Con Ed site on the East River

[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 ...

[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.

[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.

[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....

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