Maybe CB1 should be turned into a child-free zone. *
Does anyone else see community board 1 as being narrow minded and selfish? *Obviously, a new school would be welcome, but I don't know how feasible that is. *The short term answer to expand the school to alleviate its present overcrowding, and the future influx of new students.Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 7:19 pm on July 26, 2003
From the Downtown Express:
“I think the answer to the problem is another school,” said Paul Hovitz, chairperson of the youth and education committee for Community Board 1.
Hovitz worried that building an addition would appear to justify the increased enrollment at the school. He also wondered if substantial growth would dilute the strength of the top-ranked elementary school.
Maybe CB1 should be turned into a child-free zone. *
Seriously, where do the NIMBYs think they live? This is New York City, and it goes hand in hand with tall buildings. If they want a small, quiet community, then move to the 'burbs
Here's the area.
The 179 West St building on the lot 5C is still standing in this picture, I guess it was taken before May 20th.
Tell me about it, we should scare them all away with some huge masterplans for the villages. Although the villages hold a special kind of homlyness, so forget what i just said. Just build at the penn station area, around columbus circle area and downtown as well.
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Tribeca apt. tower fight
By LORE CROGHAN
DAILY NEWS BUSINESS WRITER
Monday, September 22nd, 2003
It's just too tall - even if a world-famous architect is coming all the way from London to make a case for it.
That's what residents of southern Tribeca are saying about the 35-story apartment tower that the Resnicks, a prominent New York developer family, plan to build on city-owned land three blocks north of Ground Zero.
They've hired celebrity architect Sir Norman Foster, whose distinguished work won him a knighthood and lifetime peerage in his home country.
Community Board 1, which represents downtown, is trying to get the city to lower the skyscraper's proposed height of 360 feet. The board has opposed construction at this site and a nearby city property for 15 years.
"We would like to have these sites put to bed," said board chairwoman Madelyn Wils, "but we are not going to roll over."
Tonight at 6, Lord Foster himself will give a presentation about the project at a public meeting at 455 North End Ave. He's expected to hear plenty about why a skyscraper doesn't belong in an area where the buildings average six or seven stories.
It would be built on West Street between Chambers and Warren streets, where it would overshadow the only park in Tribeca - as well as nearby ballfields, and the playgrounds of PS 234 and PS/IS 89. It would further snarl traffic in an area where 30,000 students attend five schools.
To compound residents' worries, an even taller building could go up at a second city-owned site, on the opposite side of Warren Street.
Minskoff Equities was picked two years ago to build a 600-foot office tower there. That project's future is in flux.
"We're meeting with the community and the developer to come up with a revised plan," said Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the city Economic Development Corp.
The considerable star power of Lord Foster of Thames Bank could help soften residents' objections to his planned development. The winner of architecture's Nobel Prize, known as the Pritzker Prize, he's gained notoriety from designing a London office building the British press calls the "Erotic Gherkin" because its curved structure makes it look like a giant pickle - or worse.
His debut project in New York City, a more sober design, is the office tower Hearst is building on top of its landmarked headquarters at 959 Eighth Ave.
Lord Foster was a contender for the job of master planner of the World Trade Center redevelopment, which Daniel Libeskind ultimately won.
Now, on West and Chambers streets, "he may get a shovel in the ground before Libeskind," said Judy Duffy of Community Board 1.
The "Erotic Gherkin" (Swiss Re tower):
Community Board one sucks, they stopped the rezoning of the seaport area to only allow 150 foot buildings and no they have decided that 5-c 5-b and site 26 in BPC are off limits. There the worst board in NYC and have the money to back themselves up
Isn't there also a tentative plan for a 700-foot residential tower in that area? I'd love to see that go up.
Downtown Express http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_22/shadowstudies.html
Shadow studies released for Tribeca development
By Elizabeth O’Brien with Josh Rogers
Proposed Site 5c development shadow diagram for March 21 and September 21 at 2 p.m. By 3 p.m. most of the lawn of the Washington Market Park will be in shadow.
The developer and the designer for the proposed Site 5C on Chambers St. presented the results of their shadow study to the public Monday night and heard the community’s concerns about the building’s likely impact on the neighborhood.
Plans for the city-owned 5C lot, bounded by Chambers, Warren, and West Sts., have met with resistance from community members who feel the proposed residential development is too big for the neighborhood. At Monday’s event, a special meeting of the Battery Park City committee of Community Board 1, planners explained how shadows from the proposed 360 ft., 35-story building would fall over the surrounding area, and how delivery trucks would drop off goods for the building.
The prevailing community sentiment against the proposed development did not change after a presentation by Brandon Haw, a representative from the London-based architectural firm of Foster and Partners. Norman Foster, one of the finalists in the competition to design the World Trade Center site, was scheduled to attend the meeting but was “otherwise engaged” on Monday night, Haw said. Foster had proposed the so-called “kissing towers” for the W.T.C.
Haw explained that the Site 5B building’s bulk had been reduced to maximize sight lines and minimize shadows. But some community members were not convinced.
“I think it’s out of scale with the surrounding buildings,” Assemblymember Deborah Glick said of Foster’s design.
Community members expressed particular concern about the shadows that the building would cast over neighboring P.S. 234 and Washington Market Park. Shadows would affect the school the most in the late afternoon, Haw said. Even though school lets out before 3, students participating in after-school programs remain in the building until 6, community members said. The building would also cast shadows on the P.S./I.S. 89 schoolyard on most mornings.
Haw presented afternoon shadow studies for the months of March, June, and September. In June, shadows will not darken much of Washington Market Park, but at 3:00 p.m. in March and September most of the park’s lawn will be in shadow, according to the designer’s drawings.
Albert Capsouto, a member of C.B. 1 , asked the designer and developer to consider the impact of the delivery trucks that are planned to pick up and drop off on Warren St. This means that trucks like those of the popular Fresh Direct grocery delivery service will likely make many stops to service the people living in the building, Capsouto said.
Community members also raised the long-standing concern that families moving into the development would strain the already overburdened P.S. 234 even further. The school is currently 24 percent over capacity, according to Sandy Bridges, the school’s principal, who attended Monday’s meeting.
“I’m worried about it,” Bridges said of the development’s anticipated impact on her school.
Scott Resnick, the developer, said that the building’s 450 to 480 units would be a mix of studios and one and two-bedroom apartments. He did not have the exact breakdown of the type of units, but said he expected a “limited number of families in the building” based on the maximum two-bedroom configuration.
Resnick stressed that the development’s design was not final. He also called the public’s attention to the 18,000 square feet of community space that will be built on two floors of the development and the nearly 12,000 square foot public plaza.
The environmental impact study of the development has begun, said officials from the Economic Development Corporation. The city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, a process the city follows whenever it considers building on its land, is scheduled to begin at the end of the year, officials said. This process will allow for more community feedback.
Economic Development Corporation officials said on Monday that there were no plans yet finalized for developing site 5B, just south of 5C. The city had considered putting a 600-ft. commercial building on the site, across Warren St. from P.S. 234, but now it is shifting towards a residential proposal, officials said. But because no plans have been finalized yet for 5B, the designers of that site must take into account what is going up on 5C and not the other way around, E.D.C. officials said.
The city is considering a building of about 350 feet for Site 5B, but has indicated a willingness to reduce the size at least by a little.
Resnick has applied to the city for $200 million in post-9/11 Liberty Bond financing for site 5C. The bonds under this federal program must be issued by December 31, 2004, but construction on the project does not have to begin at that time, according to Tracy Paurowski of the New York City Housing Development Corporation.
Shadows in March :roll:
[quote="Christian Wieland"]The "Erotic Gherkin" (Swiss Re tower):
The swiss Re tower is a marvel, its even better in real life! and the plaza and the veiw from the top is amazing!
As someone who is trying to move to Tribeca because I am looking for good schools, and a safe, small community environment for my kids that isn't teeming with people and cars, I think you are very mistaken. Clearly you don't have children, or you would understand that "building more schools" does not replicate one of the BEST public schools in the nation. You can't just "buy" more caring teachers, or families that care about a community and close knit environment. These things are priceless, and worth sacrificing your ugly skyscraper for. Why not develop Tribeca North in a historically sensitive and beautiful way, rather than putting in an ugly glass office behemoth that will congest an area that is ONE BLOCK away from where a bunch of five year olds go to school! Grow up, people.
If you are looking for a small community, why are you looking here? The density predated the complainers. I chose to raise my children elsewhere before moving to lower Manhattan.As someone who is trying to move to Tribeca because I am looking for good schools, and a safe, small community environment for my kids that isn't teeming with people and cars, I think you are very mistaken.
The planned building is not commercial, but residential, to accommodate people like yourself who wish to move here.
Maybe someone else should be growing up.
these people should be happy, that area is North Financial District and should have two office towers built on it like to the West and South of the site being the WFC annd WTC area. But since the Bloomberg administration is ruining gLower Manhattan as a business area, they turned the site residnetial.
he'll probally make the far west side all residential as well.
To make my point know however im not against residnetial development, just all this city builids is luxury buildings, if it was middle income id stay quiet.