NEW YORK | UN Building | 546 FT | 36 FLOORS

[CoolCzech]

So does anybody have any feelings about the actual construction proposal?

[Matty]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Why is the UN thinking in terms of only 35 floors? You'd think they'd have the foresight to anticipate that 2 or 3 decades from now they'll have to go thru all this all over again... why not put up 50 or 60 stories?

Money?

I think they should be allowed to just turn that area, instead of into two buildings, into some sort of inter-connected complex. Why have so many separate buildings?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Why is the UN thinking in terms of only 35 floors? You'd think they'd have the foresight to anticipate that 2 or 3 decades from now they'll have to go thru all this all over again... why not put up 50 or 60 stories?

Don't know what the zoning is for that site, but cost is also an issue. Also, don't forget that immediately south of the site is where all the fuss over the Con Ed development took place. And as you recall, the community reaction there was over the towers being taller than the UN. They don't want anything taller than the UN built there.

[NYguy]

The 42nd street canyon would stretch from river to river...

[NYguy]

NY Sun

Mayor Steps Up Pressure for U.N. Tower

By ANNIE KARNI
April 12, 2007

The Bloomberg administration is stepping up its efforts to erect a 35-floor U.N. office tower on Robert Moses Playground, but the community, which says it is starved for open space, is putting up a fight over the 1.3-acre concrete square.

Earlier this week, city officials presented a new plan at a community board meeting that would create a new ball field, jutting out over the East River around 38th Street, to host the roller hockey leagues and other activities that would be affected by the development.

Initially, local residents and elected officials said a planned waterfront esplanade to be built by the city, which would be almost three times larger than the current park space, would not be a viable land swap for the 66-year-old asphalt park. They said it would not provide recreation space for the sports leagues that currently call the small playground home.

"If we lose Robert Moses, there will be only one ball field in the area," the chairman of Community Board 6, Lyle Frank, said in an interview yesterday.

The city's new proposal, however, gained more traction with the community Tuesday night. Details of the plan have yet to be fully hashed out, but Mr. Frank said the Parks Department agreed to present the community board with renderings of the substitute ballpark soon. A spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, John Gallagher, said "the administration agrees with the community regarding the need for open space in the area," and that Mr. Bloomberg would be working toward "a plan that works for everyone."

Even if the new development plan wins community support, it could meet resistance at the state level. "The U.N. keeps themselves locked up in that little tower of theirs with no transparency or accountability," a state senator, Martin Golden, said in an interview yesterday. "As long as that's going to persist, there's no reason for the state to do anything for them."

Any plan that involves a loss of city parkland requires the Legislature's approval.

Yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg met with the new secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, at the United Nation headquarters at Turtle Bay, but the subject of the new tower was not discussed, according to an undersecretary-general, Alicia Barcena.

Mr. Bloomberg's first push to build a United Nations building on the playground site was killed by the Legislature in 2005. Developing the park space is back on the table now, as Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff seeks to build an office tower that would consolidate United Nations offices that are scattered throughout the city, for which many diplomatic tenants pay below-market rates.

The local City Council member, Daniel Gardonick, and other elected officials who represent the Upper East Side last week penned a letter to Mr. Doctoroff, expressing their view that any discussion of developing a United Nations office tower had to take place in the context of a larger redevelopment plan, and include the pending rezoning of the site of the former Con Edison Waterside plant for residential and commercial use, and the renovation of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Drive, including plans to move a ramp 20 feet west to open up waterfront park space in one of the densest neighborhoods in town.

Tuesday night's meeting, which drew more than 70 community members, as well as state senator, Liz Kreuger, and Mr. Doctoroff's chief of staff, Mark Ricks, marked the first time that city officials said they would tackle the various development projects in the area as pieces of a comprehensive development plan for the neighborhood, rather than as individual projects.

"There's new opportunity for collaboration between the community and the city," Mr. Gardonick, said.

The open space that has riled up the community is a nondescript concrete square at 42nd Street and First Avenue. But in a dense part of town that has only 26-acres of open space across almost 180 city blocks, elected officials say that every small park is vital to the neighborhood. "To take an existing park from this neighborhood before providing equal or better green space would be a serious blow to the community," Rep. Caroline Maloney said via e-mail.

"The community was happy that for the first time, the city was saying they want to address all the various development projects comprehensively, rather than piecemeal," a spokeswoman Ms. Krueger, Sarra Hale-Stern, said.

[Scruffy]

they should go for my plan. Build a bigger playground and park, not much bigger, but enough so that you claim its bigger. And build it onto a pier over the east river half a block away from the current park. The only issue I see is making a safe, well lit crossing of the FDR either over or under and you have that space to build the new tower. And by augmenting the size of the park you can maybe get a larger tower built. If you double the park you get to go to 700 feet. triple the size, go to 850 and so on no good?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Scruffy

they should go for my plan. Build a bigger playground and park, not much bigger, but enough so that you claim its bigger. And build it onto a pier over the east river half a block away from the current park. The only issue I see is making a safe, well lit crossing of the FDR either over or under and you have that space to build the new tower.

Sounds like the current City plan:

Earlier this week, city officials presented a new plan at a community board meeting that would create a new ball field, jutting out over the East River around 38th Street, to host the roller hockey leagues and other activities that would be affected by the development.

I'm sure someone will find a reasone to bitch about that one though...

And by augmenting the size of the park you can maybe get a larger tower built. If you double the park you get to go to 700 feet. triple the size, go to 850 and so on no good?

I don't think the UN cares too much about the height (although the community would be OUTRAGED over anything taller than the UN). It's more of a cost issue with them. It would seem better to build a larger tower, with extra space for future expansion. But being the UN, its not like they could lease the space publicly.

[antinimby]

Here's a look at the Robert Moses playground that the NIMBY's want so badly to preserve, like it was some beautiful piece of artwork or something:

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by NYguy

...the community would be OUTRAGED over anything taller than the UN.

Have they considered popping valium or prozac to calm their rage?

What NIMBYs really are is people afraid of change, any change. And once the change happens, they'll fight to the bitter end to preserve THAT change from ever changing again. I wonder if that very same neighborhood wasn't horribly upset when the UN building was put up to begin with?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Here's a look at the Robert Moses playground that the NIMBY's want so badly to preserve, like it was some beautiful piece of artwork or something:

That's a good look at it. I believe the tower proposal would only take the western (on the left) side of the park, behind the shaft.

[Scruffy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Sounds like the current City plan:

.

YES!! Finally! Listen to me. Im smart. Now do that.

[Scoutthedog]

For me personally it isn't about preserving this park so much as its a matter of giving into the United Nations. I know theres no shortage of parks in the area but why deprive the children their park to give a brand new tower to an organization trying to block our country out of the economic community in the 21st century? I'd hate to think of a bunch of European diplomats sitting in their new office tower in our own finacial capitol trying to think of ways to block our country out of a growing global market. I'm not agreeing with the community leaders, the Bush administration, or anyone else. This is just me. Any thoughts?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Scoutthedog

Any thoughts?

Yeah, this is not a political discussion board. No one says you can't have your opinion, but there's an appropriate place in the forumn for your discussion.

[Scruffy]

I know a lot of people want the UN out of the city and all i'll say on the subject is policies notwithstanding, the united nations is valuable to NYC just as a tourist standpoint. It makes the city more worldly. If you've ever walked by it on weekdays, the line is out the door to get in. Those tourists need hotel rooms, need to eat and just pour a lot of money into the local economy. Sure they dont come to NY just for the UN but that and the Empre State and Times SQ are like the 3 most recognizable tourist spots for foreigners.

[Scoutthedog]

Politics is behind every major development that occurs in this city. Skyscrapers are nice but its whats inbetween the buildings that truly defines a cities urban culture. On that note, a building is worthless without tenants and in this case those tenants are foreign diplomats who I'm sure love our city very much. Still, they are a major component of this building, which will be a major component of the United Nations complex, which as Scruffy put it is a major component of our city. You can't ignore that fact. These are politicians moving into this building and hence there is some degree of politics involved in the discussion of this building. We can discuss the physical aspects of this project but I feel that as long as politics clearly pertains to this building and this city it has rightfully earned itself some degree of discussion status on this thread. Why argue about the politics behind this building on another forum when we could easily concentrate the discussion here.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Scoutthedog

Politics is behind every major development that occurs in this city.

Spare me.

For me personally it isn't about preserving this park so much as its a matter of giving into the United Nations......why deprive the children their park to give a brand new tower to an organization trying to block our country out of the economic community in the 21st century? I'd hate to think of a bunch of European diplomats sitting in their new office tower in our own finacial capitol trying to think of ways to block our country out of a growing global market

Those European diplomats you speak of are already here, and as the city does with major corporations, Bloomberg knows it's in the best interests of the city to keep them here. You may or may not agree with everything the UN says or does, but I doubt you would with every practice of any other company or entity that occupies office space in the city.

[antinimby]

Scoutthedog sounds like just another troll.

As if moving the UN somewhere else would change their practices.

Creating an office building for them to move into while they renovate their headquarters and the world of politics are two separate issues. They are completely separate.

[Lecom]

Nice burn, NYguy.

[CoolCzech]

Whatever one's feeling about the UN, it's a plus for New York that it can quite legitimately be called "the Capital of the World." Having it here helps keep the City special, and thus indirectly fuels a lot of other construction.

[wong21fr]

Give the UN the damn tower, and another annex to boot. It's worth the investment to maintain NYC's reputation as the worlds capital.

Just as long as I don't see blue-helmets manning the checkpoints.