Page 1 of 29 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 431

Thread: 200 Chambers Street - Tribeca - Condo - by Costas Kondylis

  1. #1

    Default 200 Chambers Street - Tribeca - Condo - by Costas Kondylis

    Article in the Tribeca Trib

    City Plans 40-Story Tower on Site 5C

    by Ronald Drenger

    A second front has just opened in the battle against large-scale development near P.S. 234.

    The city told Downtown community leaders last month that it wants to construct a 40-story residential tower with 540 apartments on the city-owned lot, known as Site 5C, behind P.S. 234 and across the street from P.S./I.S. 89 and Washington Market Park. The proposed building is three times as tall as the previous design for the site.

    Community leaders were already prepared to fight the city’s plans to put up a huge building on Site 5B, across Warren Street from P.S 234. For that site, the city wants to oust Edward J. Minskoff, whom it chose in April 2001 to develop a 600-foot commercial building, and find a new developer for what could be an even taller residential tower, up to 700 feet, according to community board representatives who were briefed by city officials.

    On Site 5C, bounded by Chambers, West and Warren streets, the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and developer Scott Resnick want to put up a 460,000-square-foot building designed by Norman Foster, the British architect who was a finalist in the design competition for the World Trade Center site.

    The community representatives say that the development, like the one proposed for Site 5B, would bring stifling congestion to the area, overburden local resources and cast shadows on Washington Market Park. They are urging the city to modify the plans and up for a fight if it refuses.

    “We’ve gone from a 135-foot building to a 408-foot building, an attractive-looking building but one that is completely out of context with the rest of the neighborhood,” said Madelyn Wils, chairwoman of Community Board 1.

    The community has fought many proposals for Site 5B that were later abandoned. But with so much energy being focused on the redevelopment of Downtown, and the Bloomberg administration’s desire to create thousands of new housing units in the area, the city is expected to push hard to bring the latest plans to fruition.

    The previous, smaller project for Site 5C, also with Resnick as the developer, was in the works when the terrorist attack occurred. But in January 2002, the 40-year-old Washington Street Urban Renewal Plan, which limited the size of development on the site, expired, allowing for a much taller building.

    The 40-story tower, slightly taller than the Independence Plaza buildings, would be along West Street. It is taller than would be allowed under current zoning, but the city wants to give Resnick the extra height in exchange for creating a 12,000-square-foot public plaza on the Warren Street side of the site. The building’s east wing, along Chambers Street and next to P.S. 234, would be 94 feet high.

    As in Resnick’s earlier plan, the building would include an 18,000-square-foot community center, with a gym in the basement and offices and classrooms on the second or third floors. A pedestrian path would run through the building from the plaza to Chambers street, and there would be 14,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space and underground parking for 114 cars.

    Community board members who met with EDC officials and Resnick said that they had several major concerns, first and foremost that the development is much too big.

    “You’re bringing 500 or more new units right square onto probably the busiest block of Tribeca,” said Bernard D’Orazio, a CB1 member and president of Save Our Space, a group that has opposed large developments on Site 5B. “We would like to significantly reduce the height of the building.”

    The project’s possible impact on nearby local schools is likely to spark heated opposition.

    “It’s going to overpower the school,” said George Olsen, who has been PTA president at P.S. 234 for the past two years. The city’s plans, which he called “shortsighted and greedy,” will “choke and choke and choke the neighborhood until it’s not livable anymore,” he said.

    At both P.S. 234 and P.S. 89 there are grave concerns about classroom space. Olsen said that P.S. 234’s enrollment for September is already 60 students over capacity and more registrations are expected.

    “We’ve become this little community that is going to be so overcrowded and hemmed in by these big buildings,” said P.S. 89 principal Ronnie Najjar. “We can’t accommodate that many new families.”

    Shadows, particularly on Washington Market Park, are another concern. “By about three in the afternoon, depending on the time of year, there would be a shadow covering the heart of the park,” D’Orazio said.

    The project will require an extensive public review (the Universal Land Use Review Procedure, known as ULURP) and an environmental impact study; the meetings last month were the start of negotiations between the EDC, Resnick and community leaders, who said they were pleased that the city sought their input.

    “I think they want to see if they can resolve some issues, bridge some of the gaps, before they formally start the review process,” said Paul Goldstein, CB1’s district manager.

    Wils said that the community is interested in cooperating with the EDC and Resnick, but that there need to be “major changes” in the project.

    “I’m hoping that they are willing to work with us in way that’s meaningful,” she said. “But whether or not that happens, we will be prepared to do what we have to do.”

    She was disappointed when the city informed her late last month that a public scoping meeting, a prelude to the environmental impact study, scheduled for June 26 (see Community Calendar) will be based on the original plan, without any modifications requested by the community. The community board was planning to encourage residents to speak at the meeting against the project’s size.

    In response to questions about community worries, EDC spokeswoman Janel Patterson said, “That’s what the public process and the scoping session are intended for, to hear the community’s concerns.” Resnick declined to comment on the project.

    The developers probably will apply for Liberty Bonds, a program set up after Sept. 11 to encourage Downtown development. In this case, the building plan, including a completed public review, must be in place by the program’s deadline at the end of next year.

    Bob Townley, director of Manhattan Youth, which runs most children’s programs Downtown, including after-school programs and activities on Pier 25, hopes to manage the community center in Resnick’s building. He said it should be a partnership with other community-service organizations, arts groups and schools in the neighborhood that need space.

    Townley said he would like to see a pool added to the community center plans, but that he was not involved in the discussions with the EDC.

    For Site 5B, now a parking lot and one of the most valuable city-owned properties in Manhattan, if the EDC does scrap Minskoff’s commercial project, it would then request new proposals from other developers for a residential building. Minskoff’s plan would join a long list of abandoned proposals for the site, from a southern sister for the Independence Plaza North residential complex to offices for the now-defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert financial firm and a new building for the Mercantile and Commodities Exchanges.

    But in a brief phone interview on May 30, Minskoff said that he was still planning to develop the site. “We’ve been meeting with the EDC and working closely with them on our plan,” he said. He added that “there will be some modifications” in the project and that the building would be “mixed-use,” but declined to discuss details.

    Last summer, while CB1 and Tribeca residents were rallying in opposition, Minskoff was aggressively seeking tenants for his 600-foot office building, which he promised to start building this spring. The community plans to similarly oppose the city’s new plan for a massive residential tower.

    “I don’t care who the developer is, as long as we get something we can work with here,” Wils said. “We cannot work with something that big.”

    Goldstein questioned whether city officials, in their rush to bring residents Downtown, were taking quality-of-life issues into account. “On one hand, we want more residents in Lower Manhattan, but on the other hand, we want to make sure we can maintain our community as a very desirable place to live. So it’s a balancing act.”








    (Edited by Stern at 8:52 pm on June 5, 2003)

  2. #2

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    I edited the bold-face, lots of bold talk happening. Great find Zippy....

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    NYC - Hoboken
    Posts
    269

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    This would be great! *IMO the more Foster projects we can get in this city, the better!

  4. #4

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    *watches his blood boil at the sillyness from CB1*

    I went to high school across the street from that site. Given its proximity to the WTC, Woolworth & downtown, the significant developments of northern Battery Park City, and the relatively big housing projects just to the north of the site, a 408ft residential tower would not be out of context. In fact, anything less probably wouldn't have a shot of river views on lot 5C.

    135ft building vs this 250+ft tower across the street....


    Tribeca Bridge Tower

    And what must be around a 400ft residential tower down the street:


    Tribeca Pointe

    Oh, and, I almost forgot. Its a bloody Foster. Yeay!!

  5. #5

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    I was against the Miskoff project on 5B for 3 reasons:
    1. I didn't want to see competition with 7WTC for tenants.
    2. With the proximity of schools, and the east side of Greenwich being residential, a residential building was more appropriate.
    3. It would help mute talk of residential development at WTC.

    This area is a natural for Bloomberg's vision, but it will be a tough road.


    (Edited by ZippyTheChimp at 10:10 pm on June 5, 2003)

  6. #6

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 9:18 pm on June 5, 2003
    I was against the Miskoff project on 5C for 3 reasons:
    1. I didn't want to see competition with 7WTC for tenants.
    What difference does it make for 7WTC? 7 is under construction, tenants or not.

    Perhaps if you said you were worried about consuming demand that could go towards making sure the main WTC site as big as possible, thats another matter.

  7. #7

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    It wasd at a time before construction of 7 WTC began, and it appeared that Minskoff was going ahead. It became evident that he was having trouble - now he says mixed-use.

    Besides, I think it's important that the buildings that go up are financially successful.

  8. #8

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    The 4-story building on the corner of Warren and West Streets, on the site 5C, where New York City’s Economic Development Corporation and developer Scott Resnick want to put up a 40-story building designed by Norman Foster. Woolworth Building in the background. March 2003.


  9. #9

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    This is great stuff!

    We should all stay on top of this and if (no, when) the NIMBYs attack this. Stay on top of the "event"... IE. The Community Board meetings and anything else. People have to show up to support this. Don't let the NIMBYs be the only voices.

  10. #10

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    To show that noone visits the real estate section, I posted this yesterday and got no replies. Oh well, can't wait to see what it looks like like.

  11. #11

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    Save that photo Edward. The building is gone.


    The Fall of 179 West Street

    by Carl Glassman

    One-seventy-nine West Street, the little brick building that stood alone for so long, now stands no more.

    On May 20 crews arrived to demolish this last of the Downtown houses where, long ago, dockworkers drank and slept along the once-busy waterfront.

    For many in today’s Tribeca, 179 West Street stood there, near the corner of Warren Street, as a symbol of defiance against the incursion of wealth and change.

    Seated in her principal’s office across the street at P.S. 89, Ronnie Najjar watched sadly as crowbar- wielding workers pried apart floor boards, bricks and joists and heaved them to the ground.

    “I loved that house. I look at it every day,” she said. “It’s almost like the Little House That Could, standing up unscathed to all the changes. Even to Sept. 11.”

    The building went up around 1870, but not much is known about its early use. A banana merchant occupied the basement in 1927 and nine years later, city records show, he was gone, and the third and fourth floors were empty. A joint called El Green Bar & Grille occupied the ground floor.

    In 1960, a 21-year-old sculptor and painter named Mardig Kachian moved into 179 West Street above what then was McClusky’s Liquor Store. The neighboring buildings were still standing then, housing mostly longshoremen’s bars, hotels and rooming houses. In an interview with the Trib several years ago, Kachian recalled approaching the proprietors of the liquor store, who owned the building, to ask about renting the floors above. “They just looked at each other. They thought I was crazy.”

    Kachian got the three floors for $75 a month and took over the building after the government bought the property, which was to be condemned with the rest of the buildings west of Greenwich Street, between Hubert and Murray streets, in what was called the Washington Street Urban Renewal Project.

    By the late 1960s nearly all those buildings were gone. But Kachian’s still stood. The artist and three tenants of 360 Greenwich Street, near Franklin, had joined together in a suit defending their right to remain in their buildings, now the property of the city. In 1970, a U.S. district judge ruled that the city could not evict the tenants until new buildings were ready to go up on their sites.

    “What the city tried to do was scare people or evict them before they had the approved plans,” the late artist Joe DiGiorgio, one of the tenants of 360 Greenwich Street, said in an interview with the Trib several years ago.

    DiGiorgio, however, did not stay long in his $32-a-month studio. His building was torn down in 1971 to make way for Independence Plaza. But Kachian had the good fortune to be living on a city-owned property called Site 5C that, to this day, has yet to be developed. (See page 4 for the latest plans, revealed last month.)

    Kachian had come to own buildings on Chambers Street and Harrison Street, but continued to call 179 West Street his main residence. For years the city left him alone. (Rent: $160 a month, parking included.)

    Kachian said in the 1999 Trib interview that the the roof leaked, the ceiling was always wet, the living area was “decimated” and the tiles were coming off the kitchen floor. “I can’t wash there. I have no water. I go there to sleep, to lay claim to my presence there.”

    It was in that year that the state Department of Transportation said the building was in the way of regrading and paving for the reconstruction of West Street, then underway.

    The city, seemingly unaware of the ruling nearly 30 years earlier, began eviction proceedings against Kachian. But the DOT, in the meantime, managed to work around Kachian’s building. The tenant’s legal hold on the building apparently kept the city at bay and Kachian never went to court.

    “The public good comes first,” he said at the time, “and I have no problem with leaving if they have a specific proposal in sight.”

    Following negotiations two years ago with the city, Kachian left 179 West Street for good. According to Carol Abrams, spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, he received a “relocation allowance” of $142,890.

    Abrams said the building was torn down last month for an “interim use”: a parking lot.

    Asked to comment on the demise of his long-time home, Kachian declined to share his thoughts.

    “They’re private,” he said.

  12. #12

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    The project’s possible impact on nearby local schools is likely to spark heated opposition.

    “It’s going to overpower the school,” said George Olsen, who has been PTA president at P.S. 234 for the past two years. The city’s plans, which he called “shortsighted and greedy,” will “choke and choke and choke the neighborhood until it’s not livable anymore,” he said.

    At both P.S. 234 and P.S. 89 there are grave concerns about classroom space. Olsen said that P.S. 234’s enrollment for September is already 60 students over capacity and more registrations are expected.

    “We’ve become this little community that is going to be so overcrowded and hemmed in by these big buildings,” said P.S. 89 principal Ronnie Najjar. “We can’t accommodate that many new families.”
    This was bugging me when I was taking an evening walk. While this is a value issue, I don't think its a valid criticism. The fact they are opposing the introduction of more families instead of pushing for more schools to be built is telling IMHO.

    Why not argue that the developer should integrate another school into the base of his building like the Tribeca Bridge Tower I posted a picture of above? Forget the city's greed, these people want to hog the area for themselves.

    I can't wait to move in as soon as I can build up my life to afford it.

  13. #13

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    Derek, I'm sorry you got no replies. If there's a chance for noteworthy architecture, you can post here. But if we do so with all building projects, the real estate section will definitely be deserted.

  14. #14
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    “We’ve become this little community that is going to be so overcrowded and hemmed in by these big buildings,” said P.S. 89 principal Ronnie Najjar. “We can’t accommodate that many new families.”

    AAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!! - That quote. *Talk about elitism. *They've become this "little community"? *And what? They decide who gets to join their exclusive little club? *It just makes my blood boil.

  15. #15

    Default A Foster Building in Lower Manhattan?

    Most of them talk bull anyway.

Page 1 of 29 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 21st, 2012, 02:38 PM
  2. Tweed Courthouse - 52 Chambers Street - by John Kellum / Leopold Eidlitz
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 30th, 2010, 10:17 PM
  3. 165 Charles Street @ West Street - by Richard Meier
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 06:36 PM
  4. J Condo - 100 Jay Street - DUMBO - by Gruzen Samton
    By Edward in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2007, 08:46 AM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2005, 08:27 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