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
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.