of 93 FirstFirst ... 3339404142434445464753 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 645 of 1387

Thread: Con Ed site on the East River

  1. #631

    Default

    Fresh Manure

    I saw a sign in Pennsylvania.

  2. #632
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Right. Fresh crap. london needs to keep his humor on the Disney channel.

  3. #633
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default


  4. #634
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    An appropriate logo for those in favor of tearing down the crap??


  5. #635
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The lament of NYC preservationists ...


  6. #636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stache
    Right. Fresh crap. london needs to keep his humor on the Disney channel.
    Wow. You're really witty!

  7. #637
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Environmental "scoping" hearings start for Solow site near the U.N.





    29-MAR-06

    The City Planning Department held two hearings yesterday on the environmental studies needed for the planned redevelopment of the Con Ed facilities along the East River south of the United Nations complex.

    The redevelopment is planned by Sheldon H. Solow and calls for the development of 6,266,790-gross square feet, of which 4,324,635 square feet would be residential, 1,119,979 square feet, commercial office space, 40,433 square feet of retail space, 60,725 square feet of community facility use, and 721,018 square feet of below-grade parking space to accommodate 1,183 public spaces and 376 “accessory” spaces. The proposed plan also includes 149,863 square feet, or 3.44 acres, of “publicly accessible open space.” The complex includes 4 different parcels with a total of 8.7 acres and the redevelopment scheme requires numerous special permits and zoning text amendments relating to uses, heights, and setbacks.

    At the afternoon hearing yesterday at the Shottenstein Cultural Center at 239 West 34th Street, Gary Tarnoff of the law firm of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, which represents the developer, said that the parcel at 616 First Avenue would consist of two 45-story residential buildings with 60,725 square feet of community facilities in a three-story building, 2,000-square feet of retail space, 30,000 square feet of open space, and 294 parking spaces. The parcel at 685 First Avenue would be a 67-story residential tower with 3,750 square feet of retail, 96 parking spaces and 1.1 acres of open space. The parcel at 700 First Avenue would have a 63-story residential tower on its west side and a 50-story residential tower on its east side, 12,000 square feet of retail space, 2.56 acres of open space, 280 accessory parking spaces and 889 public parking spaces. The parcel at 708 would be a 57-story mixed-use tower with a roof-top restaurant.

    Richard Meier and Skidmore Owings Merrill are the architects of the project, which will have 5 towers taller than the Secretariat Building of the United Nations just to the north and three that are almost as tall as the Trump World Tower at 47th Street and First Avenue. The rendering above shows the towers of the proposed complex in white.

    The project has encountered considerable opposition and Community Board 6 this month submitted to the planning department its own specific development plan for the site that calls for lower buildings, no commercial office space, the inclusion of affordable housing, a school, and public ownership of cross-streets, shadow studies and a comprehensive plan that envisions the removal of the 42nd Street exit ramp from the FDR Drive and the decking over of the drive to create new park land and waterfront access.

    Almost all of the speakers at both sessions yesterday spoke in favor of the Community Board 6 plan.

    City Councilman Dan Garodnick told the standing-room-only evening hearing last night that all of the elected local politicians from the area will soon be presenting a joint statement to the department supporting the community board’s plan.

    The developer is seeking an overall floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 12 for the complex. The board’s plan, on the other hand, is based on a F.A.R. of only 6, but with bonuses of 2 F.A.R. each for providing an easement along the FDR drive to facilitate its realignment and eventual decking over and waterfront access, affordable housing, and preservation of some of the existing powerplants. The recent start of demolition of one of the powerplants, however, has removed the possibility of that bonus.

    Robert Dobruskin, the director of the Environmental Assessment and Review Division of the Department of City Planning, said that he will hold another hearing, probably in May, and that written comments can be submitted up to 10 days after that hearing. The hearings are intended to help the department formulate the scope of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project.


    Copyright © 1994-2006 CITY REALTY

  8. #638

    Default

    Ridiculous. The community board didn't purchase the land, the development should be in the hands of the developer with input only from the community.

  9. #639

    Default stop NIMBYism in NYC

    Quote Originally Posted by Stern
    Ridiculous. The community board didn't purchase the land, the development should be in the hands of the developer with input only from the community.
    I feel differntly about even the "community review process" these days. As mentioned before - I along with cb1 blocked the construction of a new condo on Prince street in Soho.

    I was acting as a community member in opposing it: I took the position of "claiming" that I was a "stakeholder" because the building was in my community. My attitude is
    different now - I (or anybody) has no right to block or delay the construction of a new building. So yes, I agree with you that the the development should be in the hands of the developer/owner: not the community board OR anyone else.

    The NIMBY nonsense has to stop!

    cheers
    Last edited by infoshare; March 29th, 2006 at 07:43 PM.

  10. #640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stern
    Ridiculous. The community board didn't purchase the land, the development should be in the hands of the developer with input only from the community.
    The development is essentially in the hands of the City Planning Commission and the City Council. The developer is asking for a rezoning and these are the agencies that must approve such an action.

    Almost all of the speakers at both sessions yesterday spoke in favor of the Community Board 6 plan.
    This is true, but nearly all of the speakers requested that the CB#6 plan be analyzed as an alternative in the SEIS. It seems that if an alternative rezoning plan is not included, the City Council will vote this rezoning down because they won't be able to modify it in the ULURP process. Many of the speakers stated that they aren't NIMBYs; they want the sites to be developed but at a sensible level.

  11. #641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TranspoMan
    Many of the speakers stated that they aren't NIMBYs; they want the sites to be developed but at a sensible level.
    One man's sensible level is another man's lost opportunity. Is a lost opportunity sensible?

  12. #642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc
    One man's sensible level is another man's lost opportunity. Is a lost opportunity sensible?
    This depends how you define lost opportunity - presumably the developer loses out on maximizing his return on his real estate investment. What is a sensible level of profit? I guess the real question is how much Con Ed received for the parcels and what level of development is necessary to recoup those costs.

  13. #643

    Default Nimby

    Quote Originally Posted by TranspoMan
    Many of the speakers stated that they aren't NIMBYs; they want the sites to be developed but at a sensible level.
    If you come forth with "anthing to say" about a proposed building my opinion is that you are a NIMBY.

    There seems to be some confusion on definitions here. I think a nimby is anyone who claims to be a "stakeholder" in a building project that they do not own.

    NIMBYs act as if every plot of land in NYC is "thier (backyard) property" and therefore have a "right" to stop/alter the project.
    Last edited by infoshare; March 29th, 2006 at 08:39 PM.

  14. #644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infoshare
    I think a nimby is anyone who claims to be a "stakeholder" in a building project that they do not own.
    That definition leaves no room for zoning, and puts us in Houston, Texas.

  15. #645

    Default

    Sensible development...sensible development. Let's see...how sensible is it that over two million people live on a small island--and tens of millions of visitors flock to see it every year? How sensible is it that a handful of blocks away from the site sit two of the tallest, most famous skyscrapers in the world?

    New York is New York precisely because it is traffics in superlatives. It's NOT sensible, and if it became so, it would cease to sizzle.

    There's not a chance in hell the Solow plan is going to be built, but I'd sooner let the land lie fallow than see a bunch of low-rise junky brick buildings with the requisite "community center" go up instead. The folks who make up CB1 should go live in a sensible city--wherever that is.

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