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

[chris08876]

What kind of judge is that? Aren't judges suppose to go with the rule of law and especially pertaining to land, the codes and conducts. These towers are perfectly legal. This is turning into a mockery. A sham, and a waste of time. These hacks have nothing better to do than to stifle positive growth. All of these affordable units at risk, yet they rather the area remain a taller version of the Queensbridge Projects.

The LES towers will improve the area, not degrade it.

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by chris08876

What kind of judge is that? Aren't judges suppose to go with the rule of law and especially pertaining to land, the codes and conducts. These towers are perfectly legal. This is turning into a mockery. A sham, and a waste of time. These hacks have nothing better to do than to stifle positive growth. All of these affordable units at risk, yet they rather the area remain a taller version of the Queensbridge Projects.

The LES towers will improve the area, not degrade it.

Totally agree, and just hope five years from now we will be seeing construction at least some of these sites and really bring life to an area that can use it.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Then what's the point of zoning...?

Originally Posted by chris08876

What kind of judge is that? Aren't judges suppose to go with the rule of law and especially pertaining to land, the codes and conducts. These towers are perfectly legal. This is turning into a mockery. A sham, and a waste of time.

Exactly. They not only want to go and rezone specific areas to block development, they want to ignore existing zoning as well. That's why ultimately, the judges ruling is a temporary one, and would be reversed if it were a final one. But in the end, a stall tactic is what the NIMBYs want, as it would give them more time to try to rezone the area.

[giantSwan]

Originally Posted by NYer34

Once again, New York Shitty rears its head!

We demolish beautiful buildings (Hotel Pennsylvania, 417 Park, 5-9 East 51st, 16 East 52nd, any number of entire blocks on the UES) ...

... for trash ("Facebook Tower" (just wait till Congress breaks it up!), 417 Park, Tower Fifth) ...

... While proposals to build on some of the city's ugliest, least historically significant, vacant, pedestrian-unfriendly lots (247 Cherry and its neighbors) ...

... Get derailed.

WTF.

amen

[NYguy]

Sure, sure....


https://www.crainsnewyork.com/letter...ht-its-process

Boro prez on tower plan: It's not just the height—it's the process




Gale A. Brewer
June 27, 2019

To the editor:

Nowhere does the editorial “Tower foes’ disregard for zoning laws is the height of irresponsibility” (June 11) mention that the siting of three out-of-scale, predominantly luxury developments is in the midst of the Two Bridges large-scale residential development (LSRD) area, which was created pursuant to a special permit. This glaring omission would lead readers to believe that the proposed developments were as-of-right, which is completely untrue.

The special permit that created the LSRD contained findings and site plans which called for a low-to-moderate-rise neighborhood of low-to-moderate-income residents–and for distribution and placement of buildings which “will not unduly increase the bulk of buildings, density of population or intensity of use in any block, to the detriment of the occupants of buildings in the block or nearby blocks…” That’s why the tallest building constructed since the LSRD was created is 27 stories.

The current site plan for the Two Bridges LSRD—based on the findings—clearly conforms to the planned character of the current neighborhood. The City cannot replace that plan with a new one without a new public review process—let alone one which inserts four mostly-luxury skyscrapers (one development has two towers), triples the number of residents, and more than doubles the height of surrounding buildings in one fell swoop. ULURP is required.

The “details” that lead inescapably to this conclusion were nowhere to be found in your editorial, which was big on alarm and short of substance.

[chris08876]

\Its time that these anti-development hacks get out of office. City needs change. Might be time to try something new.

A city with a housing crisis should not have local politicians against housing and affordable units.

If you provide schools, they complain. If you provide 100's of affordable units, they complain. If you offer public improvement plans, they complain. Yah just can't win.

There is nothing wrong with the process, but instead, its the people calling the shots. NYC has been doing quite well way before these hacks came into office and power, and we can't stifle decades of economic growth, housing additions all of a sudden. The current city administration needs to go, and I hope the voters try something new.

Under Bloomberg, the city was great. Under DeBlasio, in the beginning, it was okay... but now... now it seems like a mockery, with a mayor that is to busy striving to get less than 5% of the vote, which he will get, if not less. He's pulling a Chris Christie, and abandoning the city for his own selfish interests.

[matt19215]

The NIMBY’s are at it again

https://therealdeal.com/2019/07/18/c...into-jeopardy/

An appellate court has ruled that the owner of a long-term ground lease at the site of a controversial Two Bridges development should have a say in how the land is used.
The owner, Little Cherry LLC, has 25 years left on a ground lease at the 235 Cherry Street site, according to The City. They have so far refused to give consent to the development, which calls for constructing a 1,000-foot tower above the one-story building on their site, as well as a senior residence next door.

In 2018, the city granted approval to JDS Development, L+M Development, CIM Group and Starrett Corporation to build rental towers at 247 Cherry Street, 260 South Street and 259 Clinton Street.
However the ruling may cause problems for the development, which has faced a string of earlier challenges. In May, residents filed a petition against the city, the City Planning Commission, the Department of Buildings and the Department of City Planning, alleging the approval of the project was illegal. The City Council also filed a petition objecting to the approval.
JDS spokesperson, Marci Clark, told The City that the company would “continue to defend the case vigorously,” and that “the case nor the ruling will impact the development in any meaningful way.”
However Little Cherry’s attorney, Raymond Hannigan, saw the ruling differently, describing it as “a serious decision putting a roadblock in the way of Mr. Stern’s development.”
“He can’t build his megaproject without getting our client’s consent,” Hannigan said. “And we’re refusing to give our consent.”

[Crawford]

Ugh, the endless delays from the pandering politicans and their sycophants.

This is why it takes 20 years and 3x the cost of other cities to get anything built.

[Zapatan]

Can they actually do anything besides bitch and complain? If not then it's all good.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Can they actually do anything besides bitch and complain? If not then it's all good.

That's what they do, they bitch because thats their nitche but to all of us its like April fools

and it may come across as rude, but what do you expect from a bunch of fools...

who know nothing about what makes cities cool. And so they drool like a bunch of ghouls over old school zoning that has been in place since they were in pre school.

... And so they ridicule to give existence to their pitiful lives over developments that would provide benefits to those who need affordable housing as means of medicine.

[NYguy]

https://citylimits.org/2019/07/24/tw...suit-rezoning/

LES Groups Try to Revive Rezoning that De Blasio Admin. Rejected


By Sadef Ali Kully
July 24, 2019

As Two Bridges community groups and the City Council prepare to reconvene in Manhattan Supreme Court next week to face the city and developers over the contentious proposal for four waterfront towers, some community organizations have filed a rezoning application with the Department of City Planning.

This month, community groups Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side (TUFF-LES), CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities and Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES) filed a rezoning application with DCP reviving a portion of an older community rezoning plan for Chinatown and Lower East Side.

“It was a strategy we developed two and a half years ago. It’s based on the Chinatown Working Group. So it’s kind of exciting to plan and see it come to fruition this way. It has all been very deliberate. This is not by luck,” said Melanie Wang, Chinatown Tenant Union Lead Organizer for CAAAV.

The rezoning proposal for Two Bridges takes a portion of the CWG rezoning plan applying to the Lower East Side Waterfront, called subdistrict D. The proposed rezoning would limit heights to 350 feet for new development and it would require up to 55 percent guaranteed on-site permanently affordable housing. Hotels, big box stores, and clubs would require a special permit with the requirement for public review. And it would also require community facilities such as schools, supermarkets or nonprofit recreation centers.

The land use application must be submitted and then certified by the Department of City Planning. The City Planning Commission must approve the application and then the application goes to the City Council for a final vote. According to DCP, there is no difference between public and private rezoning applications: Both must complete a land use application, undertake the appropriate environmental review, and follow the ULURP process.

“[City Planning staff] have accepted our pre-application statement. They declared it complete. Now they have assigned staff from their environmental unit to work with us on the environmental review component. But we were the ones drafting it and their job is to give us feedback,” says Paula Segal, attorney with the Equitable Neighborhoods Practice at the Community Development Project, who is working with the community groups on the rezoning application and also represents the TUFF-LES group lawsuit against the proposed Two Bridges development.

CAAAV, TUFF-LES and GOLES are now looking to engage the community further and update residents about the community plan while they pursue lawsuits against the proposed Two Bridges development.

On August 2nd the parties will meet again in Manhattan Supreme Court to either hear the judge’s decision or have the case adjourned.

Their lawsuit concerns a joint application for a minor modification filed by four developers would allow three new mixed-use high-rise buildings, a 1,008-foot rental tower at 247 Cherry Street by JDS Development Group; a 798-foot dual-tower project at 260 South Street by L+M Development Partners and CIM Group; and a 730-foot building at 259 Clinton Street by Starrett Corporation.

According to environmental review documents, the four towers would bring in 11,000 square feet for retail and over 2,700 new residential units to the area; 25 percent of those units will be affordable. Two hundred of those 690 affordable units would be set aside for seniors (although the details of how affordability will be measured has not been shared).

Earlier this month, a state appellate court panel of judges ruled that developers of the proposed 1,008-foot tower at 235-247 Cherry Street must obtain tenant Little Cherry LLC’s consent in order to proceed with their development project. It was another win for opponents.

“Defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that plaintiff is not a party in interest whose consent is required for the zoning lot merger. A ground lease tenant has an interest in a tract of land akin to the fee owner. Plaintiff in this case identified multiple adverse effects of the zoning lot merger that plaintiff be adversely affected,” the judges ruled, according to court records.

In an emailed statement, Ray Hannigan, attorney at Herrick’s Litigation Department, who represents Little Cherry, said the ruling means the developers “must obtain consent from Little Cherry of the developer’s plans, which Little Cherry does not intend to give.”

[The Best Forumer]

this should be a good thiing.

[NYguy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/n...velopment.html

Plan for Supertall Tower Looming Over Lower East Side Is Halted, for Now
The ruling was an unusual setback for developers planning luxury skyscrapers in neighborhoods dotted with low-rise building


By Matthew Haag
Aug. 2, 2019

The justice, Arthur F. Engoron of State Supreme Court, overruled a city agency’s approval of the project in 2016, ordering the developers to essentially start over and go through the city’s lengthy and arduous public review process.

The justice’s searing opinion echoed what many opponents have said about similar super-tall buildings in Manhattan: They overwhelm the neighborhood, disrupt the character of the area and displace less wealthy residents.

“The irreparable harm here is twofold,” Justice Engoron wrote in his opinion. “First, a community will be drastically altered without having had its proper say. Second, and arguably more important, allowing this project to proceed without the City Council’s imprimatur would distort the City’s carefully crafted system of checks and balances.”

The ruling does not outright kill Two Bridges project. The public review, however, will delay construction, require developers to seek additional community input and make the buildings’ future less certain.

The City Council, whose members filed the lawsuit against the project along with the Manhattan borough president, Gale A. Brewer, will have the final say about Two Bridges at the end of the public review period.

“We’re very grateful that the State Supreme Court agreed and that the community, the Borough President, and the City Council will have an opportunity to provide real input and help shape the future of this neighborhood,” the council speaker, Corey Johnson, said in a statement.

The developers — JDS Development Group, Starrett Development and a joint venture between CIM Group and L+M Development Partners — said they would appeal the ruling.

“These projects were lawfully approved and met all legal requirements,” James Yolles, a spokesman for the group, said in a statement. “They were proposed after years of community consultation, public review and environmental analysis, and in compliance with zoning that’s been in place for more than 30 years.”

The Two Bridges development would also include upgrades to a public-housing complex and a local subway station. The city’s Law Department, which defended the city in the lawsuit, said it was “considering the city’s legal options.”

[Zapatan]

Such a shame, NIMBYs

[urbanview]

Don't like the activist judge, but not too sad because these buildings are not very attractive overall IMO.

[chris08876]

I wonder if this is going to cause these towers to be halted until the next cycle (The LES Towers)

= = = = = = =

The Lower East Side has the Largest Surplus of Unsold Luxury Condos, Thanks to One Manhattan Square

The city currently has a problem unloading the luxury condos flooding the market.

The New York Times last week published a piece about the glut of unsold apartments in the luxury stratosphere. That, despite the bonkers pace of construction in the high-end market, supply is outstripping demand. The data, culled from a StreetEasy audit, found that roughly 25-percent of the more than roughly 16,000 new luxury units built since 2013 are still available.

Put another way, one in four are unsold.

According to the report, Manhattan had the largest surplus, with over 2,400 of unsold luxury units, roughly 60-percent. But it is the Lower East Side that leads the city in fewest new condos sold, thanks solely to Extell’s giant obelisk blocking the Manhattan Bridge – One Manhattan Square. The 80-story skyscraper, which forever ruined the skyline, hasn’t been able to shift its 815-unit stock. To date, only 173 condos have closed, or about 21-percent.

As the Streeteasy study notes, “with a median price of $1.1 million citywide, and more than $2.3 million within Manhattan, these new condos remain out of reach of most New York home buyers.”

==============
https://www.boweryboogie.com/2019/09...hattan-square/

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I wonder if this is going to cause these towers to be halted until the next cycle (The LES Towers)

Highly unlikely, as these are rental towers. The rental market is booming, the condo market is slow.

[NYguy]

This one also has a large component of affordable housing, be that as it is.

[Zerton]

One Manhattan Square. The 80-story skyscraper, which forever ruined the skyline...

Ugh, that would be the Verizon Building. One Manhattan Square is really nice.

[Camstonisland]

I think it's location combined with its height is quite jarring on the skyline, greatly affecting views of the Manhattan Bridge and the lower east side as a whole. Verizon, on the other hand, is in with the cluster, if ugly and at the edge. Until the other towers get built along the river with it, it stands out apart from the skyline.