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

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by 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.

A simple solution would be to increase property taxes on the neighborhood by the amount of the new revenue killed. I am sure these few NIMBY loudmouths would be driven away real quick.

[chris08876]

It all starts from the top. I don't think increasing costs is the solution, but decreasing them all the while providing the environment to make developers profit. Developers want more units, especially if the market is there. We need to increase the FAR (would be nice if they got rid of it), increase zoning, and limit the power of the community to dictate and fight absurd things like height or complaining about the units being to high.

I am for affordable housing, and developers would be more inclined to build them if they can recoup the costs via market rate units. The caps we have on units or density are underwhelming for the city. We should have 1000-3000 unit towers sprouting like weeds, with affordable components.

It could be done. NYC is not aggressive enough with housing, and it all stems from the leadership.

If the city provides developers with the sandbox to build as they desire, and encourages high units to aid in the housing demand or pushes for initiatives, they will build it, but they can't be strangled doing so.

[chris08876]

More bull shit from these hack courts and no balls judges that have a grudge against progress.

More delays towards much needed housing for the LES.

= = = = =



Judge deals another blow to Two Bridges towers

In another setback for the would-be developers of four towers in Manhattan’s Two Bridges neighborhood, a judge has ruled against them in the second of three lawsuits facing the development.

The latest decision, on a case brought by a group of residents and local organizations last March, was delivered by the same Supreme Court judge who ruled last summer that the three separate projects must go through the city’s exhaustive land-use review.

The de Blasio administration, siding with the developers, had argued that because the towers do not need a special permit to be built in the large-scale residential district, certain findings about their environmental impact were not needed. But the city’s zoning regulation says if modifications to the district are made by special permit “or otherwise,” fast-track approval is not permitted, Judge Arthur Engoron ruled.

“If this court were to endorse the city respondents’ interpretation, it would be rendering the language ‘by special permit or otherwise’ completely meaningless,” Engoron wrote in nullifying the project’s approvals.

The three projects, which would have 2,775 rental units across four towers at three addresses, would range from 63 to 80 stories. JDS Development, L+M Development, CIM Group and Starrett Corporation would construct the buildings at 247 Cherry Street, 260 South Street and 259 Clinton Street.

The towers would more than triple the number of residential units in the area. Local organizations argued that it would accelerate gentrification.

Engoron had ruled against the developments last summer as well in a lawsuit led by the City Council and Gale Brewer, the Manhattan borough president. That decision is being appealed, and a third lawsuit is still pending.



[...]


A judge last year nullified the City Council’s approval of a major Inwood rezoning, and this month a judge ruled the city should not have allowed the top 20 stories of an apartment tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue to be built. Both decisions are being appealed.


[...]



“We of course disagree with the court’s ruling, as these projects were lawfully approved, met all legal requirements, and are in compliance with zoning that’s been in place for more than 30 years,” a spokesperson for the developers said.



[...]

The city’s Law Department is also evaluating next steps, including whether to appeal. “We are currently in appeals court on another challenge to this project brought by the City Council,” a spokesperson said. “We’re confident the court will recognize that the city fully complied with the zoning law and will allow this important project to move forward.”

====================
https://therealdeal.com/2020/02/25/j...=feature_posts

[Zapatan]

If I'm not mistaken the NIMBY's can't really do anything to stop the project other than be annoying. It's been approved already, correct?

Can the developer flat out ignore them and get this U/C at some point?

The towers would more than triple the number of residential units in the area. Local organizations argued that it would accelerate gentrification.

Probably true, but gentrification is underrated. That's already happening with One Manhattan Sq I assume.

[NYguy]

It’s all just a part of this war on skyscrapers. It would actually be amusing if it weren’t so ridiculous and annoying.

[Busy Bee]

I don't find it amusing. I'm not amused by flat-earthers or young earth creationists, I'm deeply disturbed by them.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I don't find it amusing. I'm not amused by flat-earthers or young earth creationists, I'm deeply disturbed by them.

Then your sir, need to get with it. It's the new rage across town, the war on skyscrapers. Pretty soon, they'll be arguing not only should we prevent tall towers from being built, but we should take down floors of skyscrapers that are already too tall. They'd like a nice 400 ft skyline, please and thank you.

You see, it's all about...

http://www.ourtownny.com/news/cuttin...-size-JI930931

Cutting Supertalls Down to Size
After the 200 Amsterdam ruling, Kallos focuses on the East Side's Sutton Tower


EMILY HIGGINBOTHAM
25 FEB 2020

Politicians, community advocates and developers are looking to the future of Manhattan development following an unprecedented court ruling this month ordering the removal of 20 floors from a nearly finished Upper West Side tower. One lawmaker is already at work to use the decision to cut the height of another supertall across town.

Council Member Ben Kallos, who represents part of Midtown and the Upper East Side, was one of the several elected officials who turned out to celebrate Judge Franc Perry’s decision to revoke the building permits for the 59-story tower at 69th Street and Amsterdam Avenue. Quickly, Kallos, who is running for Manhattan Borough President when Gale Brewer leaves the post in 2021, got his wheels turning and saw that Perry’s ruling opened a window to reargue the legality of the 847-foot Sutton Tower being constructed at 430 East 58th Street in his district.

Kallos, though, is confident the decision will go the community’s way this time.

The council member said he wished the 200 Amsterdam decision had come down sooner to prevent other supertall development on the East Side from going up, but wanted to be clear that he is for practical development in the city.

“If you come into the neighborhood, and you build something that is similar to what's already here — whether it's 200 feet or even 300 feet or even 400 feet — no one is going to care,” Kallos said. “[We welcome it] if you're a good neighbor, if you reach out to folks, you don't do work after hours, and if it’s more housing — particularly housing that is affordable.”

[matt19215]

YIMBY's and pro development people should be as vocal about these things as the NIMBY crowd.

[chris08876]

They really should. Problem is, YIMBY folks tend to not leach on social services, and do this foreign concept called work, so its kinda though to go to these 10am meetings during working hours.

But yes, they should be more active. Its a shame what these folks are doing, just delaying much needed housing. Lenox Terrace, another big development, seeing this bs in the works.

The war against the high rises and skyscrapers is lately running rampant.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It’s all just a part of this war on skyscrapers. It would actually be amusing if it weren’t so ridiculous and annoying.

Right, but could this project realistically even happen or will this just drag on for the next 20 years?

Why are these people (NIMBYs) even being listened to, I guess is the question.

[Busy Bee]

^Politics

Council members bending over to the whims of their constituents should have no influence on whether buildings are approved.


An overview of what it takes to get a high rise built in NY here. It doesn't really touch on zoning variances but it gives an idea of how many hoops there are.

[NYguy]

Me too judges, me too.


https://therealdeal.com/2020/06/25/j...dges-projects/

Judges question need for public review of controversial Two Bridges projects
Developers appealed a decision that halted four towers





June 25, 2020
By Kathryn Brenzel

Two appellate court judges expressed doubt Thursday that four planned Manhattan towers require City Council approval.

A panel of appellate justices held a hearing on whether three projects — JDS Development’s 247 Cherry Street; L+M Development and CIM Group’s 260 South Street; and Starrett Corporation’s 259 Clinton Street — must go through the city’s seven-month public review process known as Ulurp.

Two of the justices grilled an attorney representing the City Council and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who have argued that the projects in the Two Bridges neighborhood must undergo public review — which would give the local council member power to shrink or kill them.

Justices Anil Singh and Ellen Gesmer agreed that an attorney representing the City Council and Brewer was trying to “bootstrap” the reasoning for a 1995 special permit in the neighborhood onto the approval process for the Two Bridges towers.

Special permits are one of the dozen actions that require Ulurp, a multiple-step review process that culminates in a make-or-break vote by the City Council.

Gesmer said the 1995 special permit “isn’t that central to this case” and said attorney Debbie Greenberger, who represented the Council and Brewer, made a “circular” argument in favor of Ulurp.

Singh said the special permit applied to a specific project in the neighborhood that required a waiver from the area’s zoning rules — which is not the case for the four towers. He questioned why the City Council was taking action against the projects through litigation.

“Shouldn’t the City Council have amended the zoning resolutions years and years ago?” Singh said, referring to an argument made by the developers’ attorney. “You are going through all sorts of hoops to say that a review is necessary.”

The City Council and borough president argue that the City Planning Commission wrongfully approved the towers as a “minor modification” of a large-scale development plan approved for the neighborhood in 1972.

Last August, a state Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of the Council and Brewer, finding that the projects must undergo public review. In his decision, Judge Arthur Engoron wrote that failing to allow the City Council to review a land-use decision that would drastically alter a neighborhood would “distort the city’s carefully crafted system of checks and balances.”

The developers, whose projects would rise 60 to 100 stories and add 2,775 rental units across four towers at three addresses, appealed.

Greenberger said the City Planning Commission’s decision against requiring Ulurp represented an “incredible overreaching” of its authority. When asked by Gesmer if members of the community still had an opportunity to publicly discuss the projects, Greenberger acknowledged that they did.

“There were many points where the public could speak, but never any points where they were listened to,” she said.

Skepticism from the two justices provided a glimmer of hope to the developers, who have faced a series of setbacks in the past year. They have been hit with three separate lawsuits seeking to halt the projects, and Judge Engoron has ruled against them in two.

A separate ruling against SJP Properties and Mitsui Fudosan America, which imperils the future of their condo tower 200 Amsterdam Avenue, has further fueled concern in the real estate industry over the reliability of as-of-right development. In both the West Side and Two Bridges cases, the de Blasio administration and the developers are on the same side.

“These projects, there’s no dispute, comply with underlying zoning in every way,” Janice Mac Avoy, who is representing the Two Bridges developers, said Thursday. “A fact that the owners relied on when investing in these sites.”

Gesmer asked Mac Avoy, “How do you explain to community residents that such an obviously large change doesn’t mean they have a right to have any input into what is happening?”

“New York is based on as-of-right zoning,” she said. “What zoning allows in this district is unlimited height restrictions.”

[Zapatan]

Nice, does this mean they may be able to go through with it? One Manhattan could use company.

[Crawford]

Thank you, judges. Very good news.

The NIMBYs know they can't delay this project through normal means, so they're always filing frivolous lawsuits to preserve their views. Disgusting.

[chris08876]

This will rise eventually, along with all of the LES towers. All these lawsuits and general community inquiries (nagging) do are cause delays, but it will happen. 200 Amsterdam, 50 W. 66th Street, Sutton Tower... many case studies of the community doing nothing but stifling towers, but in the end, all delays.

This will rise and every LES tower assuming the market is there. The two things that typically kill towers are market conditions and financing. Generally its somewhat rare for the community to completely kill a tower. Maybe in other cities, but in NYC, it takes a lot.

On a side note, props to 200 Amsterdam almost being complete. The bull shit with that tower and the courts, oh brother... lol

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Nice, does this mean they may be able to go through with it? One Manhattan could use company.

When the judges make their final decision, we will all know.

[NYguy]

https://www.6sqft.com/massive-four-t...-move-forward/

Massive Two Bridges projects can move forward


AUGUST 27, 2020
BY DEVIN GANNON

Three projects that include the construction of four towers and the creation of nearly 3,000 housing units in Two Bridges meet all zoning requirements and can move forward, an appeals court ruled Thursday. The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that had stopped the Manhattan megaproject from going ahead.

Approved by the City Planning Commission in 2018, the projects include a 77-story tower at 247 Cherry Street developed by JDS Development, two 60-story towers at 260 South Street from L+M Partners and CIM Group, and a 724-foot tall building at 259 Clinton Street from Starrett Corporation. In total, the four towers would yield 2,700 new units of housing, with 25 percent of them affordable.

.....in a unanimous decision, the court on Thursday wrote “the buildings described in the applications did not conflict with applicable zoning requirements and that, therefore, the CPC’s approval of the applications has a rational basis and is not contrary to law.”

They wrote that the large-scale residential district (LSRD) proposed and the height of the towers and resulting bulk comply with applicable zoning resolution provisions and a special permit is not required.

“The history of the Two Bridges LSRD site plan, which has been modified at least six times since 1973 without the issuance of a special permit, negates petitioners’ claim that, once a special permit has been issued, a new special permit and ULURP are required for further modifications to a LSRD site plan, even in the absence of a conflict with applicable ZR provisions,” the decision reads.

[Zapatan]

F*ck yea!

Can't stop the world's skyscraper powerhouse

[Crawford]

Good news. Finally, this is moving forward.

And no thanks to the crazed NIMBYs that automatically add years and huge legal costs to every development proposal. They have no purpose but to delay/obstruct.

[UrbanImpact]

Awesome! No San Franciscoism for New York City These towers will be great to mitigate the view of the awful architecture of the public housing around them.