CUNY CUNY CUNY. Need we say more?
CUNY dorm proposal, LIC
Yes. A couple of weeks ago, the CUNY dorm proposal went before the BSA, as it’s final hurdle. We can smell blood in this thread already, but here’s an attempt to sort out the complicated situation:
CUNY side alledges: 1) On a very large parcel, they have designed a low-rise graduate dormitory complex in a brick townhouse apartment style to occupy the majority of the space.
2) Since they can’t charge their students very much [rent], CUNY requested to build a 28-story residential condo tower on one section of the lot, to provide a modest return to their investors, given the high price of the land $20M, and most notably, the extreme and rising costs of the necessary toxic remediation. The land is zoned for 5-6 stories, which works for the grad complex, but not for the condo tower.
3) They are building a Gold LEED Certified Green Building, designed by Jay Valgora, of Studio V, who is working on other projects in LIC as well.
4) They have since knocked the tower down to 13 stories, and are hosting the Queens Council on the Arts as a community offering. (Eventually approved by CB2.)
The variance request is hotly contested by a very well organized opposition group of 20-30 LIC artists & residents, led by a lawyer, who have been diligently battling CUNY since the onset.
The community opposition alleges: 1) Thanks to government and other grants for brownfield site clean-up costs, much of the remediation costs can be abated, thereby challenging CUNY’s low margin argument.
2) The danger of allowing extreme zoning variances justified by claims of remediation costs is that it could set a dangerous precedent for developers to ignore neighborhood zoning, disrupting low-rise communities with out-of-scale towers.
3) The tower construction is likely to cause collateral damage to neighboring residents homes. Which is a rampant phenomenon in LIC, especially in DK, but occurs in HP as well.
4) They maintain the developer did not work with the neighborhood community until forced to do so, and the design of the building will detract from the neighborhood.
There are more arguments to both sides. Please add to, correct, simplify, restate, blindly lash against, and/or constructively comment.
CUNY dorm proposal rejected due to lack of community value [liQcity]
CUNY dorm proposal passed by CB2. [liQcity]
CUNY stepping on the gas [liQcity]
Latest on CUNY dorm, with building renderings [Queenscrap]
Thank you LIQCity for continuing with this ongoing issue. The main problem is the request to change the zoning laws. If 13 stories is allowed to be built inland because the developer is crying poverty, then where does it end? There is a map that shows just how many toxic sites there are in LIC. If every site was allowed to go higher because of costs of toxic cleanup then we would have no sky left, nowhere to sit on the subway and a seriously compromised infrastructure. Also this particular situation is interesting because the developer is also asking for brownfield program funds to help with the cleanup. This is not an argument against the Cuny dorms as much as what precedent is being set for the inland low-rise community. Keep the towers on the waterfront, we want our sky and our low-rise buildings to not be compromised. And I know I am going to hear about how I should move to Wyoming. But what makes LIC what it is, is that we are not the upper east side and this is a good place to be.
JLB
Has anything in LIC been built inland that uses a variance of the zoning law? Or would this be a first? Does anyone know the answer to that? If this would be the first, I agree, we should definitely continue to fight it so as not to establish a precendent. And JLB, definitely don’t move to Wyoming, we need thoughtful people here in LIC.
I agree number 1. 28 stories is out of control there. Thank god it was fought. 13 stories doesn’t sound so bad, but that might be because I’m used to QW… still it would be good not to have a tower there. I like that it’s a green building at least. Are the grad units green too?
In my opinion, if you want to keep the main area of Hunters Point low-rise and low-density (which would be a nice thing), then you need to permit higher density in areas that are outside the existing low-rise community. I think the CUNY dorm location is on the outside.
Some brief comments/corrections first to the CUNY aspect reported:
#2 “to provide a modest return to their investors” is inaccurate. O’Connor Associates (OCA) is a hedge fund that must provide a minimum 15% return to its investors. This is much higher than the standard real estate industry return.
In #3 “They are building a Gold LEED Certified Green Building, designed by Jay Valgora, of Studio V, who is working on other projects in LIC as well.” As defined under Zoning regs, the building will be the first “NON-Quality” housing project along 5th street. The size of the rooms and windows are sub-standard. That is actually part of a separate variance application they are pushing. Jay Valgora has recently been fired from the East River Tennis Club project because he could not bring cost less than $1000 per sf.
For #4 While there is no opposition to Queens Council on the Arts or CUNY these are not Community Facilities as defined by the Zoning Resolution. No matter how desirable or what people feel, these organizations do not qualify for the corporate handout the developer is seeking.
For the Community aspects reported:
In #1 the Brownfield program combined with an existing $5M insurance coverage will more than completely cover the clean-up costs. Additionally the degree of cleanup they say they must do has not been mandated by the EPA or DEC. They are likely more interested in developing below ground for additional revenue. This may actually do more environmental harm.
In #2 it should be clarified that the present Zoning went to great pains to draw a line on 5th Street so that development tapered down to the heights of the inland community.
In #4. Yes the lack of Community outreach is correct. For example, there was one hastily arranged meeting for artists on the same night the final plan was being presented to the Community Board. The artist meeting was pure salesmanship with no consideration of any of the artists’ feedback.
And a primary point brought up at that meeting is that projects such as these are likely to displace local artists as well as other small businesses and moderate income residents.
Can someone please explain why it’s bad to develop ‘below ground’? I heard that argument before in this topic, but never understood the extra harm.
Oh it’s just 13 stories. What is the big deal? Just build it already.
unbelievable
Making the models without including the Queens West buildings is nicely deceptive. I thought only developers did that sort of thing, but it is good to see that two can play that game.
I welcome the CUNY building as I feel it will give a dose of reality back to this area. Any person aware of university lifestyle knows of its dynamic and usually does good things for a neighborhood. My only worry would be the cleanliness of the area due to the increased traffic. Hopefully the developments LEED certification will carry over to students so they can help keep LIC sexy.
Another plus to this will be a certain green advantage as this should lessen student commutes (esp for those that study and work in the city) knocking some cars out of rush hour. I must also say it was a nice surprise to see the LEED Gold, a green standard should be set for all new construction and development in NYC. We need to start setting more green living examples to reflect the advanced nature of NY and its people.
I dont understand the objection to 13 stories. You are aware that 25 feet away there is a Rockrose building 3x the size right? This is plain garden variety obstructionism.
Why can’t CUNY just build somewhere else where the zoning would allow a larger building as of right? If CUNY doesn’t build their building, another developer will inevitably build on this site and follow the zoning regulations. I just don’t understand this pressing need to toss away the zoning requirements recently adopted for the site just to enable CUNY or anyone else for that matter to do what they like.
The objection to 13 stories is that it sets a precedent for future development. Low-rise versus high rise zoning has to have a line drawn somewhere or what is the point of having zoning laws in the first place.
#7- Below ground development in LIC is a problem because of the water table. We basically live on a swamp like area. There are many underground streams in LIC and they cause a problem with flooding in basements already. If you build underground then you have to compensate for that somehow. And what usually happens when we get alot of rain is water gets pumped into the sewer systems causing a backup. Not very sanitary.
If you support CUNY please go to the following sites and let it be known:
* For the DCP: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/home.html
Once on the page click “Contact the Chair” and fill in the form 150 wds or less.
* For the BSA: http://www.nyc.gov/html/bsa/html/home/home.shtml
Once on the page click “Contact the BSA” and fill in the form 150 wds or less.
* The next BSA hearing will be August 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM. The BSA is located at 40 Rector Street (R or 1 train to Rector Street).
#10 LOL! Great post!
I had no idea there was so much love for CUNY when I was a Hunter grad student. Maybe some of you ivory-tower liberals might redirect your energy toward raising money to fix their ancient classrooms, scrub the graffiti in the rest rooms, and give the teachers a decent wage.
In re: #13 , the major focus of the most recent zoning was to strike a balance between the slab towers that rise to almost 400 ft on the waterfront and the one and two story neighborhood beginning a block away. The Zoning steps down to R6A on 5th Street which allows up to 70 feet height. Some blocks to the south are R7A which go to 80 ft. Once past the corner buildings on Vernon and heading East, it becomes R6B which allows up to 50 feet. This is still nearly twice the height of the existing buildings prior to the Zoning change. This was a long and well thought out process that worked to balance the economic advantage of development with the interests of a community that did not want to be overrun and over burdened by over development.
What you are calling “obstructionism” is nothing more than neighbors asking that the Zoning (i.e. the law) as is be respected. If you are saying “screw everyone, build as high as you like”, I think that’s an unfortunate and short sighted view.
To #13: Yes, Rockrose has buildings 3X the height just 25 feet away. I think the point is that the line was drawn on 5th street to keep the surrounding streets around Queens West low rise. I was originally for the 13-story tower, and do support cuny dorms, but now that I understand that this does set a precedent for getting around zoning designed to maintain the surrounding neighborhood character, I’m against the 13-story tower. There is plenty of room for higher construction everywhere in LIC, just look around you at 11th and jackson, etc. If the zoning is to meant to keep things low rise between 5th and vernon, that makes a lot of sense.
To #10, it was not deception at all. The drawings these images were based on were directly from Jay Valgora’s images. Those original images for whatever reason did not have the Queens West Buildings and it was felt that for comparison purposes it should be kept exactly the same. I love the way people can just fling accusations on blogs without a stitch of actual information.
Not saying “screw everyone, build as high as you like.” I just think that there is an anti-development crowd that is automatically against anything that is taller than two stories or that changes theirs lives even in the most insignificant of ways. How can we make such affirmative statements such as the tower is likely to cause collateral damage to neighboring residents homes. Aside from fear mongering what architectural study is this statement based on?
Also I hate to drop the “B” word, but I’m going to do it anyway. This group is the same crew that was behind the Blend fiasco. I forget the name of the group – Concerned Residents of 44th or something like that. They are running the same plays from their book again.
The developer did not work with the neighborhood community? I asked it on the Blend thread can someone clarify what the procedure is for getting things done around here? Who are the members of the community whose hands and feet need to be kissed in order to get their blessing on any change to the area? I would like to know.
#18 one step at a time. We are trying to the get the CUNY students and faculty good quality modern and affordable housing. We will tackle the other issues next.
Anyone buying “luxury” apartments in this area has got to be pissed. Real Estate 101 is that its better to buy the cheapest house in the most expensive neighborhood than the most expensive house in the worst neighborhood. Between this and the whole QueenswestSouth development, this part of LIC is rapidly becoming a social project. People may argue that this is all for a good cause but it is terrible for Real Estate investing and the residents that currently live there.
23, since I assume you represent CUNY (you shouldn’t remain Anonymous either for the sake of disclosure), you’ve had many, many years to work on getting your classrooms up to modern standard and creating a better environment for staff and students. You just chose not to focus on this and instead have transformed yourself into a greedy real estate developer. It’s all very disappointing.
#25, you should do something about those paraniod delusions. I just hate NIMBYism and when you boil it down that’s all it is. As a property owner and resident in the comunnity I see the benefit of having community facilities and a building instead of vacant land that is polluted.
Anyone swayed by these arguments need to go back and read #6 post: “A primary point brought up at that meeting is that projects such as these are likely to displace local artists as well as other small businesses and moderate income residents.” Translation we are agianst any developement which contributes to the gentrification of the area. Why not just come out and say it instead of hiding behind zoning laws?
#22 should start trying to think with an open mind. To link this situation with Blend is the most assinine thing I have heard all day.
Um, I think these are the Blend folks, but I don’t think it’s relevant. It’s good to have watchdog groups of concerned citizens who make sure developers consider the community too. It’s a good thing they got that tower down to 13 stories, we don’t want LIC to be a bunch of towers and lose the neighborhood feel. The zoning laws are important. We can’t let them be usurped. It’s good at least CUNY has to go through such a fight for it. If it was too easy then yeah, the opposition has a point. LIC really will go to the dogs.
Just because they oppose the development, does not mean they are against ALL development. In their eyes, CUNY is trying to make a serious buck and shirk zoning by crying remediation. It is a false cry. That being said, a 13 story building with QCA seems like a compromise, but who really knows. We never have all the facts. It’s in the BSA’s hands anyway. Unless (gasp) you actually want to get off your keister and go to the BSA hearing posted above and speak your mind. You have 3 minutes of undivided attention. Use it wisely.
#21 Your comments make sense if this document was being shown with others for comparison, but when it is just sent by itself to websites in effort to show CUNY building is out of scale with neighborhood, then it is deceptive.
In any event, how tall is the CUNY building anyways? On block north of site, there are buildings over 50 ft tall and from model it appears that CUNY building is about 10x as big as any building on north block.
26, that’s it, loudmouth. Just argue from intimidation. I’m all in favor of developing and cleaning up LIC. I just don’t think its either wise or necessary to sell the store to CUNY for this project. I’d rather see the parcel go to a developer or a community facility who will honor the zoning regulations.
If you read my post closely, you’d also see I was just reacting to the ridiculous assertion from the CUNY rep that once they build their tower in LIC, then they’ll start addressing the problems with their campus buildings and teacher pay. Ha!
#2 – at one time the Upper East side was low rise as well. What is your point? That an area should never change?
#19 – What “line” is it you’re talking about? The proposed dorm is located outside of the recent rezoning, and just down the street Hunters Point Condos is already build out at 125 feet tall – midblock between 5th Street and Vernon.
The slipper slope theory is a valid one. However, doesn’t our Community Board have a say every time a project is seeking a variance? If that is the case than we should take every case by case and not assume that if we let someone get a variance than we have to let everyone else get one in the future. The last thing we should do is close all possibilities for developers or institutions to seek variances because it could be used as bargaining chip for the community to get needed amenities or facilities. In the future we could always turn down any variance if we feel that the infrastructure will be over burden or if it will have adverse effects on the community. At this moment I think this building will be good addition to the community.
Oops meant “Slippery Slope”
#32–What do you mean Hunters Point condos between 5th and Vernon on 47?
I think you mean the second, smaller building of 5SL? How tall is that? I don’t think it’s that tall. And if it indeed is 125 feet, how did 5SL get a variance for the zoning? I am curious about that, if anyone knows the answer I’d love to hear it…
If you oppose CUNY please go to the following sites and let it be known:
* For the DCP: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/home.html
Once on the page click “Contact the Chair” and fill in the form 150 wds or less.
* For the BSA: http://www.nyc.gov/html/bsa/html/home/home.shtml
Once on the page click “Contact the BSA” and fill in the form 150 wds or less.
* The next BSA hearing will be August 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM. The BSA is located at 40 Rector Street (R or 1 train to Rector Street).
Since when did making more than a modest profit become a dirty thing? Did I fall asleep and wake up in Cuba?
#35 the small 5SL building is 3 stories, maybe 4 at the most. not sure what #32 would be talking about otherwise?
The Zoning laws were put in place to ensure that the neighborhood does not get overdeveloped/over congested not to ensure profits for developers. If this gets approved it is another sign than Gioia/Conley and the LIC political machine that “represents” the neighborhood isn’t working in our best interests.
#35 – Nope, I meant the Hunters Point Condo a few more blocks to the south – mid block between 5th Street and Vernon. Also, this proposed thirteen story building on 5th Street is directly across from the state park/ballfield, which has 30, 18 and 40- story buildings surrounding the other three sides – customary in NYC to put tall building around public parks I believe.
Additionally, if we want to be factually accurate, the current M1-4 zoning where the dorm is proposed allows a 10-story building as-of-right – much larger than the proposed 6-story dorm.
#38 – also known as “One Hunters Point” – http://www.hunterspointcondos.com/
Walked by all 125 feet tall of it this morning…
If you SUPPORT Economic Development and the continued expansion of the LIC community please go to the following sites and let it be known:
* For the DCP: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/home.html
Once on the page click “Contact the Chair” and fill in the form 150 wds or less.
* For the BSA: http://www.nyc.gov/html/bsa/html/home/home.shtml
Once on the page click “Contact the BSA” and fill in the form 150 wds or less.
* The next BSA hearing will be August 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM. The BSA is located at 40 Rector Street (R or 1 train to Rector Street).
#19, this is just not accurate. That block is just outside of the area rezoned in 2004. There was no “long and well thought out process” as it relates to this block. I can point you to the zoning maps on the NYC website.
This is the problem that I have with you guys. You play fast and loose with the facts as long as it suits your ends the means are justified.
#40, you post made me think of a hypothetical. If CUNY decreased the height to 10 stories (down a whopping 3 stories from the 13 story building they are planning), but built the entire structure at 10 stories as of right (instead of the only building to 3-4 stories for townhouses mid-block), would the opposition drop it complaints? After all the objection here is the request for a zoning variances. If the variance request went away would you support it?
Anyone from the other side care to answer?
#43. A sliver of 5th Street was included in rezoned area in 2004 but I think your main point that this was not part of a “long and well thought out process” is right on. I don’t think anyone will argue that city planning is an agency that works closely with the community to do anything. The height limits they imposed are subjective and arbitrary — particularly on the 5th Street area at issue here. Sure, there should be some transiition from 400 foot Queens West buildings to lower level area but whether it is 70 feet or 150 feet should not be some sort of sacred zoning restriction that can never be changed.
What’s the deal with the “displacement” argument. Anything that makes the neighborhood more desirable will probably lead to displacement of artists and people paying low rents. But nobody ever argues that we should not create parks, schools, fight crime, etc. because these things might make the area more desirable and cause rents to rise. I guess there is some logic to the case that keeping empty polluted lots around is “good” because it keeps the area less desirable so rents stay lower but that logic seems warped.
41 – my mistake. i thought you specified that it was on 47th, but #32 said that, not you.
#46, who are you, Seinfeld?
I agree that 47th Ave is ugly, but I’d personally rather not have a huge condo there. Its a snowball equation though and that is the danger of the displacement argument.
#48 please answer #44′s question.
This is America. If you want to put up a huge ugly condo on your property it is your god given right as long as you follow the rules. Don’t like it? You can buy the land and do with it as you please. Don’t like the rules? Talk to your local representative.
48 here… that’s a good question. i’m in no way qualified to speak on anyone’s behalf nor would i necessarily consider myself “from the other side”. that hypothetical you mention would get around the zoning restriction i suppose, but i don’t know really enough about zoning regulations to say what would hypothetically pass or not. maybe someone else with more technical knowledge could answer.
i would simply just not prefer that another huge condo building goes up in the neighborhood… i live close to there and don’t want to deal with the noise and pollution. its a complex issue though and i can see both sides of the argument.
So, 51 it is fairly accurate to say that you are against any development of this land even if it is within the existing zoning regulations. Thank you for clarifying that.
its not fair to put words into my now… i wouldn’t be opposed to a water park for example.
but in all seriousness, i don’t know how you extrapolated that i am “against any developement of this land” from my post, in particular since i noted the complexity of the issue and that i can see both sides of it. sheesh.
The zoning was put in place in 2004. for 6 stories on 5th street. It would appear that Gantry’s, 5SL and the Galaxy, were able to make a profit, with similar remediation. The Zoning was put in place specifically by Amanda Burden from City Planning to protect the upland community. This is not antiquated Zoning. It’s only 4 years old. I would say that if it were done in the 20′s there would be a basis for contesting it. OCA is asking for a zoning variance that has to be substantiated y a genuine hardship. Considering that the BSA has requested OCA to break down this project into 2 respective components and they have not, for the past year. I do wonder why after a year we finally have the real cost figures to this project. These were finally submitted 2 weeks ago at the BSA. The figures for the hardship has gone up in increments over the last year. First it was 3 million, then 5 million, then 8 million, and by the way…..at the last meeting….the cost went up to 10 million. While CUNY’s cost went down 2 million. Curious huh? In addition to CUNY losing it’s health facility and in it’s place, getting below ground housing, for the price break. That sound s pleasant doesn’t it? Oh yes and QCA has just lost 2000 square feet for all of you out there that voted for enclosed locked public space. OCA has been bambooziling us from the start. Did I mention their 4 million dollar insurance policy, and also that they will get Brownsfeild funds and tax abatements? that adds up to at least 7 million. so gees, they only need 3 million to cover their hardship. WHICH is the figure they started with folks!
Please ask your self why they hate Jay Valgora in Dumbo, and then they hated him in Williamsburg, and now they have fired him from doing the project next to the Board of Ed building. I’ll tell you why….because he couldn’t build a project for less than a $1000 a square foot. That is a high purchase price! Wghat would that have to sell for1500? Lets get real!
Cuny willl happen regardless. But if you are a CUNY professor, you may only pay $2000 for that housing, but you will pay taxes for that apartment at the $4000 market rate.
QCA will happen regardless….(they may have no space by the time the project gets built) but they will have some place to do their administrative work of giving away free money and showing off the directors new togs. By the way all they artists that showed up for the last meeting received money, and were wined and dined to testify . Oh, and only 1 of them actually works in this neighborhood.
This project will happen, so all of those looking forward to this, no worries. It just should have 6 stories of luxury housing….not 14. It’s a simple as that.
If this is allowed it will set a precedent for 14 stories, (it’s 14 not 13 like they say,) on Vernon Blvd. And we become the Upper West Side. I already know 2 other developers who are saying just so. “If so and so and so has it , we should have it,” so that means changing the zoning which would wreak havoc in this economy and already faltering condo market. Not to mention the neighborhood folks. Yes, someone is already going for 11 stories on Vernon Blvd, and 22 around the corner from it. They will need to go for a zoning variance with the city. This opens the flood gates to the upland community. So get out your boat and find docking space because that is how you will commute when 300,000 more people move here. I’m not against responsible development or capitolizism. I just want things to evolve in a harmonious natural way.
AND STOP CALLING IT CUNY! it is OCA and has nothing to do with CUNY. Cuny is only a separate component.
I love when people state that a 15% return on a development project is adequate. Those kinds of returns are pretty low considering today’s market and the risky nature of building ground up. Another thing, most of the “big money” that finances these types of developments does not come from multi-millionaires it actually comes from pension funds that invest it for teachers, union workers and all other types of hard working people. I guess it is always easier to paint any investor as a greedy fat pig.
How about we stick to verifiable facts.
Saying the architect is “hated in Dumbo” and was “fired from the East River tennis site because costs were above $1000 per sq.ft.” sure sounds like baseless rumor-mongering. And it takes away from legitimate points you might have.
Thank you #55 & #56. See you at the meeting on August 19th?
#54, and 55 you are wrong. Here is the zoning maps from the city:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/map9b.pdf
The block in question was excluded from the rezoning in 2004.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/hunterspoint/hp6_proposedzoning.pdf
The zoning on this block has not changed in decades. I suppose the City of NY is now publishing phony maps…
#57, When you understand who the opposition is this make perfect sense as a rallying cry. The goal is to slow and/or prevent gentrification. Anyone earning a 15% return on investment automatically is evil.
# 60, the CUNY project site is on 3rd block south of Basin on 5th Street. The maps you referenced show the 5th Street end of the block was rezoned to M1-4/R6A in 2004 (in yellow on second map).
#54 – check the zoning regulations, 10-stories is allowed as-of-right under M1-4 sky exposure plane rules in that area. Also, I noticed that the NYCDOB recently accepted plans for a separate 10-story mid-block building on 47th Avenue (between the proposed dorm and Vernon Boulevard); which is clearly as-of-right under the zoning you seem to feel limits building to 3-4 stories?
#55 – Tom, why all the hate? Your coalition opposed the Gantry State Park back in the early 1990s, asserted that the Queens West project would be the death of retail along Vernon Boulevard, and called for the protection of those same industrial manufacturers that polluted the entire neighborhood with known carcinogens and worse. Now in addition to spewing complete falsities about every detail of the application, and posting alarmingly erroneous renderings which severely distort the proposed project, you’ve taken extremely inaccurate and slanderous shots at the project architect in an attempt to bolster your position that the 1,700,000 new residents projected to be moving into the NYC metro area by 2025 should sleep in boxes on the toxic wastelands you’re trying so desperately to “protect”? What gives?
The development site in question extends all the way to the middle of the block. Only the edge of the property on 5th street was rezoned. What the map clearly shows is that you are a liar when you say the was some conscious effort to protect this block from development when the area was rezoned in 2004. In fact one could say that the city went out of their was to allow development since it was clearly excluded for a reason.
The maps don’t show anyone lied about anything. The 5th street part of block was included in the 2004 rezoning. What that means for the block (if anything) can be subject to debate.
If it can be subject to debate, then why are you presenting it as fact?
What the maps clearly show is that you are dishonest and will say anything to get what you want.
Lighten up. I wrote the no. 45 item above and am not presenting facts as you describe.
Please reread post #55
“The zoning was put in place in 2004.” “The Zoning was put in place specifically by Amanda Burden from City Planning to protect the upland community. This is not antiquated Zoning. It’s only 4 years old. I would say that if it were done in the 20′s there would be a basis for contesting it.”
This is false. The zoning for most of this land has not changed in decades. There was no sepcial consideration given by anyone in the city. In fact on the basis of the exclusion one could argue that the city specifically wanted to encourage higher density development there.
The Gantry, the Galaxy and the Foundry are all on 5th St. and had to be in compliance with the 6 story zoning restrictions which went into effect in 2004 to prevent density that would block air and light from the waterfront. QW was required to provide avenues of air, light and views between buildings.
Block air? How do you block air?
How come you all have your panties in a bunch over this very attractive design which will include much needed GRADUATE student housing, while there is no outrage over the huge and grotesque parking garages that have been built at East Coast and Avalon?
Those things are the biggest eyesores I have ever seen – They look like some 1970s era urban renewal plan – I thought we have learned from our mistakes.
This project is right across the street and is so much smaller – your anger and hostility to it is totally misdirected.
OK folks, it’s going back & forth & up & down. I will clarify two things and then a personal observation.
1. No it is not the same group opposing Blend. It is a group with people as varied as a union construction worker to City agency employees to artists to senior citizens who are trying to exercise their right to contest the variance. This is not an anti-development crowd. This is a group struggling to find a compromise between the new and the old, the big and the small – something that we could better use this blog for. But there are voices here that keep trying to paint it black & white. I have to ask why?
2. Whether you are for or against CUNY or QCA has absolutely no bearing on the variance as neither qualify as Community facilities. That can’t be changed without a change in the law. In fact the group opposing is in favor of CUNY. Their proposal has been to separate the luxury housing from the dorms so that the appropriate variance decisions can be made based on what they actually are rather than mixing apples with oranges.
3. One really has to wonder who the people are who are so aggressive here toward the upland community. What exactly is the motivation?
Again I reiterate. This is not CUNY. I wish everyone would stop calling this CUNY. Call this a developer using a CUNY componant and not following BSA standards to blur the lines of remediation. OCA will be developing the M1-4 side of this site for Cuny. And The BSA has asked OCA to separate out the different zoning parcels which they have yet to do over the last 3 meetings. The Cuny portion as well as the QCA portion will happen! No one is attacking that. IT WILL HAPPEN. Where the luxury housing is to going is NOT ZONED for 14 stories. And requires a zoning variance based on a true hardship.
A better solution for CUNY and QCA exists at Hunters Point South. The parcels can be built much higher as of right. There will be ferry service that will help alleviate overcrowding on the 7 train. There is no environmental cleanup. The property is under City auspices already.
#57 states “When you understand who the opposition is this make perfect sense as a rallying cry. The goal is to slow and/or prevent gentrification. Anyone earning a 15% return on investment automatically is evil.”
No one called the developer “evil”. But it’s a great ploy to accuse me of that anyway. The 15% was mentioned in response to LIQCity’s use of the phrase “modest return to investors”. Whatever ones opinion as to what profit is acceptable, the only thing that will count is if BSA determines either a loss or a profit below acceptable industry standards.
Regarding my goal – what do you know about my goal? Almost all people here who oppose the height and density favor some form of development. Many will welcome a compromise. To me it seems the ones most unwilling to compromise appear to be the pro-development crowd.
In #57 I got sucked into the polarization when I used the phrase “pro-development crowd”. I am in fact pro-development. The distinction I want to make is that there are those willing to engage in meaningful productive dialog in the hopes of something spectacular that does not harm what we have enjoyed here for years.
It seems that there are many who believe that doesn’t count for anything.
#75, 76 quit using your code words. “something that does not harm what we have enjoyed here for years” I don’t understand what that means. Either you are for development or against it. Pick a side. If you are for development then stop trying to dictate the terms under which it occurs and be glad it is happening. There are plenty of positive things about this development to be happy about.
If you are against it say so. I’d respect you more if you just had the balls to really say that you did not want to see anything built on this site. Or that nothing should be built there except 2 story townhouses, which in effect means that nothing will be built there because the land acquisition cost and remediation costs are to high to justify small scale development.
I’d say dropping from 28 stories to 13, including a cumminity space, QCA space are compromises. What has the anti-development side compromised on? also working in finance I can tell you that private equity funds do not get out of bed for less than a 20% return. a 15% IRR is low for this type of deal.
Oh by the way the $1000 a square foot figure concerning Jay Valgora came from City Planning. The other info came from news paper articles done on the internet. Also Jay has a history of going for zoning variances. Every meeting he introduces himself to potential advocates offering work in a veiled way, or says phrases like “you look like a smart guy” The guy trashes all the architecture in this neighborhood and actually says his is the best and if you look at the plans above ground level….they are cookie cutter boxes. Nothing inspired at all. East Coast 2 is pretty good, the huge terrace is magnificent, and the angled terraces pretty nice. I was almost swayed by Jays presentation from the sexy ground street level drawings of the stoop gardens but after examining the blue print it’s a lot like everything else around here. He invited us to come and look at his model, and what do you think happen when someone actually tried to set up an appointment? NADA. We were promised a library for ten extra stories. Where is it? I’ve been hearing it’s coming for 7 years now? Trade offs are good when you actually get something. But so far the trade off is not required to get CUNY built. That is were this has been a misrepresentation in the papers and at community board meetings for months. DOB does not even recognize CUNY as a community give back.
The variance process is part of the law. You love it or leave it.
#77 really lives in a world of “code words” and secret meanings. His/her dreams must be interesting. I really wonder what his/her axe to grind might be. It hasn’t been revealed. Yet 77 claims I don’t have the balls to be on one side or the other. Polarization.
Code words??? Get real. I am describing a generally intimate neighborhood where I could see the sky from my back yard and I knew all of my neighbors. I have come to terms with the fact that I am now surrounded by buildings twice the height of mine filled with a percentage of newcomers who don’t give a hoot about any of who or what has been here. Fortunately I have met and made friends with those who do care.
What you represent is made very clear by the energy you have put into tearing down, belittling, and labeling those that you don’t understand. Too bad the finance world has unhappy soulless characters like you.
#81 You don’t like not knowing you neighbors, the new people don’t care about what you care about, you don’t like tall buildings, you don’t like medium sized buildings, you think people work work in finance are souless, you require lots of light and air and feel your suppy of it is being choked. These are all things that come with development and gentrification. Go ahead and say that you are anti-development. Trust me you will feel so much better. Don’t be embarrased of it!
Why do you have to be either pro or against development in general?? I’m for some development and not others. Of course, I have my own personal criteria, but isn’t that the point of NOT BEING SO BLACK AND WHITE??? not all development is bad, nor is it good. Especially in LIC we should take things on a case-by-case basis.
I’m #1 and #3 and I started posting because I was a a little confused about whether to support this or not, and I wanted a better understanding of what was going on. After 88 posts, it is clear as mud and I have no idea at all. For the record, I am a newcomer here and support change, thoughtful urban planning, and respect for neighbors,–and think those 3 things are not mutually exclusive. I also think 6 stories is plenty high enough for our side streets or whatever is out of the highrise area. Whatever that is.
#81 Do you need a new set of glasses? I did not say I did not like tall or medium size buildings. I said I’ve learned to live with my view of the sky disappearing.
I did not say the new people don’t care about what you care about. I said there is a percentage that do not. You are proof of that.
I did not say I require lots of like and air or I feel choked. That’s a bizarre interpretation. I guess you are saying that light and air is a terrible thing to enjoy.
I did not say that people who work in the finance industry are soulless. I specifically singled you out. Your own comments make any explanation unnecessary.
Oh and by the way development and gentrification are not my issue. I’m among the people who have tangibly worked to bring about change and therefore encouraged development and gentrification.
Now why don’t you just get off your chest the utter disregard you feel for anyone who does not think exactly like you. I bet you are a total wimp in real life.
I like the project but respect the opposing view. You don’t need to demonize architect however. we looked at Jay Valgora for a project and did not use him but he seemed fine. I did research and I don’t think he has done any projects in DUMBO or elsewhere in Brooklyn. I think the River East tennis site changes architects because the owners keep changing. I can’t imagine there is any architect who can’t figure out how to do a building for less than $1,000 a sq.ft. so that rumour seems silly.
#s 92, 22,89. It’s refreshing to hear voices of reason even if the views are not exactly the same as mine. I think Valgora is demonized because he has said he understands and “feels for” the neighborhood but his designs nonetheless seem to intrude. IMO he pays a vague token homage on the ground floor but then returns to uninspired luxury high rise slabs. He is very talented and I wish he could push his talents further. Does anyone here really believe OCA can’t make money on this property any other way?
Do you think that when they bought the property they did not do due diligence? Do you really think a fairly high powered real estate hedge fund does not have any fall back scenario in case their best case ambition does not succeed?
The main smoke and mirrors here is to convince the community they are fighting for CUNY and QCA. There has been virtually zero opposition to either one. The objection is to OCA getting a high rise luxury tower by way of a hardship variance. I personally would rather see the public process of a zoning change that worked on this via a more transparent (albeit slightly so) process.
Btw, for those who say the zoning there was not changed in 2004 , that is true but that was a deliberate decision in hopes of maintaining manufacturing – something that probably does need revisiting now.
Also to the person who said that one should be able to build what he wants on his property, that might be true somewhere on the Great Plains. But here your property is within a community that is directly affected – to a degree positive or negative. The idea is to try to attain balance.
#93, thanks for adding to the voice of reason. While you may not be opposed to CUNY, there have been a number who have spoken publicly about the fact that dorms are transient reseidents, and that this is not what the community needs, etc. I’m glad you don’t have an issue with it, but there are some that do. Thank you for also agreeing that the zoning issue is somewhat of a red herring since the zoning for most of this land has remain unchanged for many years now.
At the end of the day maybe this building should be smaller. I don’t know, but let the process run its course. My issue is with those who misrepresent the facts – intentionally or unintentionally to further their cause. Also there are some who who like to see this land not developed. They will not admit it in public on blogs or in community meetings, but if proposed I’m sure many would line up in favor of a moratorium on building. They are concerned about gentrification. We all should be concerned about that to make sure the area is developed responsible and within the law. I think people get to emotionaly connected to these things. In an area like where there has been so much change what is contextual? In my mind the proposal is no different than the dozens of buildings already in LIC. People should have a open mind and not automatically be against anything that is large. The genie is out of the bottle. We are never going back to the cheap sleepy little neighborhood this once was.
#94 I agree. Long after this building is built this guy will still be trying to make a living and support his family. Unless you have personal and direct experience working with him as his client, anything you have to say about him is your unsubstantiated opinion, hearsay and possibly defamation, libel or slander.
Well stated #95. The ultimate question I guess is where is the point where you draw the line and say ok, let’s get the infrastructure up to par, let’s make sure that the plan supports viable businesses, let’s make sure that it does not put so much pressure on real estate that it forces people and businesses to leave.
My gut feeling is that LIC needs to back off a bit from luxury this and luxury that. It’s pushing too hard on the bubble. I believe that a stronger local economy could grow if that constant drum of “build more, build bigger, build higher” were toned down. Does that make me anti-development? Not by a long shot. I believe you can grow a neighborhood by supporting varied scales of development.
At the moment I feel that small and medium scale support is in the form of trickle down economics.
#97 I agree with most of what you said. However market forces should dictate what gets built. If there is a demand for luxury high rises it will get built. If there is a demand for low rises they will get built. I am a full belever in capitalism. It is the best allocator of resources. When government or individuals try to insert themselves into these things they inevitable screw it up. Government should only ensure that the environment is right for growth (i.e. infrastructure, etc.)
LIC local economy has been great. I couldn’t imagine it going better. With small scale development we would never gotten a Duane Reade or supermarket. There would not be all of the new small business and resturants on Vernon, or the dozens of jobs being created by them. 10 years ago I would have never imagined there being a pet shop, a bike store, a fruit stand or bagel shop in the area. These businesses need customers to survive and increasingly those customers live in the high rises and new devlopments. This could have never happened with small scale development.
#98 Therein lies the different opinions and who really knows all the answers? I’m not sure people want all of the giant name stores here. So again where is the line drawn?
But much of what you are saying is absolutely correct. Where I disagree is that many of the small shops are subsidized in one way or another and essentially holding out for the bigger long term development. There may have been equally diverse use of these spaces had government resources, assistance, and incentives been in part directed there rather than only toward large scale development.
I have no argument with capitalism. I agree that government imposed solutions often are bizarre diversions from reality. But I do feel that when government incentivizes (sorry for the crap word), it should be a fair distribution between high middle and low. And now the results of the inbalance are being played out by opposing sides locked in battle rather than a community as a whole trying to set its course.
I wish to commend the commenters on this thread. For the most part this has been a true debate with both sides expressing their views in a reasonable well worded manner – unlike the bike issue which turned into a cat fight – claws bared and full of venomous personal attacks at one another and about others.
I am all for the CUNY Portion and so is the Zoning Board. The big problem is the 13 story portion, the market rate housing.
Contamination is estimated by the owner at $4,000,000 (best case scenario, assuming they do not get a penny from Brownfield Program). The average selling price per square foot in LIC = $650. Therefore $650 x 6,154 square feet = $4,000,000. Therefore, the most additional floorarea that should be given by the variance is 6,154 square feet. How do they have the nerve to ask for double the maximum permitted floor area?!?
The next BSA hearing will be August 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM. The BSA is located at 40 Rector Street (R or 1 train to Rector Street). We must be heard!
This will be approved. The Community Board voted for it, the Land Use Committee voted for it. Sophisiticated real estate investors and high price attorneys are behind the project. They have the emotional factor / public good factor of restoring a vacant and polluted site back into productive service, ading additional community space, QCA space and the fact that this a city sponsored institution. They have all the data to support their cause and respected professionals who do this for a living to vouch for their data’s accuracy. You are doing back of the envelope calculations on internet blogs and making ham fisted attempts to interpret zoning maps. The zoning rules are on their side as they will easily prove hardship. I don’t see a small band of malcontents being able to stop this. Yes you will be heard, but it will only be lip service. Your best shot was at the CB2 meetings. Save your engery and dissapointment.
#113 How community minded of you to call your neighbors “malcontents”. You are obviously unaware that the reason this has extended to a third BSA hearing is because the back of the envelope calculations appear more accurate than the so-called professional ones which have spiraled upward by several million at each new hearing.
Most interesting regarding CB2 and Land Use Committee was OCA’s testimony that they offered the Community Board to fund any pet projects with left over money after Brownfield funding. This is no b.s. It’s on record that attorney Howard Goldman stated this at the BSA where even the Board was taken aback. CB2 has said they do not remember this.
Look, enough of the pissing match. It’s obvious there are people who respects the differing views and are willing to attempt reasonable and thoughtful debate. But there is a faction who is willing to assassinate anyone’s character and purpose. Again I ask , what is their goal? Why are they so intent on painting valid community interests (on both sides) as evil or backward?
And please to the moderator of this board try to remove subtle and not so subtle hints at people’s names. It’s a classic game of a coward unwilling to reveal his/her own identity.
What’s wrong with malcontent? Webster defines it as a dissatisfied person or one who rebels against the established system. Does that not fit? Also you ask the moderator to remove people’s names, then proceed in the same post to make an unsubstantiated accusation someone offering a bribe to the CB. Stop speaking from both sides of your mouth. You can’t spread innuendo, half truths and rumors and then seek protection from it yourself.
#115 Just be honest was your post meant to glorify or to vilify?
Second, where a name was used was very specific that a) the testimony of the OCA attorney is on public record and b) that it is his own public recorded comment and c) that it has not been verified by CB2. That is very different from randomly sticking in names of people with sly innuendos.
On the other hand, you are making a completely unfounded claim of innuendo and rumor. But then you stick in words like “bribe” when no such word was used and no such implication was made. Isn’t your Your purpose purely to attack the community members who oppose the height of the luxury tower. I’m still trying to figure out why. What’s in it for you?
It was meant neither to glorify nor vilify. It was intended to describe. Again I encourage you to look the word up in a dictionary. While you are at it look up bribe – anything given or serving to persuade or induce. Also I fail to see how you hold the high ground on this matter. Look at the thread above. You have dragged the architects name, the lawyers name and the developers name through the mud with speculation, rumors and half truths. Now all of a sudden you are concerned about innuendo? Seems a bit disingenuous, no?
Things had basically come to a peaceful resolution here until you came along stirring things up. What’s your agenda?
#116 Where did I mention the architect? I’m stirring things up? Where do you get this stuff?
#91 this is where the concept of reasonable profit comes into play. No developer can be expected to build a building and sell it for cost. That is totaly unrealistic and unfair. You just made the case for the developer getting the additional floor area as their argument has always been that the additional cost associated with remediation creates a hardship.
#98 Not sure that’s exactly what #91 was getting at. First, understand that they actually are in the Brownfields program and they will be grandfathered into the newly reworked version and for them there will be no cap. But beyond that what I think #91 is saying is that a good profit margin already exists if built as of right and were no remediation to occur. That analysis is actually something the BSA has asked for and I think that’s quite appropriate. If it’s a hardship variance application I don’t think profit on the particular trade off of extra bulk versus necessary cost is considered. Right or wrong I believe the law requires a dollar for dollar exchange of cost.
Hey LIQCITY, is there a way to delete comments without changing the numbers? Things get a little hard to follow. Couldn’t you just leave something that says “deleted” so post numbers remain the same?
#99, What are the costs to develop this land and how does that compare to your analysis. Please also factor in that the majority of this is not market rate housing and is not being offered for sale. Also what is a good profit margin?
To #101, the analysis will be from OCA and that is to be presented at the hearing as requested by the BSA. The part that is in contention is the market rate housing. I think it was correctly mentioned earlier that proponents of the scaled down development and I believe the BSA itself would like to see the CUNY site and the market rate site analyzed as separate entities. To date it’s been mushed together and that has to some extent clouded things. At least I know I’m confused.
The part I don’t know the answer is what the official BSA stance on a good profit margin might be. Based on OCA’s figures to my untrained eye, it looks like they would get back double their investment in about 5 years.
I will go to the meeting in August, but if you have the analysis, post it so that we can discuss. Doubling your money in 5 years sounds great on paper, but I will tell you that it is an extremely low-return relative to the risk of entitlements, lease-up, sales, construction cost overruns, etc. The 5 year double works out to a 15% IRR. Development deals are risky and as stated previously, no one even touches one of these development projects unless they start to approach a 20% Net IRR (after taxes). To give you some perspective, you could park your money in a 5 year CD and have virtually no risk and still earn a 5% return. Why would you beat yourself up developing real estate which is much riskier for marginal returns?
#103 Thank you for the short lesson. I had to go to Wikipedia to understand IRR. I don’t claim to understand the numbers and so I trust you are correct. Presumably when they purchased the property, a smart firm like OCA could not assume that the variance would be a given. That would seem a very risky investment.
Those of us who worry that we may be headed toward too much density in the low rise neighborhood would like to have scrutiny for such variances rather than a rubber stamp just because it’s CUNY and QCA as much as we may like them. The whole point of a variance is to take into account a property owner’s economic hardship. But the burden is on OCA to prove it.
Btw, I’d like help with the risk of owning my own property. The EPA map of LIC’s toxic waste shows there may be enough here for every owner to get a variance. Alas, the rules happen to be that one must demonstrate a unique hardship.
#104, you said that you would think that a smart firm like OCA could not assume that the variance would be a given. That is not the case. In investing there are no certainties. Its no different the buying stock. If everything was certain, it would not be an investment. If you’ve ever bet before you know that a sure thing does not pay out nearly as much as the long shot. No risk no reward. this is why it problematic when people start passing judgement on what is a modest return. What does that mean?
These guys have sunk $20M into the site and right now at this stage there is no telling whether they will even get their money back. There is a number of ways that the deal can go belly up. The price of concrete can other raw materials can go through the roof. The DOB could shut down the site for 3 months. Weather conditions may cause them to delay development. Unions may strike. Remediation costs may be much higher than expected. CUNY could pull out of the deal. The general contractor may be incompetent. Interest rates can shoot up making borrowing more expensive. The zoning variance may not be approved. The real estate market may tank while developing and the building may sit vacant for several years. These are only but a few of the risks are inherent in every devlopment deal. It is not a reflection of OCA’s intellegence or stupidity. I’m sure they carefully assesed all the risks and believe that they can manage all these factors to the projects a successful completion. I’m not saying it a gamble, but it is not a slam dunk either.
Developing a project of this size in immensly complicated and expensive. That is the reason why an analysis such as in #91 does not hold water. It assumes everything goes smoothly and focuses on one variable of hundreds that could kill this project. Also it assumes that there should not be anything more than modest compensation for sticking ones neck out like this.
There would be no reason why you could not make a similar application to obtain a variance for your property. The law is there for the benefit for everyone. Of course assuming your land is contaminated I suspect you will also have a hard time making the numbers work. Land costs and remediation costs are too high to make the math on a small scall since residence project. That is why every new project is a large development and why every project includes luxury housing. You gotta earn your nut some how.
Look real estate development is a messy and complicated business. It’s easy to blame the developers, but it not their fault. They are just trying to make a living as everyone else is. If you were in their shoes you would do the same.
Dear 105, it all sounds reasonable until we get to the point where the expectation of some is that it is a god given right for these gentlemen to succeed. Somehow we in the community are told “suck it up” if we want to question the rate at which the neighborhood is getting denser and bulkier. Or if a small business can’t make it because the rent is too high, there are some who seem to say “tough luck”. Or if an artist or elderly tenant or low income family is displaced we are told “you can’t stop change.” But somehow we all must get behind OCA’s ambition.
The looming question is why none of the other properties within the same zoning who have recently built on land with possibly the same pollutants or worse have had to make a hardship appeal. They have all built within the existing envelope on slab. So far as I know OCA has not made the case that their pollutants are worse than anyone else’s. In fact OCA has not even fully analyzed the property and much of their claim has so far seemed speculative. I can’t help but feel they are just trying for the sky when there is a more acceptable compromise to be found. And I’m just not very convinced that it’s difficult to make money on prime LIC land. Fact is if the scale comes down, the risk comes down.
5SL and Gantry did not have environmental contamination. Neither included a rental component. Neither had plans to rent this component at below market rates.
“If the scale comes down, the risk comes down.” Yes, that’s true, but if the risk comes down, the returns also come down as well. Put yourself in their shoes. You could put your money in the bank and earn a safe return while your feet are up, or you can bust your hump over a 4 year period trying to ensure that the project comes in under budget and on time, and hope that the market is with you when it comes time to lease or sell. What would you do? If the only way that this land can be developed is for a nominal return I can guarantee that it will not get developed. There are better place to invest your capital. This is what the hardship clause is all about. Let’s all stop trying to be amatuer real estate developers and let the experts on the BSA decide the case on its merits. I don’t think anyone outside of the developer and the BSA can speak to these technical issues and instead of the emotional response that’s really what this should boil down to.
You should be careful what you wish for though. I think someone on the CB said it as well, but if this does not get built I would almost put money on the fact that the next guy will be going for 100% luxury condo, marketed to more yuppies, will build every square foot he is entitled to under the law, will not add any on site parking, will not offer any community facilities, will not offer any space to the QCA, etc., etc.
Not being rude, but no one cares about that small business can’t make it because the rent is too high. They are being replaced by stores that can. Artist or elderly tenants being displaced? There are a hundreds of new residents fighting to get their place. Get in line – its happening all over the city. Its sad, but frankly your feelings on the subject won’t make on iota of a difference. Unless you are going to move toward socialism, people will act in their best interests and profit motives.
#107 That’s just my point. Why exactly are we supposed to get in step with the developer’s ambition? Why is that more important than anything these days? I’m supposed to sympathize with OCA??
That’s the part no one has quite explained to this thick headed out of step person here.
107, there is environmental contamination all along 5th Street. Here’s the EPA map:
http://tinyurl.com/68tlaw
5SL and Gantry built on slab. This is an accepted method that many environmentalists actually prefer to stirring things up. There has been no requirement for OCA to dig deep down on the entire property. And people keep ignoring that this expense would be covered by a combination of Brownfield funds and existing insurance. So in terms of the strict legal basis upon which a variance is granted, there is technically no hardship.
There is no plan to rent the towers below market rate. They are market rate luxury apartments. This is specifically the portion being questioned by the community.
What is the deletion policy on this blog? There were initial posts bashing the architect by name and spreading false rumors about him. Then there was a post claiming city planning as the source of the rumors. Then there were posts bashing city planning people as the alleged source of the rumors.
Only the last group got deleted so we are left with rumors about the architect and city planning cited as source for truth of the rumors. The policy is not to keep city planning people free from (possibly bogus) bashing while leaving architects out to dry, is it?
Hello commenters. The deleting is not intentional. We apologize, and the problem will be resolved this week. Thanks for your patience.
It shouldn’t have to do with individuals anyway. What matters is our thoughts and feelings as to how the few things that we might influence will impact our lives. The hope is that an intelligent discussion will help people with opposing views find common ground or at least not hate those who think and feel differently.
Fair enough. I don’t object to deleting “bashing” posts naming individuals (directly or indirectly), but if these were actually being intentionally deleted, then the bogus bashing of the architect should go as well. But if nothing is being purposely deleted, then never mind.
Is there such a thing as market rate “non-luxury” apts? I don’t think so. I think luxury is just word to describe the market rate price, which is higher than people would like it to be.
I look at this from property owner side but there is really only market rate housing or “affordable housing” with government price controls. If you really want to reduce market rate housing so the prices are not considered “luxury” prices, you need to create more of it. Affordable housing always sounds nice in theory, but it is never the deserving teachers, firemen, etc. who get the housing, it always winds up in hands of the politically connected and the un-deserving. If you really want to address housing costs, then we need greater density in areas that can take the density. I my view, the area at issue here can take the density because it is on the outside (if just barely) of the existing low rise community and adjacent to much taller buildings at Queens West.
I think the burden on infrastructure is a good counterargument, but I doubt the city would ever now build infrastructure for a place before the people are there screaming for it. In old days, the city built subway out into nowhere in anticipation of future need, but now I can’t imagine the city paying for anything that was not an immediate need (and even then it would probably need to be an immediate need for quite a few years before paid for).
114, you are right regarding those who are left out of the so called affordable housing equation. But I disagree with the conclusion that the answer is we must give in to the interests of large scale development. My personal view is to try to duplicate the factors and qualities that historically have created self sustaining neighborhoods. And so from my perspective, a viable economy is better addressed by small to medium scale growth from within rather than imposed large scale from without. Times change and so what factors are needed do change as well.
But beyond my opinion, all I keep seeing here is a continued attempt to maximize profit and no real attempt by anyone to formulate intelligent policy or consensus as to the neighborhood’s future. It seems that’s poor planning on all sides.
With respect to NYC as a whole, I’d say current project is medium scale at best. What does growth from within rather than without mean? In my view, I’d prefer taller buildings outside the low-scale residential area than adding a few floors to buildings within low scale area.
Growth from within means that incentives and government support should also focus on the goals and needs of the low rise community. Or at least all of the marketeers should pull all that stuff about quaint intimate neighborhood out of their brochures and find some place for me to move. The City should also remove that line from the zoning that states something to the effect “to preserve neighborhoods and context..”
The original 28 stories would have gone through without the community having raised strong objection. That was definitely high rise even with respect to the neighboring Queens West towers. 13 with respect to 99% of the buildings upland from there is still multiples higher. It’s more than twice the height of the newest 5 story buildings in R6B that are stressing various blocks and homes. From my perspective if there is to be any protection of the more intimate low rise neighborhood there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
Agree with #114. It not the job of developers to fund social programs or formulate policy for a neighborhood. If below market rate housing is a priority is an objective of government, they need to intercede and make sure it happens. Write your senator, but you can’t fault the developers for acting in their interest.
#118, is this spin or honest confusion. I don’t see where anyone said that developers should fund social programs. By the same token, why should the public fund private developers?
How you ask? A payback in bulk and height is being requested in exchange for remediation. Fair enough. But let’s simply make sure the figures jive. Period. Same way a middle class family’s income is scrutinized when they request tuition assistance.
FYI — looks like building dept rejected the application for the ten story building near the CUNY site but closer to Vernon. It would be nice if they gave a reason but I don’t see it.
#118 stop it. Its called critical reading. Not everything has to be spelled out in black in white. Every one is saying that the developer is not in context with the neighborhood, the infrastructure is not in place, why does everything have to be luxury, why are rents so high, blah, blah, blah. Those things are not the developers job or concern. If you want traction on these issues talk to your elected representatives. Developers should develop. Government should set social policy and provide infrastructure.
Why should the public fund private developers? I assume you are referring to the brownfield credits here. Well the public is not funding the developer. Many years ago NYS saw that it was in the public interest to clean up these sites. As a result they created this program to form a public/private partnership to do that. Again this in not a handout. They are being reimbursed for costs incurred. This is no windfall and the city and state get out of having to cleaning up this site themselves which is their responsibility to begin with. If anything the developer is giving the state a handout as it is inccurring 80% of the cost associated with something that the state should be doing anyway. Where is the city and state when it comes to cleaning up these sites and going after those who polluted them to begin with? Look at Newton Creek. Its on its way to becoming a superfunds site that we will all foot the bill for indirectly.
#118 re: your first paragraph, I have no disagreement. I don’t necessarily like it but that’s how the world is.
Your second paragraph is missing what I said. Apologies for my poor communication. Of course the Brownfield is an important part of this. And absolutely the developer should avail himself of the program as he has done. This is exactly what the proponents of what we consider a more appropriate development want here.
The corporate handout is if the developer gets more out of this than a dollar for dollar trade off. Hey I’m willing to go a decent percentage above dollar for dollar so we may be in agreement here. The choice to buy and develop by going deep into the ground was the developer’s choice. It is debatable as to whether or not this is something necessary or if it is simply OCA’s best shot at maximizing profit. I’m not saying they should not try to maximize. That’s their right. By the same token it’s the Public’s right to say that a variance granted for hardship needs to demonstrate hardship. If Brownfield funding that has no cap combined with an insurance policy covers the full remediation, where exactly is the unique hardship? And if you do find hardship beyond what any other developer might face on similar soil, shouldn’t the extra benefit given by government (namely, extra floors) have some relation to what your hardship is?
The site is contaminated. It needs to be cleaned up. By right the former owner or the city or the state should be putting up the money to clean this up. All 3 have failed the community in this regards. Developer X comes along and says hey I’ll clean up this mess. City says thanks, it is important to the public at large to cleanup this site so let me help you by footing 20% of the bill – after all if you did not do this the site would continue to be contaminated, and eventually I would need to pay 100% of the cost of remediation or spend countless years litigating with the former owner to get him to clean it up (and he may not even be around anymore or solvent anymore). (See Newton Creek)
So yes I think we owe a little something to the guy who is cleaning up the mess that others left behind and that the community ignored for decades.
Again I must ask what qualifies you to determine what it would cost to remeditate this site, what insurance will or will not cover, what an appropriate remidiation plan is, etc. Do you have any experience or back ground at all in these matters? You can not reduce these issues to a sound bite, or make sweeping generalizations. For instance when was the last time you tried to get paid out damages for something that was supposedly “fully covered” under your insurance policy? No one want to deal with the complexities and uncertainties involved in this. They laugh and say that the developer is changing his estimate of the remediation costs. Have you considered that this is a terribly imprecise science of estimating what it will be or what they will find once they start digging?
I understand the desire to simplify what is complex, but when you do that you run the risk of coming to the wrong conclusion. That’s the problem with America today. No one want to take the time to understand the complexity of issues. I am no expert on these matter, but the BSA does have those experts and so does the developer. There is no place for this anectdotal evidence and simplistic analysis. Put them in a room without outside interference and let them come to a conclusion.
#123, I think you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing – sweeping generalization, unsubstantiated sound bites, and you do seem to lack expertise or knowledge in the required areas so some of what you present as fact is not actually so even if it emotionally sounds like it should be.
But this is is all ok. No one expects you or the public to be the experts. As you correctly point out in your last paragraph that is for the experts on all sides to try to intelligently work out. This is exactly the point I can’t seem to properly express in a way that you acknowledge and understand. It is for the experts and that’s why there is a hearing. And it’s a public hearing because the public has the right to ask questions however naive or uninformed the questions may be. Unless as someone earlier said, we have woken up in Cuba.
wow. this is really amazing. all this debate about one freaking building!
it boggles the mind that people actually think their quality of life will be more diminished by a 13 story building than living next to a contaminated empty lot.
you’d really rather keep your “view of the sky” if it meant living next to toxic waste?
is it really worse to have the building be 13 stories, yet house graduate students and an arts organization? is it really THAT bad?
One freaking building built that asks for a zoning variance that is 8 stories over what is allowed which will most likely set precedence for many more buildings that are not within the allowed height restrictions. Ever heard the expression “It’s like opening a can of worms”? Yes, it is THAT bad.
No its not. This is exageration and fearmongering at it best. Its one building. Nothing more. Any other building will go through the same review process. Is it any better or worse to be walled in by 6 stories as compared to 13? You are going to get walled in anyway. Just deal with it.
#127 The statement that this is “exaggeration and fear mongering” is an exaggeration in itself. Of course 6 stories is better than 13. As for the idea that “other buildings will go through the same review” you seem to be missing the fact that one of the arguments they are making and pro-bulk people have made here is that Queens West is already tall and so what’s the big deal? You can’t have your argument both ways though I know you certainly try.
#125 No one is saying they prefer an empty lot. I would add that no one has even yet proven that this is a major toxic waste site. This so far is largely OCA’s speculation based on one particular industry that occupied one section. Even the present Pepsi/Standard Oil remediation site is not designated as hazardous.
The main point is the developer crying crocodile tears that he can’t make enough money unless he builds this high. Interesting that that was his argument at 28 stories and somehow when no politician would get behind it they quickly came down to 13 stories. Also interesting that the more the BSA questioned their figures, the higher their remediation costs rose.
This is not about stifling development. It simply about finding a fair exchange between the density the community wants and the concessions the developer wants. The remediation part, CUNY, QCA are a diversion.
Queens West is already tall so the “what’s the big deal” argument is perfectly legitimate in my mind. Any reasonable person would ask this. What hardship would a 13 story building place on a are that is surrounded by 40 story buildings? You do realize that complaining about a 13 story building that is less than 30ft away from buildings that are 40+ stories makes you look incredibly silly right? I don’t understand how I’m trying to have it both ways. Please explain.
“I would add that no one has even yet proven that this is a major toxic waste site.” Have you proven that it isn’t? Please share your evidence. Someone said earlier that estimating the clean up cost is not like looking at the blue book value for a car. Brownfield cleanup costs can make or break a deal in a real estate transaction or redevelopment project, but cost estimating presents unique challenges. you have to capture all possible contingencies. Capturing contingencies has traditionally been a problem with cost estimating. Although several estimates are sometimes prepared for different scenarios, analyzing cost risks remains very difficult.
I certainly hope that when you go to the meeting in August you can present a more compelling case than what you have laid out here. Anyone with a background in these diciplines will laugh off your points as amatuerish.
#129 You ask “I don’t understand how I’m trying to have it both ways. Please explain.” Simple, on the one hand you say that the luxury high rise’s impact can and should be accepted because it’s comparable with the Queens West towers. On the other hand you say that the rest of us to the East should not care about 6 stories versus 13 stories. So apparently we are supposed to only compare toward the West and toward the sky but not toward the East where the buildings become two stories within a block.
As for your second paragraph, again it’s simple. OCA does have to prove its case, period. Beyond that I don’t see why pro-business theory has to be anti-community. Just make your case and go with the process. If it doesn’t work in your favor, as someone said earlier, “Just deal with it.”
Third paragraph. Oh nice. When your argument fails, just resort to ridicule. That’s the same unfortunate approach we’ve seen from OCA’s lawyer. By the way ‘disciplines’ has an ‘s’.
“When your argument fails, just resort to ridicule. That’s the same unfortunate approach we’ve seen from OCA’s lawyer. By the way ‘disciplines’ has an ‘s’. ”
And I’m supposed to be having it both ways… Nice. We’ve resorted to pointing out typing errors. That must make you feel really big.
#131 Wow, lighten up. You are making a really big deal over my humorously turning it around on you. I guess you did not realize it was a response to your use of the word “amateurish”.
But let’s not get diverted from the point – OCA wants as much mass as they can get. That’s their right and mission to want that. Some of us in the community want development that does not make us feel that everything intimate and unique that we have had here is getting paved over and that it is for the pure purpose of exploitation. We would prefer to see active engagement with those of us who have worked to maintain the neighb a great place to live. For some reason (unfathomable to me) there are people on this blog who want to attack our motives, our methods, and sometimes it seems our ability to think.
Who are these people? What is their real agenda?
An article in today’s Daily News for those that think that doing a construction budget is as easy as 1-2-3. Costs can and frequently do rise significantly and unexpectedly. Try coming up with an accurate budget in year 1 of a four year construction project.
The cost of construction in the Big Apple has risen faster than the city’s skyline – 32 percent in just three years, due to the high price of local labor, tighter supplies of materials and the added expense of building in a congested city, a new study found.
Building an office tower in New York is more than twice as expensive as in Chicago and almost three times more than in Atlanta, according to a report released yesterday by the New York Building Congress and New York Building Foundation.
The rate of increase is also escalating. In 2004, costs increased between 5 and 6 percent. By 2006, the increase was 12 percent for the year – a rate that is expected to continue over the next two to three years.
Rising construction costs have endangered some of the city’s most important projects, including Ground Zero, where ballooning costs have added $1 billion to the PATH Transit Hub, originally estimated at $2.2 billion.
Other projects have been dramatically scaled back, including the MTA’s Fulton Street transit center and the Javits Convention Center expansion.
“These events point to the collective need to get a real handle on building costs, especially given the multitude of major transit and development projects currently on the drawing board,” said Richard Anderson, president of the Building Congress.
Some of the rising costs are the result of increased international competition for building materials, including steel. China and India have soaked up a growing share of international steel production, while US steel output has slumped, the report said.
Mayor Bloomberg has unveiled a package of reforms, including trying to increase the number of firms competing for major public-works projects.
anything that blocks those hideous parking garages is okay in my book.
13 stories seems extremely reasonable plus there are givebacks to the community.
Somebody obviously has a vendetta against this project.
You’all scream for affordable housing , yet your protests cause more delays and therefore money.
CUNY – our City University which does not have the endowments anywhere near other private schools do wants to house graduate students here.
I think that would be great. Build it.
Question: why not use your energy to fight and protect the few landmark worthy buildings in the area?
We already lost the nice building that was Cangro – near Cafe Henri and the historic former Borough Hall that housed 1031 Coffee shop.
This site for CUNY was a blight to begin with – this is where we need to build – for some irrationality zoning allows 40 stories on one side of the street and 6 on this side – They want to build 13 stories? not bad at all – other developers would have demanded the same 40 stories. Seems like very resonable requests.
You people need to learn and pick your battles.
135, Many of us we did fight for landmarks here. We lacked support from old timers and newcomers.
134, the accusation of a vendetta is overly dramatic. Even though nothing in this project meets the legal qualification as a community facility, few of us are opposed to CUNY. It’s not about CUNY. It is also not about affordable housing. The sole objection is aimed at the luxury tower OCA wants to attach to this project. The CUNY portion has funding from CUNY. The remediation aspects are funded by the Brownfield program and OCA’s insurance. QCA and CUNY will be paying rent. The market rate residential tower is a completely separate issue. I believe that some people here are not aware of the facts and others are purposely clouding them.
133, All well and good. Not sure how the lesson in development economics applies. Is our mission to assure that developers leave with a profit? I find it interesting that the same people who profess free market philosophies tend to whine when someone questions a corporate handout.
136, the only one purposely clouding the facts is you. “The remediation aspects are funded by the Brownfield program and OCA’s insurance. ” What is the basis for this statement. Would you bet your life on this? Are you an insurance expert? Have you read the insurance policy? Do you have a background in environmental remediation? Have you personally surveyed the site? Otherwise how can you make such a statement with such certainty? Regarding whether our mission to to ensure that developers leave with a profit, that wasn’t the point of that post. The point was to show that estimating the cost of contruction or remidiation is difficult. Someone (probably you) keeps bringing up the fact that the developer keeps changing the remediation budget. Well here is a case in point example of why it is difficult to get a handle on these figures sometime. Again you continue to use the word handout since it suits your needs. The developer is asking for a parial reimbursement of costs under an established program. No one is making money off this. Stop lying about this. This has been corrected time and time again. Why do you keep posting it as a fact when it is your unsubstantiated opinion.
137, People look at the tone. Need I say more? I’ve been called a liar. I’ve been accused of clouding statements – yet the information I bring up is part of the BSA record from OCA’s own testimony. Don’t believe me, ok whatever. I don’t appreciate being called a liar when you cannot substantiate that I am lying.
I’m asked if I’m an insurance expert. Have I surveyed the site – all absurdities as nowhere did I even get into specifics other than to say OCA has funding from two or three sources to help them. This is again a matter of public record.
It’s a good guess that 137 is either a mole for OCA or just a bored person with a penchant for attacking anyone who disagrees with a pro-development-at-any-cost philosophy. Or maybe 137, you are nervous about your property investments going south?
I just wish you would step forward and openly explain what your stake in all this is? What is your gripe? What does all this actually mean to you?
I’m sure that not everyone who supports the project is on the developer’s payroll and I’m sure that not everyong against it s a pure NIMBY-ist. There has been a suggestion that the QCA and CUNY parts are separate from the building on 5th Street. I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure that if the taller building on 5th Street is not approved, then the QCA and CUNY parts will not happen. The taller building is what makes the risk worthwhile for the developer to do the QCA and CUNY parts and without that, I would bet that the property will stay vacant and polluted.
139, the financials of the whole picture is what BSA will try to determine. They need to be separated for purposes of fully understanding the needs of each parcel (contamination type and degree varies) as well as each funding source (again varies based on use). In the end OCA can combine it however they want.
No one is in denying their right to make a profit. It’s purely a matter that if you decide you will build contrary to the zoning and you hope to receive extra privileges that no other builder on 5th Street received, you must specifically prove your need. It’s not relevant to the case but one does have to ask who held a gun to OCA’s head and said you must buy this property. And if they had the $24M to purchase it, did they really base their business plan solely on the idea that their variance application would be a breeze?
I assure you that property will be developed. There’s very little left in Hunters Point untouched by development. Again if you look at the EPA contamination map for the area you will see that plenty of development has occurred without a variance.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether anything would get built on this lot under current zoning. Certainly the builders on west side of 5th Street received “extra privileges” and OCA is not asking for anything like that.
We end up with issue again as to whether the low zoning on east side was part of some well thought out plan or was just an arbitrary decision made by bureaucrats. I don’t recall any community discussion or debate about 5th Street zoning in north area where this lot is. The area is supposed to be a transition area from 400 ft. Queens West buildings but whether the “right” transition height is 15 stories or 7 stories, who knows. But I don’t think you can say 7 stories is “right” and anything above it is a “privilege” and a goverment handout.
I don’t understand idea of splitting out parcels. Presumably developer hopes to make more on the market rate housing than on the CUNY part, so it would be pretty unlikely that the CUNY part would get built without the market rate. If you want to argue that they should be permitted to do a lesser amount of market rate housing, that is fine, but I don’t see how splitting up the parcels helps or hurts the argument.
Thank you 141 for your respect of an opposing view. The only reason I say that going higher is a privilege is that Zoning has a height restriction. If for example, my business plan involves say a baseball stadium, and it’s not permissible, the City provides a privilege in exchange for the perceived benefit. Again, I have never argued that there is not a right for OCA to try to maximize profit. It’s just when you give more air space away than Zoning permits, you need to meet specific criteria. That’s what the hearing is about. It’s not about much else.
I do believe that this area of Zoning was worked on intensively but I also agree that it was not particularly in the public eye.
The splitting is simply because the financials have been commingled as have the data for the cleanup. Similarly there are additional construction variances needed for how the buildings themselves are designed. Everything is all contingent on each other and so it’s messy. It’s a bit like saying if I win the lottery I will live in a bigger house and so my upkeep will be higher and so therefore I need financial aid now for my daughter’s college.
Look, they are not dumb. They are spinning this in their best way possible – as those who oppose the height are trying as well. The BSA wants to parse this in a way that is more meaningful because they need to consider the starting point of what this would all look like if no variance were given. Then from there they can try to weigh the added factors – pound for pound.
If this area of Zoning was worked on intensively there sure is much to show for all the hard work. The zoning is the same as its been for decades for most of the site in question.
143, there is no reason zoning should not try to stay consistent wherever possible. That is one of the few ways to maintain neighborhood stability. There were in fact several small businesses and art studios on the OCA site.
Almost everything else in HP was upzoned in the last zoning. 5th street in effect became the firewall between high rise slabs reaching 390 feet, the R6A which allowed 70 feet, and the R6B a block away which was upzoned to 50 feet despite 99% of its buildings being one or two stories.
There seems to be two main views. One is supply side. The development industry sees no reason why every square inch should not be exploited. A lot of just plain regular folks would like to preserve any sense of a small community that may be left. Expansion into the low rise district should be a careful and thoughtful process that engages all sides. It should not be by way of Variances and spot zoning requests.
#144 Stop it! 5th Street is not a firewall. There is nothing stating that in the zoning maps. The zoning on most of this site in question has not changed in decades. If you want to put LIC into a time capsule buy up as much land as you can. Otherwise stop telling people what to do with their property. The only one interested in neighborhood stability is you. I’m not even sure what that mean. Most likely that you are against development.
145, you use the phrase “stop it” all too often here to mask the fact that you have no real knowledge of the situation and you have trouble understanding the written word. I said “5th street in effect became the firewall”. I did not say that was the intent.
You can repeat the idea that the zoning hasn’t changed until your face is blue. Not every block is required to change unless of course you are a developer with a huge appetite and you don’t give a crap about how it affects those around you. You will note that I also said that we should be considering how it needs to change. It just should not be purely to your or anyones whims.
Second is this absurd notion that I’m the only one interested in neighborhood stability is complete garbage. Why are you pushing this ridiculous anti-community agenda? Time capsule? What have you done to improve and develop this neighborhood other than spout venom here?
The old slogan that we are against development is getting very tired. I guarantee I have done more to help develop this neighborhood than you.
I have challenged you more than once to come out of your closet and reveal what your stake in your pro-development-at-any-cost stance might be. But you just don’t have the courage to admit it.
To 144 who keeps saying the zoning has not changed on 5th Street in decades. You are absolutely wrong.
Here is the zoning map prior to the present zoning:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hunterspoint/hp5.shtml
Here is the most recent Zoning Map:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hunterspoint/hp6.shtml
You will see it clearly changed.
I’ll also quote from the text:
The rezoning proposal embodies a flexible zoning strategy that will (1) remove restrictions on residential development and conversions; (2) retain light manufacturing businesses while supporting the growing entrepreneurial activities restricted by current zoning; (3) maintain the existing scale of three- and four-story residential buildings within the neighborhood midblocks; and (4) encourage new residential and mixed-use development at moderately higher densities along wide streets close to public transit and adjoining the LIC core and Queens West.
Oops I meant to 145 not 144. 144 has it right. 144 is making it up as she goes.
Another significant quote that clearly counters the claims made here that the 5th street rezoning was not carefully worked on.
“In other areas, the changes in zoning would result in more modest increases in allowable FAR and heights. In particular, an M1-4/R6A zoning district (2.0 FAR for manufacturing and commercial uses, 3.0 FAR for residential uses) is proposed for 5th Street and for the block fronts facing John F. Murray Playground. The allowable FAR for manufacturing and commercial uses would remain at 2.0 resulting in two-story buildings. For residential uses, the modest 1.0 FAR increase in bulk with maximum base heights of 60 feet and maximum building heights of 70 feet would lead to five- to seven-story buildings. This zoning recognizes 5th Street as a “transition zone” between Queens West and Hunters Point and complements the significant open space resource of John F. Murray Playground.”
Hello – I am new to this board – but, I don’t have a problem with the size of this new building at all.
what is more important to me (and many others here in LIC) is good design.
Unfortunately in this City the battle is always about the size of a proposed building , but no talk of what is will actually look like (this is true not just in LIC).
I would gladly see a taller bigger building if it is aesthetically attractive and not built cheaply.
I said and I quote: “The zoning on most of this site in question has not changed in decades.”
This is 100% true and I stand by that statement. What is not true is that there was some concerted effort to save this block from dense development. Only the sliver on 5th was rezone. The rest of the zoning is the same as its been for decades, so quit trying to paint this
146 I live here just as you do and feel its important that my pro-development-at-any-cost stance is needed to balance out your anti-development-at-any-cost stance. I am not alone. Many others feel as I do, but since you have called me out and want to know what my agenda is I will tell you. I do not long for the days when LIC was a sleepy little town as you do. I realize that if this city will continue to be the economic giant that it is it needs to grow and need to create sufficient housing. I want community space where I can take my kids. I want the arts and the QCA here so I do not have to always go to Manhattan for culture. I want polluted sites to be cleaned up where they are not harming the community. I want CUNY grad students making a contribution to our growing neighborhood. I want the constructions jobs that development creates. I want growing property values – the tide lifts everyone boat. I want the secondary jobs and small business that having a large diverse community makes possible. I want a glass of wine with my dinner served up at a local resturant that I can walk to. I want any business man willing to contribute to this vision not to be harrassed with the narrow agenda of a small, but vocal minority. I want the tax revenues that this buiding and the aformentioned jobs would generate. I want the infrastructure improvements to schools and hospitals that the city only allocates resources to when there is critical mass in an area. 8 extra floors in one small building on one block seems a small price to pay for all these things.
What is your agenda aside from being against tall buildings and lamenting over lost views of NYC and lost parking spots? Why don’t you come out of the shadows and admit what you stand for?
Number 152 – Amen! We are with you – the vast majority of us here in Hunter’s Point agree with you and think this is a good development that is a win win for everybody (yes, even the developer’s).
Yes we are not as organized as the nahsayers , but we are here (most of us work for a living) .We want this site cleaned up and we welcome the new students and neighbors – Our restuarants and business could use some more customers to survive and thrive – A few added stories to make this project feasable does not threaten us and is fine.
We are in a recession – if they are willing to risk the investment to build it, I say go for it!
exactly how I feel too.
Who is against it anyway…obviously someone with an agenda
152, Opposing over-development does not mean you are anti-development. If you read all related blogs you will quickly see that the people opposing high density do acknowledge other views and are willing to compromise. But you are not. There have been virtually no voices from the pro-development-at-any-cost crowd that come anywhere near to acknowledging there are things worth protecting here.
When I called for you to come out of the closet you made a passionate speech for all the great liberties you want – as if someone is preventing these things from happening. Look around you. Do you really not have enough places to get a glass of wine with your food? And by the way, jobs are being lost in this neighborhood at a faster rate than they are being created. If you want me to point you to the stats I will.
You still have not revealed the true motivation for what comes across as an anti-old-neighborhood attitude. What’s that about?
#155 – you are clearly not thinking straight – what exactly are you saving here? its an empty polluted lot – I for one would like to see the poisonous toxins cleaned up – what are you talking about getting a glass of wine with food?
I thought you had some real points , now i see you are just a boob.
155, I think my motivations was explained clearly. If you still don’t get it I can’t help you.
What are we fighting to protect? A polluted vacant lot? Light? Air? Some desparate attempt to hold onto the sense that LIC is a small slice of suburbia? A hollow victory against the developers who have invaded the area? I’m sorry I’m just not seeing it. Perhaps you can explain what you are fighting for and why it is more valuable than everything I mentioned above.
Everyone says that I am for responsible development. Well in certain situations responsible development is no development. If you hold everyone to these lofty standards its quite possible that nothing will get built at all. No shovel gets put in the ground unless there is a profit motivation. Take away the profit nothing gets built.
Don’t try to blame devlopment for the loss of manufacturing jobs in LIC. LIC, much like NYS and the country in general has been losing these jobs en mass to China and India and Mexico. You can’t blame condos for that. Manaufacturing was on the decline in LIC long before the condos arrived.
P.S. No there really is not enough places to get a glass of wine with your food in LIC. sorry to break the news to you.
Instead of hurling insults, calling me a boob and talking about vacant toxic lots that no one has said should NOT be cleaned, what do you have against those of us who enjoy a community where humans talk to each other on the street instead of silently watching the floor numbers in the elevator. We spend time tending backyards. We work on real community development projects , we own businesses that employ people, we raise families, and we care for our homes and our neighbors. We are not the anti-change lunatics you portray us to be. Many of us are part of the first wave of gentrification. We are just as interested in the growth of our neighborhood. We are in fact the people who helped maintain that quaint neighborhood that all the realtors love to describe in their brochures. But we did not do it by rolling over the whole area.
We just feel that the focus is too intense and narrow on luxury, density, and height. Somehow modern immature thinking is that it’s gotta be big. Guess it’s all those size enhancement commercials. I can’t understand how you don’t see that there is more to neighborhood life than looming lifeless towers. As for places to get wine, get real. You have a dozen in a six block strip – not to mention 4 or 5 liquor stores fairly close by.
I was not the one who called you a boob. I’m summarizing your position to say that you want LIC to be a small slice of suburbia. That’s never going to happen. I wish you good luck in rolling back the clock, but unfortunately the lifeless towers are the future. Take a drive around court sq. or down jackson if you do not agree. You can get onboard or be dissapointed. No one is marketing LIC as a quaint little place. I know. I’ve been in the sales offices of most of these condos. The sales materials play up water taxi beach, PS1 warm-up parties, roofdeck pools, game rooms and the new resturants up and down Vernon. No one is moving to LIC because people say hello to you on the street.
159, Apparently people don’t understand or want to understand that there is a low lying neighborhood as well and many of us have no interest in being surrounded on all sides by behemoths. But where on earth do I say I’m for rolling back the clock? Move the clock forward and meet existing wants and needs.
When people say you can’t fight progress I get the feeling they think that steam rolling the low lying neighborhood is a god given right. When we simply question the density and height beyond what Zoning allows, we are cast as backward, anti-development, living in the past, etc. That’s the agenda I’m questioning. It’s hard not to think these are buzz words from a concerted campaign.
On a similar note , the person who keeps trying to drill away at the sound bite that the zoning hasn’t changed on 5th st in decades, hasn’t addressed the DCP maps and text posted above. A change from 2 story manufacturing to a Zoning that also allows 7 story residential is a major change. Are you saying that it’s wrong for us to ask some questions if the developer wants nearly twice what zoning allows?
“On a similar note , the person who keeps trying to drill away at the sound bite that the zoning hasn’t changed on 5th st in decades, hasn’t addressed the DCP maps and text posted above.”
160, its been said a million times, but let me do it one more time for you. Your side had painted the rezoning of the area in 2004 as a very careful and long though out process to protect the development site in question. If you refer to those zoning maps above you will see that only the sliver on 5th st was rezoned. The remaining ¾ of the site was not rezoned in 2004 and the zoning on those lots have not changed in decades. Therefore I stand behind my statement, and the stories being advanced by the anti-tower crowd now has a major hole in it since we clearly set that there was no special consideration given to this block and no long deliberation regarding protecting this site from high density development. In fact we see it was specifically *excluded* from any zoning conversations in 2004.
We understand that there is a low lying neighborhood and many of you have no interest in being surrounded on all sides by behemoths. Believe me we understand it all too well. Apparently what your side doesn’t understand or want to understand that you do not have a lock on the destiny of LIC. Like it or not you have to share LIC with the new people moving here and many of us eagerly look forward to developments such as this. Why are your wishes and desires wants and needs more important than ours? Whatever happens to a democracy where the needs of the few take a backseat to the needs of the many?
161, in terms of the current discussion i.e. OCA, can you tell me specifically what section along 5th street do you see that did not change?
As far as destiny, I never said I control it or should. But who are you to say that destiny means the god given inevitability of luxury high density housing? That’s just not how democracy works. First it’s about people not corporations. Second, if government did not put itself in the way of mob rule and attempt to figure out also what is right, lynchings might still exist in certain areas of the country.
Also it’s not at all accurate to imply that we do not want to share. We have welcomed the newcomers. Unfortunately you all now want to step all over us and like it or not you don’t get a free pass without a fight.
161 here. I can’t make it any clearer than I did. Look at the dotted purple line on the map above. A good portion of the development occurs outside the dotted line. I do not follow the lynching analogy. No one is stepping on you. You want to be in LIC stay and partake in the changes that are happing, by all means do that, but don’t expect everyone to care about why 8 floors in one building completely turns your world upside down. Again I must ask what are you fighting to protect? I’m still not seeing it. How will 8 floors in this building affect you personaly?
163, you are not making any sense. This discussion is about the property on 5th St. You keep saying Zoning hasn’t changed there in decades and I keep pointing you to the map that shows a massive change in Zoning for 5th St. So I think you may be a bit confused.
Your other contention that all the development is outside the purple line shows that you don’t walk the streets of Hunters Point so no wonder you have no idea what I am talking about. What I am talking about are the low lying homes that are being surrounded by buildings more than twice their height and several times their bulk. (They take up nearly 3/4 of the backyard space and block light there as well).
While I don’t particularly care for the large ones that are outside the purple line I am not at all talking about them. This is simple: Play by the rules. Build as of right. Or go ahead and try a variance but don’t whimper and moan when people exercise their right to oppose the variance. That’s why it’s called a hearing.
164, no offense, but I can’t help you if you can’t read a map. If anyone else cares to give it a shot they are welcome to try, but I have a feeling I could talk until I’m blue in the face and it would not make a difference.
165, I see the problem. The links above are wrong. That is my stupid error. They should be:
previous:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/hunterspoint/hp5.shtml
present:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/hunterspoint/hp6_proposedzoning.pdf
Now do you see? Also if you read the text, for the ‘proposed’ which is now the *adopted* zoning, you will see clear explanation of the changes.
I’ll frankly be awed and amazed if you admit your error.
This still shows that a large portion of the development site is outside the dotted purple lines. Thus 165 is still right.
167, the larger portion is on 5th street in the area that we are discussing. But beyond that, the reason the manufacturing part outside the purple line did not change was because there were (and still are) several small to medium businesses on this block that DCP (and likely the businesses, duh) want to preserve. You know, not everything is supposed to change. There is a reason for maintaining some stability.
Now one of the main problems with the variance application is that this project requires multiple variances that go across differently zoned areas. And there several additional variance applications to alter how the buildings are constructed because OCA is trying to squeeze out as much rental space as possible.
I’m not passing judgment on that. I am merely pointing out how much change at once is being asked for in the form of a hardship application. From my perspective and humble opinion, this degree of change is more appropriately addressed by a rezoning process – something I am not in principle against.
This pretty much explains why the opposition position is so silly:
Art Group Struggles To Find New Home
by Paul Leonard, Assistant Editor
08/14/2008
Hoong Yee Lee Krakauer, executive director of Queens Council of the Arts, hoped that the second time would be the charm.
For the last five years, the arts group has been trying to find a home closer to the center of the borough’s cultural explosion in Long Island City, with a planned move from their current home near a golf course in Forest Park to 21st Street in L.I.C. falling apart last year because of a zoning dispute.
Last May, with Community Board 2 voting to approve a proposed 13-story CUNY graduate housing center and combined office and gallery space for QCA, Krakauer thought their long search was finally over.
But a little-known community group had a lot to say about the project first.
In a submission to the Board of Standards and Appeals in Manhattan, which will convene a hearing next week on the project, the group, calling itself the Long Island City Community, blasted the arts organization for not being a true “community facility,” worthy of the seven variances already given by the city for the development.
“What’s been offered by this project is a dry bone,” said Doug Otto, a member of LICC, who filed the submission with the BSA. “What we need is an actual community center, not 6,000- square feet of office space.”
Actually, only 5,000 square-feet in the new building will be dedicated to offices for the arts group, not counting a proposed gallery space slated to house installations by artists from the borough.
“A community facility to me means an organization that gives back to the community and has a net positive impact,” Krakauer said.
QCA gave out around $300,000 in grants to artists this year, with 25 percent given to artists based in L.I.C. alone. With the group’s operating budget doubling to $1.3 million since 1993, the group had out-grown its current 811-square-foot office space in a former golf clubhouse in Forest Park — far from art gallerys and performance venues in L.I.C., the borough’s cultural capital.
Still, misinformation and fear about continued development in rapidly-changing L.I.C. threatened to kill the project, which needs BSA approval before breaking ground.
“Their line in the sand has to do with height,” said Karen Fitzgerald, a L.I.C. artist with a studio just north of the proposed site on 5th Street between 47th Avenue and 46th Road. “But everybody has to deal with the fact that L.I.C. is getting some height.”
Fitzgerald, who favored the project, believed that fear drove some in the community to oppose the development.
However, Tom Paino, the leader of LICC and vocal opponent of overdevelopment in the neighborhood, wasn’t going to budge in his opposition to the potential loss of the “nearly one million cubic feet of light and air” if the project went forward.
“It would be great to have even more art going in the neighborhood, but it’s not worth the cost,” he said. Paino planned to testify against the project at next week’s BSA meeting.
But much of LICC’s points of contention about the building seemed small compared to the potential benefits for CUNY, QCA and the greater community.
“The land there is contaminated and it’s right across from a park,” Krakauer said, pointing to the new ball field on a parcel owned by Queens West Development Corp. “If this project goes forward, the site will get cleaned up and the whole neighborhood wins.”
Thanks for holding LIC back guys!
Loss of one million cubic feet of light and air? Where did it go? So silly, so paranoid, so sad, such a waste…
To #159:
I moved here because people say hello to you on the street.
170, holding back LIC from what? Are you saying that what we must have is full throttle development with no checks or bounds?
What many here don’t seem to understand is that a large share of those who oppose the doubling of what the Zoning allows, have been part of Long Island City’s renaissance. We have done more here over the years to gentrify and upgrade the quality of life here than post insults on a blog. We have put time and resources into building new and at the same time trying to preserve the old.
Of course I don’t know but I have a strong hunch that the most vocal proponents of building to whatever size at any cost have done little in reality.
If you think 13 stories are bad, well the 36 story Tokoyo Inn going up on Jackson Ave next to Sovereign Bank should make you shudder. How can they allow a building that is 3/4 the size of the Citibank (50 Story) to sit next to all the Brownstones
Send tips, feedback, and death threats to info [at] liqcity [dot] com
Search
Advertisement
Popular Posts
MTA to LIC: 7-train service suspended for the next, um, eleven weekendsRecap of the latest public hearing about LIC's Hunters Point SouthLong Island City bleary but warm Monday afternoon linkageLong Island City Back in the Saddle Friday morning linkageLong Island City gloriously sunny Monday afternoon linkageLaughing Devil Comedy Club brews up some funny for Long Island CityliQcity to Long Island City: Beware of SOPA & PIPA!Advertisement
Archives
Arts
They’re baaaaack. Summer Warm Ups at LIC’s PS1 MoMA kick off this Saturday. Long Island City Culture Chronicle: The Queens Art Express Hit List Long Island City’s Ten10 Studios is ‘Growing Up’ this weekendBuzz
Mystery at the Long Island City waterfront Another grocery store for LIC: MetFoods to manifest on 51st Ave Life, death, and transformation in Long Island City. Of storefronts, that is.Community
CRIME: Long Island City woman sexually assaulted on Vernon Blvd Agenda for Long Island City’s next Community Board 2 Meeting, Dec 1st liQcity is going non-profit! Support liQpop and help us help you LIC.Commuting
MTA to LIC: 7-train service suspended for the next, um, eleven weekends Long Island City express to New Jersey? Not any weekend soon. LIC update on the weekend 7 train shutdowns for October 2011Dining
Long Island City’s beloved M.Wells Diner closing down this month Good Eats in LIC: Hunters Point dishes up some serious seasonal seafood Long Island City hosts not-so-new Romanian ‘Ion’s Corner Cafe’Economy
LICBDC news: Borden Ave Bridge back in Sept; LIC boasts low crime rates LICBDC supports local biz with massive Annual Luncheon & Trade Show Long Island City barely hit in the latest Queens foreclosuresEvents
Long Island City events round-up: Fundraiser Fever!! Edible Queens’ ‘Queens Uncorked’ event in LIC to benefit local farmers Long Island City Events: Arts Arts Arts and more ArtsGovernment
liQcity to Long Island City: Beware of SOPA & PIPA! LIC’s dangerous 44th Drive tightening up & getting a bike lane. Thanks DOT! Quickie recount of CB2′s public hearing yesterday on 49th Ave & HP SouthHappenings
Courtyard Winter Carnival at PS1 MoMA with M. Wells & Manducatis Rustica Long Island City Partnership Annual Trade Show & Luncheon 2011 Recap The 2011 ING NYC Marathon blazed through LIC this weekendHealth
Swine Flu visits Long Island City If you smell something, say something. Yoga and Pilates in Long Island City – Radiant Movement StudioLife
Long Island City photos du jour: Hurricane Irene weekend sunset shots Long Island City and Hurricane Irene: A match made in… well, we’ll see. Life in Long Island City as photographed by local residentsLinkage
Long Island City Holiday limbo Tuesday morning linkage Long Island City moon over Monday morning linkage Long Island City drizzly and sunny Tuesday morning linkageliQcity
Long Island City clouds-are-gathering Tuesday morning linkage Quick note from the Editor Add your Long Island City shots to liQcity’s Flickr photo poolLocal Biz
Laughing Devil Comedy Club brews up some funny for Long Island City Support local business! Thank you to our amazing LIC sponsors. Long Island City new local biz update: bistros, burgers and moreNeighborhood
Long Island City’s CB2 tackles Murray Park renovation & film crews in LIC Examining the impact of losing the 2012 Olympic bid on LIC & NYC Public Hearing about new liquor license apps & 48th Ave makeover in LICNew Development
Recap of the latest public hearing about LIC’s Hunters Point South Update and Public Hearing on LIC’s Hunters Point South project An update on Long Island City’s favorite City housing developmentNews
Long Island City gloriously sunny Monday afternoon linkage Long Island City bleary but warm Monday afternoon linkage Long Island City Back in the Saddle Friday morning linkageOddities
Accidents will happen in Long Island City. And happen. Long Island City’s long lost East River footbridge concept discovered Breaking LIC news: car drives into Vernon Blvd restaurantOpenings
Long Island City new biz update; many new restaurants popping & bubbling New local business still blooming in Long Island City Retail blooms in Hunters Point; Lots of new Long Island City bizAdvertisement
Links
EAT
BANY Asian Fusion Bella Via Blend Breadbox Café Bricktown Bagels Brooks 1890 Restaurant The Burger Garage Café Henri Court Square Diner The Creek Da Gianni’s Ristorante Dorian Café El Ay Si Five Star Banquet & Restaurant Five Stars Punjabi Diner Gaw Gai Thai Express Ihawan Jackson Avenue Steakhouse Junior’s Café La Vuelta LIC Market Manducatis Manducatis Rustica Manetta’s Masso Riverview Restaurant & Lounge Sage General Store SHI Sushi Siam Testaccio Tournesol Tuk Tuk Waterfront Crabhouse Water’s EdgeDRINK
Butcher Hookah & Juice Bar Communitea Domaine Bar a Vins Dominie’s Hoek Dutch Kills Bar LIC Bar Lounge 47 Penthouse 808 @ Ravel Hotel PJ Leahy’s Shannon Pot Studio Square biergarten SweetleafREAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS
5SL - 5th Street Lofts 10 Court Square 10-17 Jackson Ave 10-50 Jackson Ave Condos 41st Ave Condos 44-27 Purves Condo Arris Lofts Avalon Riverview Rentals Avalon Riverview North Rentals Casa Vizcaya Condos Citylights Crescent Club Condos East Coast Rentals East of East East River Tower Echelon Condos Hallets Cove Condos Galaxy Condos Gantry Condos Gotham Center Hunters Point Condos The Foundry LIC Condos Fusion LIC Condos L Haus Condos Murano Condos Orient Condos Packard Square Rentals Piano Factory Condos The Prestige Condos Powerhouse Condos Queens Plaza Condos Solarium Condos Star Tower Condos Ten63 Jackson Condos Vere Condos View59 Condos View at East Coast CondosARTS
5 Pointz AES Gallery Art-O-Mat (RIP) BrickHouse Ceramic Art Center Bridgeview School of Fine Art Center for Holographic Arts Chocolate Factory Theater Climate/Gallery Dean Project Deitch Studios Dorsky Gallery Dutch Kills Gallery Fisher Landau Center for Art Flux Factory Green Space Dance Studio Juvenal Reis Studios LaGuardia Performing Arts Center LIC Artists LIC Art Center LIC Cultural Alliance Live at the Gantries Local Project M55 Gallery Museum of the Moving Image NY Irish Center Noguchi Museum P.S. 1 Queens Art Express Queens Council on the Arts Repetti Gallery SculptureCenter Secret Theatre Silvercup Studios Socrates Sculpture Park Space Womb Thalia Spanish Theatre The Space Texas FirehouseLOCAL BIZ
Big City Graphics & Printing Blue Streak Wines Build it Green! Camp Bow Wow LIC The Cat’s Pajamas Hotel Charge & Ride City Vet C-Town Cranky*s Café Court Square Wines & Spirits Czech-Slovak Varieties Dog Island City Duane Reade E & I Deli Emily Spa Ethereal Boutique Express 1 Laundromat Film Biz Recycling Foodcellar Hunters Point Wines & Spirits Into White Dental Just Things Kika Hair Design Kitty & Dog Lounge Krypton Neon LIC Kids LIC School of Ballet Little Closets Lolly’s Early Learning Center MaidPro Matted LIC Nook n’ Crannie New York Looks Salon Pooches Sport & Spa Primp & Tease Salon Sharifwear Spokesman Cycles State Farm Subdivision Vernon Pharmacy Vernon Wine & Liquor Vine WineHEALTH & FITNESS
Balance Medical Spa City Ice Pavilion CityView Raquet Club CrossFit LIC Element Fitness Into White Dental LIC Physical Therapy LIC YMCA NYC Paintball QueensWest Health Radiant Movement NY Circus Arts Tennisport Triumph Physical Therapy The Yoga Room Yoga Studio 6LOCAL LINKS
108th Police Precinct info Community Board 2 District 37 NYS Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan Dutch Kills Civic Association Edible Queens Magazine Gantry Plaza State Park Greater Astoria Historical Society Green Shores NYC Hunters Point LIC Greenmarket Jimmy Van Bramer, District 26 City Councilman LIC Alliance LIC Boathouse LICBDC LIC Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) LIC Millstones Blog LICweb Materials for the Arts Murray Playground Newtown Creek Alliance Queensbridge Park Queens Public Library: Court Square Branch Queens Public Library: LIC Branch Queens West Development Corporation Partnership for Parks Recycle a Bicycle Skyline City ChurchHOTELS
Best Western Plaza Hotel Comfort Inn Country Inn & Suites by Carlson Days Inn (Sunnyside) Fairfield Inn by Marriott (Sunnyside) Holiday Inn Express Midtown Tunnel (Sunnyside) Holiday Inn Manhattan View Howard Johnson Inn LaQuinta Inn (Sunnyside) Quality Inn Ramada Hotel Ravel Hotel & Rooftop Verve Hotel Z-Hotel (under construction)Advertisement
© 2007 liQcity. All Rights Reserved.
I think it’s a good thing that the opposition group contested the initial plan. We shouldn’t just take what is shoved down our throats in LIC. The 5-6 story dorms are, I think, a nice fit there. And because the oppsition fought, the 28-story tower was knocked down to 13. That’s not too bad considering what else is rising on the waterfront. It would be even better if the whole complex stayed at 6 stories. The grad students will be a nice addition. I was just there last night. I really love it the way it is now, but I know many people won’t rest until it is developed. This plan doesn’t seem like a bad option if something has to be built. At least its not another East Coast.