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

[NYguy]

https://www.boweryboogie.com/2017/05...cherry-street/

Soil Sampling Begins for Controversial 1,000-Foot JDS Tower on Cherry Street





May 22nd, 2017
by Elie

With the environmental review process of the Lower East Side waterfront still ongoing, the sight of this familiar construction vehicle outside 80 Rutgers Slip is not reassuring. After all, these Davey Drills are oftentimes the first outwardly visible indication that new development is moving forward.

As previously reported, this is the site (247 Cherry) where a new thousand-foot tower will trounce everything in the vicinity. Including One Manhattan Square next door and the senior center over which it will cantilever. JDS and SHoP Architects are vying for 500,000 square-feet of air rights from local nonprofits Settlement Housing Fund and the Two Bridges Neighborhood Council for $51 million.

The controversial proposal (i.e. this is at the expense of the community) is to demolish the small community center flanking 247 Cherry and construct this 1,000-foot spire-on-stilts atop the existing senior housing building. It’ll be composed of up to 660 rentals (in addition to 10 relocated from the senior building), approximately 165 of which earmarked as “permanently affordable” (25% of the total). JDS also committed to creating a 4,600 square-foot community facility within 247 Cherry.

The Davey Drill arrived Friday, just days before the next EIS Scoping Hearing, which had been delayed an extra month to allow for more community input, outreach, and to provide proper translated documents for non-English speaking residents.

The meeting will be held on Thursday (May 25) at the Manhattan Municipal Building, Mezzanine level, 1 Centre Street.

[NYguy]

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/5/26/1569...-city-planning

Lower East Side community and City Planning meet to discuss impacts of proposed waterfront towers
Council member Margaret Chin spoke out vehemently against the developments

BY ZOE ROSENBERG

The Department of City Planning met with Lower East Side community members on Thursday to hear feedback on the proposed areas of study for an environmental review of three planned waterfront towers in Two Bridges.

The three developments include JDS’s 1,008-foot rental at 247 Cherry Street, L+M and CIM’s dual 798- and 728-foot towers at 260 South Street, and Starrett’s 724-foot building at 259 Clinton Street. All three of the projects can be built as-of-right, or without the approvals process that requires the input of the City Council and mayor.

The absence of that formal review means the process surrounding the Environmental Impact Statement is the only opportunity for the community and elected officials to voice their concerns about the three luxury developments. But community members contend that the formal review, or ULURP, is necessary to more comprehensively vet the projects’ impacts.

Early reactions to the proposed areas of study from the Community Board 3 Land Use Subcommittee, which covers the Lower East Side, Chinatown and Two Bridges, expressed doubt that the document was comprehensive enough to honestly weigh the effects of bringing 2,700 apartments, most of which will be market rate, to a neighborhood with one of the lowest area median incomes in Manhattan.

That same sentiment of fear and mistrust over the process reverberated through the auditorium during Thursday’s first meeting. “I cannot fathom the size of these towers, which are huge and out of place in this neighborhood,” said City Council member Margaret Chin, who delivered some of the day’s most vitriolic opposition to the developments. “These proposals would add thousands of new residents without a plan to address the needs of people who built this neighborhood.”

Since its release in late April, the community has argued that the proposed review of the projects selectively chooses a geographic area of study that benefits the developers. A lack of nearby hospitals, parking garages, schools, and a shortage of public transportation have all become tentpoles of the community’s opposition to the project.

Secondary displacement, the impact of construction on health, the inundation of the sewer system, and the temporary displacement of a group of seniors during the construction of JDS’s proposed tower have also become rallying points of the opposition.

A handful of speakers representing Little Cherry LLC, an alias of developers Gary Spindler and Roy Schoenburg (who themselves have interest in one of the Two Bridges sites), argued on Thursday that JDS’s plan violates a ground lease they hold on the property—a last ditch attempt, following a dismissed lawsuit, to stop the tower from moving forward. Brendan Schmidt, a representative for Little Cherry LLC, said that JDS is “looking for an environmental impact, but they don’t have a key to the front door yet.”

A few speakers recommended that the Department of City Planning take into consideration the Chinatown Working Group’s planning study, a comprehensive set of recommendations issued in 2014 that are focused on growing the community with respect to its existing fabric.

A forthcoming meeting will be held to discuss impacts of the developments and ways to amend them, and will be followed by the issuance of the Draft Environment Impact Statement.

[citybooster]

Seriously, how endangered are these projects? Where density is denied, like in San Francisco, instead of housing opportunity there is a severe affordability crisis to even the middle tier who were always able to have good rental and home buying opportunities. Can some of these developments go up as of right?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by citybooster

Seriously, how endangered are these projects?

They're not. But when you invite people to complain, that's exactly what they're going to do.

[citybooster]

Glad to hear these towers probably will still go forward. But when the article says towards the end about these meetings discussing impacts of these projects and then adds "ways to amend them" it's like the South Street Seaport project which a smaller tower of under 500 ft. was still way too big for the nattering NIMBYs, and Hughes backed off regarding it.

[Zapatan]

It boggles my mind that someone living in one of the world's skyscraper capitals would complain about skyscrapers...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by citybooster

Glad to hear these towers probably will still go forward. But when the article says towards the end about these meetings discussing impacts of these projects and then adds "ways to amend them" it's like the South Street Seaport project which a smaller tower of under 500 ft. was still way too big for the nattering NIMBYs, and Hughes backed off regarding it.

That was a different, more complicated issue. They would have to get a rezoning to block these towers, which isn't going to happen. This is badically an excercise to see what other goodies they can squeeze out of the developers.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It boggles my mind that someone living in one of the world's skyscraper capitals would complain about skyscrapers...

Its funny when you hear about the complaints in Midtown. One tower or two or three will not mean the destruction of the area. Hell, a 1000 footer doesn't mean squat nowadays.

When its hard to get excited for a 700 footer, where in other cities its a major deal, that tells you the success of the boom and the skyscraper mania thats inhabiting the area.

[NYguy]

The new mixed use developments on each of the three project sites would comply with the underlying district regulations applicable to the sites under the Zoning Resolution, and no use or bulk waivers would be required to facilitate the proposed projects. However, the Two Bridges LSRD regulates the maximum developable floor area, lot coverage, and other features of development on LSRD sites as shown in Table A....To facilitate the proposed projects, modifications to the Two Bridges LSRD Plan are being requested from the City Planning Commission

That's whey they are going through the process now, although the towers are as-of-right.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by citybooster

Seriously, how endangered are these projects? Where density is denied, like in San Francisco, instead of housing opportunity there is a severe affordability crisis to even the middle tier who were always able to have good rental and home buying opportunities. Can some of these developments go up as of right?

The people who protest these projects live in tax payer subsidized affordable housing, so even if rent goes up 100%, they aren't affected. So the overall supply of housing doesn't affect them. The mental gymnastics is incredible.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

The people who protest these projects live in tax payer subsidized affordable housing, so even if rent goes up 100%, they aren't affected. So the overall supply of housing doesn't affect them. The mental gymnastics is incredible.

Not all of them live in subsidized housing, the NIMBYs in that group come in all sizes and incomes. But just as it has for the people on the upper eastside who requested it, the city declined a rezoning just to stop a development. And rightly so. You live in New York, chances are something new is gonna get built in your neighborhood. It's a vibrant city, which is why we love it so much. But the fallback position for so many people, regardless of income level, is to say no to change.

[yankeesfan1000]

^ Thanks for the clarity, didn't know the city had already declined a rezoning. Nice to hear!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

^ Thanks for the clarity, didn't know the city had already declined a rezoning. Nice to hear!

Yes sir. It's why they are so up in arms. The projects are as-of-right...


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

City Rejects Request For Full-Scale Land Use Process in Two Bridges Area


.....The Department of City Planning (DCP) has turned down a request from several elected officials for a ULURP in the Two Bridges area. The rejection dashed the hopes of local residents, who have been battling to exercise some control over a real estate development frenzy along the East River.

In a response dated yesterday, August 11, Weisbrod wrote, “I agree that the development contemplated here is significant when each proposed development is considered individually, and that the potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood require unique consideration when the three proposed projects are assessed cumulatively.” But because the proposed changes (to the Two Bridges Large Scale Residential Development plan) “will not require any new waivers or zoning actions,” Weisbrod added, his agency is considering them “minor modifications” as opposed to “major modifications.”

Bottom line: There will be no ULURP.

But they'll continue to howl into the night anyway...


http://citylimits.org/2017/05/26/cal...t-skyscrapers/

Calls for Stricter Review of Proposed Waterfront Skyscrapers


By Jarrett Murphy
May 26, 2017

There was intense opposition to a trio of high-rises planned for the Lower East Side waterfront at a Thursday hearing where the process was as much a target as the proposals.

The four buildings at 247 Cherry Street, 260 South Street and 259 Clinton Street would rise 62 to 72 stories*, and create a combined 2,775 apartments, about 700 of them income-targeted—adding more than 2.5 million square feet of residential development to the area known as Two Bridges.

Despite the dramatic change the developments would deliver, the Department of City Planning has decided that the proposals do not need to go through the full Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure, or ULURP. That seven-month process involves advisory votes by the local community board and borough president as well as final action by the City Council. The de Blasio administration’s neighborhood-wide rezoning proposals in places like East Harlem and Downtown Far Rockaway are going through ULURP.

The Two Bridges high rises could not be built without action by the City Planning Commission to change the rules governing development on those parcels. But the Department of City Planning has determined those changes constitute a “minor modification,” not the “major” one that would trigger ULURP. According to the department, while the new buildings would add significantly to the built environment on the waterfront, they do not involve any addition to the bulk or density of what is legally allowed there.

That finding was not persuasive to many who spoke on Thursday.

“I am shocked by the proposal of these out-of-scale developments,” Councilmember Margaret Chin testified, noting, “these developments would add thousands of new residents.”

“We asked for a full ULURP process to ensure all voices are heard, but the Department of City Planning said no.”

“This is not a minor modification,” said Hunter professor and longtime DCP critic Tom Angotti. “You’re dumping 70 story buildings and 2.5 million square feet of residential space into two blocks. There must be a full ULURP.”

Instead of a ULURP process, the community board will hold a hearing and take an advisory vote on the proposal, and the City Planning Commission will consider and then approve or deny the request for modifications. That approach is more elaborate than what normally occurs when ULURP is not used, but it deprives the two local elected officials that represent the area, Chin and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, a formal role. Brewer would have an advisory voice via ULURP, and Chin would—by City Council custom—have final say.

The towers will bring “more growth in a 36 month period than the neighborhood has seen in 30 years,” Brewer said.

As the Two Bridges review process rolls out, an environmental impact statement covering all three sites will be prepared, ostensibly to identify problems the buildings might cause and ways that impact might be mitigated.

Thursday’s hearing was officially an opportunity to comment on the draft scope of that environmental study, and speakers raised concerns about the risks of climate change to a waterfront development, the impact of the project infusion of residents on police and fire services, the burden that the new housing will place on the Newtown Creek sewage plant and more.

But others focused not on the environmental review process—which, bound by highly technical rules, often produces results that clash with real-world observations and imposes no strict demand on planners or developers to address any problems it does detect—but on the proposals themselves.

“If this thing goes through, I don’t know how you guys can sleep at night,” said Ann McDermott, an Upper East Side resident. “New York is turning into Dubai on the Hudson. All these people who live there kept that neighborhood alive when nobody wanted to even look at the Lower East Side and now are being pushed out by the policies of this administration.”

The deeper frustration is that in a city where neighborhood-wide rezonings are being pursued all over the map, the de Blasio administration has rebuffed a community proposal seven years in the making that would have rezoned a large swath of Chinatown and the Lower East Side, including the Two Bridges waterfront.

Backers said that Chinatown Working Group plan would prevent the loss of neighborhood character and protect low-income tenants, but the administration said the vision covered too large a geographic neighborhood.

Instead, de Blasio’s DCP has said it will consider rezoning Chinatown’s core, although it has yet to define that geographic area.

* Correctional: The original version of those story misreported that three buildings are planned. In fact, four are: a 79-story building at 247 Cherry Street, towers of 62 and 69 stories at 260 South Street and a 62-story building at 259 Clinton Street.

[NYguy]

http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...l-hearing.html

City Officials Grilled on Two Bridges Mega-Towers During City Council Hearing




By Ed Litvak
June 20, 2017

A hearing was held last week on City Council member Margaret Chin’s legislation that would require the city to notify communities when urban renewal areas are set to expire. The public meeting of the Council’s land use committee also offered local lawmakers an opportunity to grill representatives of city agencies about several proposed Two Bridges mega-towers.

Those projects would add about 2,000 mostly market-rate apartments in towers ranging in height from 62-80 stories along the East Side waterfront. A joint environmental review is now underway for the large-scale towers, which are located in an urban renewal area that expired in 2007. The review does not include Extell Development’s One Manhattan Square, an 80-story luxury condo project that will add another 1,000 apartments to the immediate area.

During the hearing, Council member Chin argued that public notification would have given her community an important tool to fight over-development. Residents would have been able, she explained, to ask for an extension of the urban renewal area or a rezoning if they had known restrictions on development were set to expire. In a press release, she stated, “We must take action now to ensure that all communities, especially those that are predominately low income and of color, are equipped with the knowledge and tools to protect their neighborhoods. Though we cannot turn back time to prevent the expiration of the Two Bridges URA, this legislation is integral to my mission to keep similar situations from happening again, and to carry on the fight by continuing to demand a full public review, including an up-or-down City Council vote, on the mega-towers at Two Bridges.”

Last summer, the Department of City Planning rejected Chin’s request for a ULURP in the Two Bridges area, a full land use review that would have given the Council a formal role in deciding whether the projects move forward. The agency said proposed changes in the Two Bridges Large Scale Residential Plan amounted to a “minor modification” as opposed to a “major modification” of the plan, meaning a ULURP was not required.

At last Thursday’s hearing, Chin noted that the underlying zoning along the waterfront (C6-4a) permits what she called “humungous” towers. But she argued that the new buildings are definitely not in the spirit of the original urban renewal area. Every time she sees photos of the Extell tower, said Chin, “it makes me sick to my stomach.” She added, “What is being proposed is totally out of scale. We cannot allow (the plan) to go forward.” Addressing officials from the Department of City Planning and Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Chin asserted, “You share responsibility with us. Something has got to be done.”



The officials said they agreed in principle with Chin’s proposal for public notification, but they pushed back on the notion that the towers in the Two Bridges area are inappropriate for the neighborhood. The chairman of the land use committee, David Greenfield, asked a series of pointed questions of the city bureaucrats and argued that stronger legislation is required to protect local communities.

Representatives from the Department of City Planning said the Lower East Side plans were deemed to be “minor modifications” because the developers were not asking for new or modified waivers. They were simply asking the city to lift floor area limits. Greenfield, however, made the case that any plan adding 2.2 million square feet and 2,000 apartments to an existing neighborhood, “amounts to a pretty big modification.”

Erik Botsford, deputy Manhattan director of City Planning, said, “We understand the community’s concerns (about these projects).” He conceded that the phrase, “minor modification,” is “perhaps an unfortunate term” in reference to one-thousand foot towers. The officials, however, insisted that the projects are allowable under New York’s land use rules.

Greenfield countered by asking, “Would you agree that this is a major change to the original plan?” He also asked why Mayor de Blasio would not have insisted on a rezoning in the area to require affordable housing in the new projects (the developers are voluntarily setting aside 25% of their units for affordable housing in exchange for tax benefits). City Planning’s Joel Kolkmann responded, “These are obviously large buildings.” He said the city’s new Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Program (MIH) is only feasible in neighborhoods that can be upzoned (Two Bridges is already zoned for maximum density). “These types of large-scale districts are not unusual along the waterfront,” said Kolkmann, arguing that the large-scale towers under review are appropriate for the community.

There was also testimony from Trever Holland, a tenant leader who read a statement on behalf of neighborhood advocacy groups GOLES and CAAAV. He said there are serious concerns about the threat of displacement of low-income tenants as a result of the luxury developments. He also cited worries about flood protection in the low-lying area and noted the city’s refusal to consider a large-scale rezoning of the community as proposed by the Chinatown Working Group.

In the end, Greenfield told city officials he believes there’s obviously a flaw in the law if massive development projects like the ones under review in the Two Bridges aren’t subject to public review. He called it a loophole that needs to be closed.

On a related note, a community engagement meeting will be held Saturday, June 24 to discuss the Two Bridges environmental review. It will take place at the Manny Cantor Center, 197 East Broadwaay, from 10 a.m.-1 p.m.

The projects include a 79-story tower at 247 Cherry St. from JDS Development Group; 62 ad 69 story towers from L+M Development Partners and the CIM Group at 260 South St.; and a 62-story building by the Starrett Group at 259 Clinton St.

Video here...
http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/Meet...tions=&Search=

Every time she sees photos of the Extell tower, said Chin, “it makes me sick to my stomach.”

Everyone should send Chin photos of One Manhattan square under construction.

[NYguy]

1,013 ft in this corner...

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...756112&row=187

[chris08876]

^^^^

1 M Square is a tease already. Gives us an idea of how a much larger tower (I believe bulk wise as well) will stand in the area.

[NYguy]

Yeah, at 1,013 ft this will be significantly taller than One Manhattan Square.



https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/lower...y-street/78153

[chris08876]

What a crock of rubbish from the vial NIMBY congregation with their lilliputian view on what the LES should look like.

Margaret Chin and Borough President Gale Brewer... terrible leaders to be representing Manhattan. They shouldn't be allowed to represent even a sand grain on this island.


=====================

Not a Done Deal: Pols Push City Planning to Deny Waterfront Supertalls in Two Bridges

Elected officials and vocal community leaders are rallying this morning against three new supertall towers poised to invade the Two Bridges coastline (10am, 80 Rutgers Slip). The group, which counts Councilwoman Margaret Chin and Borough President Gale Brewer, will reaffirm the position that the developments are not a done deal. It’s a stunt meant to “publicly pressure the City Planning Commission to deny the applications in Two Bridges when they vote this fall.

The real goal, though, is to force the whole process into the ULURP public review, as these towers are technically as-of-right.

Site of the rally is significant. 80 Rutgers Slip is the senior center over which the proposed 1,000-foot residential tower (aka 247 Cherry) will cantilever. As previously reported, JDS and SHoP Architects are vying for 500,000 square-feet of air rights from local nonprofits Settlement Housing Fund and the Two Bridges Neighborhood Council for $51 million. The controversial proposal (i.e. this is at the expense of the community) is to demolish the small community center flanking 247 Cherry and construct this spire-on-stilts atop the existing senior housing building. It’ll be composed of up to 660 rentals (in addition to 10 relocated from the senior building), approximately 165 of which earmarked as “permanently affordable” (25% of the total). JDS also committed to creating a 4,600 square-foot community facility within 247 Cherry.

Soil sampling is already happening, too. We spotted a Davey Drill rig onsite a couple months ago gathering data.

Starrett Corp. (724 feet) and CIM/L+M (800-feet) are also planning as-of-right super-talls in the backyard of this low-income neighborhood.

Groups like the Coalition to Protect Chinatown and the Lower East Side, meanwhile, are still calling for Councilwoman Margaret Chin step down. The grassroots organization, which counts more than a dozen other local groups in its ranks, claims that the politician is firmly in the pocket of big-money developers.

======================
http://www.boweryboogie.com/2017/07/...s-two-bridges/

[ATLksuGUY]

It seems as if the nimbys think they own the city. They want the whole area to match their vision of what they want. It's quite a totalitarian vision if you ask me.

[NYguy]

They have no better way to waste their time.