NEW YORK | 247 Cherry Street | 1,013 FT | 77 FLOORS

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by DCReid

A little to late in my opinion. They should have gone all out to stop the first megatower near the bridge. I kind of agree with the community members that those developments were too tall for that neighborhood. They stick out like a sore thumb.

Do you know anything about that neighborhood? It is nothing but depressing towers-in-the-park housing projects. The site was a one story dilapidated supermarket (that have since gone out of business in all locations altogether) with a surface parking lot. The tower under construction could not have done anything to that area or the area's skyline but improved it.

What the "community" should have fought for was better architecture. Of course they don't care about that. They would pick a short ugly building over a beautiful tall one every time.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by antinimby

They don't really want to just hear from community members. They only want to hear from the people that will echo their anti-development agenda.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by DCReid

A little to late in my opinion. They should have gone all out to stop the first megatower near the bridge.

No, what they should have been was wealthy, so the City would at least pander like it did for the people on the east side with their spot zoning - even though that effort failed to stop the tower it was intended too.

But it doesn't matter if the towers were even half, a third, or an even smaller fraction of the height. The knee-jerk reaction is simply to be against it because it will bring more affluent people into the area. At least in this case, even though it will bring more affordable housing units to the neighborhood. But let's say the City itself proposed to put lowrise housing for the homeless on those sites. The same NIMBYs would be up in arms about it. They're against everything. It's one thing to have an opinion, and voice a concern. But unless you own the property, then no, you don't get to demand what get's built.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Do you know anything about that neighborhood? It is nothing but depressing towers-in-the-park housing projects. The site was a one story dilapidated supermarket (that have since gone out of business in all locations altogether) with a surface parking lot. The tower under construction could not have done anything to that area or the area's skyline but improved it.

What the "community" should have fought for was better architecture. Of course they don't care about that. They would pick a short ugly building over a beautiful tall one every time.

No I don't, but in my opinion, the tendency on this forum is to knock everything down to build glass towers, many of which I predict will end up as sterile buildings. Some of this thinking and enthusiasm for newness led to the destruction of old Penn Station and the destruction of an entire Radio Row to close off the streets and build two bland towers called the World Trade Center. History does tend to repeat itself...

[JSsocal]

Originally Posted by DCReid

No I don't, but in my opinion, the tendency on this forum is to knock everything down to build glass towers, many of which I predict will end up as sterile buildings. Some of this thinking and enthusiasm for newness led to the destruction of old Penn Station and the destruction of an entire Radio Row to close off the streets and build two bland towers called the World Trade Center. History does tend to repeat itself...

I agree with your critique that this forum has a tendency to glorify anything new. But there's plenty on this forum who are appreciative of old buildings. If you do indeed care about old architecture in this city then you'd realize that when there are places where there is 0 historic value or architectural merit left then the city would do best to have developers build as many units of housing as possible.

Even in the likely scenario that all these new buildings in two bridges are 'sterile', the thousands of people they bring to this neighborhood (which, to clarify, really is a ghost town) will stimulate the area and give it some foot traffic.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by DCReid

No I don't, but in my opinion, the tendency on this forum is to knock everything down to build glass towers, many of which I predict will end up as sterile buildings. Some of this thinking and enthusiasm for newness led to the destruction of old Penn Station and the destruction of an entire Radio Row to close off the streets and build two bland towers called the World Trade Center. History does tend to repeat itself...

What a weird place for you to be complaining about knocking down historic buildings. There was absolutely nothing here that was knocked down (unless you consider the depressing Pathmark taxpayer and parking lot worthy of saving). Meanwhile, where were you when the Beaux Arts Fifth Ave townhouses or the Drake Hotel or the Bankcroft or the 57th Street stores or the Trinity building were torn down?

This is actually the type of development that should be encouraged because this area is absolutely the best area to put as much new development in and take some pressure off the places that do need protection. Talk about being clueless about NYC but then want to put in your 2 cents in the wrong place.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

...in my opinion, the tendency on this forum is to knock everything down to build glass towers, many of which I predict will end up as sterile buildings. Some of this thinking and enthusiasm for newness led to the destruction of old Penn Station and the destruction of an entire Radio Row to close off the streets and build two bland towers called the World Trade Center. History does tend to repeat itself...

Give me a break. Nothing being proposed here has any relation to any of those things you mentioned. Using your argument, the City should build nothing else new, ever. Saying NO just for the sake of saying NO, is a ridiculous stance to take. New York is a highrise city, a city of very tall buildings. It's a high density city, where land to build on is very hard to come by. Where there is both opportunity and desire to build, you do it.

[jackster99]

If I recall correctly, JDS even offered to build hurricane/surge barriers along the waterfront if this tower was approved.

So even when the developers offer something that will protect the immediate vicinity, these NIMBY's still balk at the height. Very hypocritical considering they espouse how much they care about, and want to protect the "little guy".

Pretty sure the little guy cares more about the next hurricane sandy then another skyscraper in a city filled with them

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jackster99

If I recall correctly, JDS even offered to build hurricane/surge barriers along the waterfront if this tower was approved.

BAH! Mere crumbs!



http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...us-crumbs.html

Two Bridges Neighbors Tell Mega-Tower Developers: “You’re Offering Us Crumbs”

At the meeting of CB3’s land use committee, the developers presented a synopsis of the 800 page document and talked about possible neighborhood improvements, including a new elevator at the East Broadway Subway Station and the renovation of three local parks. Community board members and community residents were less than impressed, telling the developers they were offering “crumbs” in exchange for reduced light, increased traffic and overcrowded schools.

The projects would add 2,775 mostly market rate rental units to the historically low-income Two Bridges area. 694 apartments (25%) would be designated as permanently affordable.

The developers were represented at the July meeting by attorney David Karnovsky, who just happens to be former general counsel of the Department of City Planning. He was backed up by a sizable team from AKRF, the influential consulting firm that prepared the environmental review for the three development teams.

Throughout the meeting, numerous community members expressed frustration that, in their view, the Draft EIS fails to account for the true impacts of the mega-towers on the surrounding area. Testimony by Melanie Wong from the local advocacy organization CAAAV was particularly emotional and pointed.

In a brief section (1 1/2 pages long) on “indirect residential displacement,” Wong noted, the Draft EIS concluded that the influx of 2,000 market rate apartments would have no “significant adverse environmental impacts” on the large amount of rent regulated housing in the neighborhood. The study authors asserted that these affordable units are protected from “market influences” through rent stabilization and other regulatory programs.

During her remarks, Wong read from an article in Luxury Listings NYC, which profiled One Manhattan Square, Extell’s 80-story condo tower on the former Cherry Street Pathmark site. In the story, a real estate broker who sells a lot of high-end condos on the Lower East Side, Ariel Tirosh, said all of the new projects would raise the profile of the gritty area. He speculated that, “eventually, if the developers are careful, (Two Bridges) will become a neighborhood.”

This mentality, explained Wong, appears to have permeated the real estate industry. Speaking directly to the developers sitting in the first row, she said, “I’m going to tell you and everyone else in this room is here to tell you that this is already a neighborhood. It’s been a neighborhood for a long time.” Even though they’re bringing in thousands of market rate apartments to a working class, immigrant neighborhood, Wong asserted that the existing community will “remain and persist.” Referring to the dramatic changes the towers would bring, she concluded, “It is outrageous to me that this DEIS ignores that change, that potential impact.”

Local activists and elected officials are fighting the projects in a couple of different ways. First, City Council member Margaret Chin and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer are trying to push through a zoning text amendment to require a ULURP in the Two Bridges area. The full-scale land use review would give the City Council some leverage, since ULURP requires Council approval. Second, local groups are advocating for a neighborhood rezoning, including height caps and mandatory levels of affordable housing.

http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...dges-area.html

City Begins Review of Brewer/Chin Proposal to Require ULURP in Two Bridges Area

Local elected officials this week filed an application for a zoning text amendment and an Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) with the city that could potentially put the brakes on three mega-projects in the Two Bridges neighborhood.

The documents were submitted to the Department of City Planning on Wednesday by Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and City Council member Margaret Chin. The text amendment would require a special permit for modifications of the Two Bridges Large-Scale Residential Development Plan.

The developers – JDS Development Group, a partnership between L+M Development Partners and the CIM Group and the Starrett Group – envision four towers reaching as high as 80 stories and adding 2,775 apartments to the area. The city rejected a request from Council member Chin to subject the massive projects to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), which would have required City Council approval. DCP ruled that the buildings amounted to “minor modification” of the large-scale plan. The City Planning Commission will unilaterally rule whether the projects will move forward; elected officials have no official way of influencing the decision.

If special permits are required, the city would have no choice but to order a ULURP. That process would mean more robust community engagement, and would give Chin some leverage to negotiate. She could push, for example, to reduce the size of the towers or to add more affordable housing, in exchange for her support in the Council.

[NYguy]

http://thevillager.com/2018/08/23/to...entrification/

Towering fear for Two Bridges: Gentrification

August 23, 2018
BY SYDNEY PEREIRA

At a public hearing of Community Board 3 on Aug. 14, Two Bridges community members voiced fears of further gentrification and displacement they said four proposed new towers — with nearly 2,100 market-rate units between them — would bring to the neighborhood.

Developers, meanwhile, continue to highlight the improvements they would bring to the Lower East Side enclave, including 700 new affordable units.

For the four-building project, the tower at 247 Cherry St., specifically, would require relocation of 19 residents, according to the Draft Environmental Impact statement, or D.E.I.S. But further refining of design plans will now impact 10 residents, rather than 19, according to a source with direct knowledge of the development at 247 Cherry St. Previous designs would have blocked more windows during construction, requiring 19 residents to be relocated, but more recent plans will reduce the direct impact to 10 residents. The source added that those 10 residents are expected to be relocated to other units in 80 Rutgers Slip during construction. A “relocation consultant” has been hired for the process. Further, 80 Rutgers will not lose any units after construction is complete, according to the same source.

Many at the Aug. 14 hearing referred to Extell Development’s new 800-foot-tall glass residential condo tower at One Manhattan Square (252 South St.).

Construction of the building — which features various luxury amenities, including a two-lane bowling alley and a basketball court — has disrupted the community for years, according to neighbors who spoke at the hearing. Concerns over how construction of four more towers would impact the surrounding area’s light, air quality and congestion have also repeatedly been raised.

“You’re putting buildings in low-income communities where, I feel like — if you’re going to put up a building, at least make it beneficial for everybody else,” Brittany Gonzalez said at the hearing. She added that her family has already been “pushed out” of the neighborhood.

On the private bowling alley, pool and basketball court at One Manhattan Square, she added, “How does that benefit us?”

One difference between these four new high-rises and Extell’s tower is that 25 percent of their apartments — about 700 units, in total — would be affordable; it’s expected the affordable units would be made available to tenants earning 40, 60 and 120 percent of area median income, or A.M.I.

That would be “one of the largest infusions of affordable housing in Manhattan in decades, and a critical addition amid the ongoing housing crisis,” the developers said in a statement through spokesperson James Yolles.

The Extell project does include affordable units, too — 200 of them. However, they are located in a separate, smaller building on Cherry St., a fact that neighborhood residents decried as discrimination during the project’s outreach stage.

[NYguy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bow...ont-op-ed/amp/

The City is Ignoring the Environmental Impacts of Mega-Towers Along the Waterfront
[OP-ED]

At first glance, the 820-page DEIS seems like a very official and well-prepared document. Yet it reads like a work of fiction, picking and choosing which data to highlight or ignore to produce desirable results.

It claims to be a holistic study but it completely ignores the impact of the 3,600 additional units within the neighborhood in various stages of development, including Essex Crossing and One Manhattan Square. To show how the supertall towers would not burden the community, it uses a .25 mile study area. But when they need to dilute results to show positive correlations the study area expands to .5- to 1.5-miles.

The DEIS offers $40 million to upgrade an exit and add an exit and elevator at the East Broadway F train station, but the average subway station rehab now costs $43 million. Why should this community be held hostage in order to get the transportation improvements we have needed for decades? Our City taxes should not subsidize massive corporate profits.

Where are the evaluations of our bus lines? There are none! Why? Because the DEIS makes the absurd claim that this enormous development will not add fifty or more people to a bus line during any one peak hour.

Your last chance to stand up against this process and testify about the major problems and inaccuracies in the DEIS will be at the upcoming City Planning hearing on October 17 at 10:00am at 120 Broadway. This article mentions just some of the major flaws, yet there are plenty more to testify about. In several days the Community Board will release their statement, or consult the 820-page DEIS.

[jackster99]

^LOL at the bus lines part.

Forget 50, it will probably be less than 10. Something tells me the people that will occupy this tower don't take the bus

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jackster99

^LOL at the bus lines part.

Forget 50, it will probably be less than 10. Something tells me the people that will occupy this tower don't take the bus

Oh, they'll take the bus. Wealthy people ride the bus too in NYC, and 30% of the housing units will be below-market.

But the whole article is basically crap. If there's an issue with insufficient bus capacity (and there isn't; Manhattan bus ridership has been dropping), you add routes.

[NYguy]

You know what we need in New York? Another lawsuit against a skyscraper.


https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-e...plan-megatower

Lawsuit could stymie plan for megatower
Neighboring landlords are suing to block JDS Developments 1,000-foot apartment project

DANIEL GEIGER
Oct 5, 2018

Landlords Roy Schoenberg and Gary Spindler are battling in Manhattan state Supreme Court to stop JDS Development Group from erecting a roughly 1,000-foot-tall apartment tower above the vacant 1-story building they lease at 235 Cherry St.

Although the case is ongoing, the court rejected a motion by JDS to dismiss the suit, issuing an opinion earlier this week that could prove problematic for the developer. Judge Andrea Masley stated that Spindler and Schoenberg have the right to block a merger of their site with a neighboring property that JDS is attempting to arrange in order to build its megatower, which will straddle the two properties.

While the opinion didn't amount to a decision in the case, it suggested that the court could be receptive to Spindler and Schoenberg's claims—and potentially complicate or even scuttle JDS' development plans.

As the legal fight continues, JDS is moving forward with the project and is scheduled to go before the City Planning Commission on Oct. 17 as part of the approval process. Because the spire is in a special development zone in what's known as the Two Bridges neighborhood, between the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges, JDS needs only the CPC's approval rather than a full environmental review to secure the necessary zoning modifications.

If Spindler and Schoenberg are able to win their case, it isn't immediately clear what impact it will have on the building and whether it could block or simply delay the project.

[Zapatan]

Some people haven't figured out that you should probably just leave NYC if you don't want a skyscraper built next to your house.

[jackster99]

Manhattan must be what, 0.001% of the land area of the United States?

Just leave if you don't like it, geniuses. You don't even have to leave NYC, just get out of Manhattan!

[chris08876]

And this is over a vacant 1 story structure.

Gotta love it!

I'd be like not building a new park on an acre of empty land because one dead oak tree sits in the middle and the 70's stoner hippie doesn't want to lose it as it has symbolic meaning.

Hopefully this gets thrown out and a good tower can rise.

[chris08876]

On a side note, the payment for that 1 story structure would probally be enough to buy a better property somewhere else and lease it. If anything, its a nice cash injection for further investment on the claimants behalf.

But as we've seen, sometimes, no amount of money can buy people off. Even if it could potentially mean a better place or capital to use to make even more money on the claimants behalf.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by chris08876

And this is over a vacant 1 story structure

Ha, right.

77 story occupied structures > 1 story vacant structures.

[mrnyc]

'Landlords Roy Schoenberg and Gary Spindler are battling in Manhattan state Supreme Court to stop JDS Development Group from erecting a roughly 1,000-foot-tall apartment tower above the vacant 1-story building they lease at 235 Cherry St.'

lol -- yeah, battling to try to soak more loot out of this!

[chris08876]

The Manhattan supreme court is rejecting the developers request to dismiss this rubbish lawsuit. Amazing how things work around here. BS lawsuit, bs reason, and for what... 1 vacant one story structure.

I think this ultimately, along with all of the LES towers will proceed, but with delays.