HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2017, 9:51 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2017, 2:13 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
https://therealdeal.com/2017/10/11/j...ower-approved/

JDS to pay for flood protection if Two Bridges tower approved
Developer would pay for flood barrier at 80 Rutgers Slip






October 11, 2017


Quote:
JDS Development Group has pledged to help pay for a flood barrier at two neighboring buildings if the city approves its 77-story tower on Cherry Street.

The developer says it will foot the bill for a flood barrier at Two Bridges Tower at 80 Rutgers Slip and cover part of the cost for the barrier at a senior housing project at 82 Rutgers Slip, DNAinfo reported. JDS also committed to providing an emergency power backup system to 82 Rutgers Slip and would move mechanical equipment to the building’s second floor to guard against rushing floodwaters.

During Hurricane Sandy, the first floor of Two Bridges Tower flooded with up to four feet of water.

The resiliency upgrades, however, hinge on JDS getting approval for its mixed-income apartment tower at 247 Cherry Street. The project, along with two others proposed by the Starrett Corporation and a partnership between L&M Development Partners and CIM Group, have drawn fierce criticism from community groups.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 1:21 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 6:20 PM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,031
These NIMBY community boards are such a sham. Spreading their one-sided misinformation preying on the ignorance of the general public.

No one gets displaced in these developments unless you are a parking lot. Not one single building will be demolished. Not one single resident of those projects will be displaced.

Furthermore, these new developments will bring with them much needed retail for a retail starved area.

Putting height limits on these new towers will not prevent market rate apartments from encroaching into the area. It just means it will be more spread out, meaning more lots and possibly lowrises will be sacrificed that otherwise wouldn't need to. Instead of growing upwards, they would then need to grow wide.

Putting a height limit also (along with lower density which I am certain will also be part of their NIMBY demands) will only decrease the number of affordable units that will be built. For example, 20% affordable units of a 100 unit tower is 20 affordable units whereas 20% of a 200 unit tower is 40 units. Last time I checked 40 is greater 20. You want more affordable units? Then wouldn't it make sense to go for the higher number of units?

Of course, this common sense reasoning is lost on these CB's and the attendees who only want to shout down developers and reasonable city officials to "protest" their unhappiness with the high cost of living in the city and other gripes they may have, not knowing that by asking for a downzoning it will have exactly the very same effect they are complaining about.

Of course, in this city, ignorance will prevail so I have no doubt a rezoning unfortunately will go through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2017, 7:21 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,557
"...our community’s call for long-term protections on the waterfront. Our waterfront needs protections — now!..."

If a developer is willing to pay out of pocket to build flood protection systems, the community says no, if/when this area gets flooded again during another Sandy-esque storm, why should taxpayers rebuild this neighborhood?

They were offered protections after screaming and shouting about needing protections, and turned it down.

There need to be real life consequences for this level of stupidity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 12:58 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Abiogenesis
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 22,219
I don't think a rezoning will happen. These will get approved. The city likes infrastructure upgrades and generally the Department of City Planning is pro-development since the Great Bloomberg era and continues throughout DeBlasio. The mayor is even pro-development.

But suppose it doesn't happen, these towers, just suppose, I do agree with the concept that the existing proxy areas will just be bought up. The ones not owned by the NYCHA. These units are coming to the city on way or another. If not here, somewhere else. Demand is the force driving all of this.

We just have to be patient. Remember the battle of Sutton Place. The NIMBYS lost. Something will rise there, and would of been quicker had Gamma not had financing issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2017, 3:05 AM
citybooster citybooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 196
The whole thing about shadows is mostly a joke. Some shade on the sunniest, warmer days especially is what is needed.... too much sun is dangerous without sunscreen protection, anyway. We're not talking about wall to wall towers anyway... just certain areas with a string of high rises. Balancing low and medium buildings with taller ones gives flexibility and better density value.. and most of these buildings aren't going to be mammoth hulks but will be narrower and less bulky for best aesthetic and practical situations. Those though that complain about the huge shadows being cast... well, they won't be noticeable year round... even those towers on Billionaire's Row where they talked so much about the shadows apparently will only be maximizing their prominence in late fall and winter and only a couple of hours per day at most if the information I read on them is correct.

And if they are willing to foot the bill for the post Sandy flood protection infrastructure... seriously, this Nimby namby pamby nonsense isn't going to get through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 1:02 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Abiogenesis
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 22,219
More bullshit.

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

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

City pols propose bill to slow the rise of Two Bridges skyscrapers: The three proposed towers may be subject to increased public scrutiny

Quote:
The trio of skyscrapers proposed for Two Bridges on the Lower East Side is facing another hurdle: City Council member Margaret Chin and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer plan to submit a formal application to the Department of City Planning that would slow down development, according to Politico.

Development plans include a tower from JDS Development Group that would exceed 1,000 feet and hold 660 units, 165 of which would be affordable; a 1.1 million-square-foot project from L+M Development Partners and CIM Group, with 1,350 units; and Starrett Development’s 724-foot building with 765 rentals units, 191 of them affordable.

The City Planning Commission determined last year that these major development plans would constitute only a "minor modification" to the Two Bridges area, governed by an overarching zoning plan that expired 10 years ago. Current rules allow for towers of these sizes to be built with little community input.

But Chin and Brewer's application would make the developers go through a complete land use review process. It comes as the result of another bill, which passed in late October, that allows borough presidents, council members, and city agencies to waive certain procedural requirements before submitting their own zoning text amendment.

Chin believes that, if approved, this bill would allow for more community involvement in the land use process across the city. "It's my hope that this legislation would help Two Bridges residents and groups across the city work more closely with their elected officials,” she said in a statement to Politico. “I will continue to advocate for more ways to strengthen the community's voice in the land use process.”
=========================
CBNY
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 1:29 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
I've been following this crap. They'll try anything. It did wonders for the eastside residents. But doubtful they'll have much luck here.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 3:57 AM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 792
Gosh it sounds like your NIMBY's are almost worse than the ones out here in California!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 6:50 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastleScott View Post
Gosh it sounds like your NIMBY's are almost worse than the ones out here in California!
The politicians are pandering to a crowd of disgruntled people. They think it will equal more votes. Which is stupid because most people don't care about this stuff.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2017, 4:32 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,557
For what it's worth, I emailed Chin's office asking her to justify a bill that would reduce the amount of housing, when we desperately need more, and reduce the number of affordable housing units, something she claims to be a champion of.

If I get a response, I'll post it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2017, 7:41 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
For what it's worth, I emailed Chin's office asking her to justify a bill that would reduce the amount of housing, when we desperately need more, and reduce the number of affordable housing units, something she claims to be a champion of.

If I get a response, I'll post it.
Please do.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 3:32 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
http://www.ebroadsheet.com/two-bridges-going-far/

Is Two Bridges Going Too Far?
Chin, Brewer Seek to Give Lower East Side Residents a Voice in Planned Large-Scale Developments






January 4, 2018
By Matthew Fenton


Quote:
City Council member Margaret Chin is pushing back against a wave of super-tall residential development on the Lower East Side, while also working to close a loophole that help trigger the avalanche of development now engulfing the East River waterfront, between the Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges.

In December, the City Council unanimously passed her legislation that will, for the first time, require the City government to provide notice to affected communities when urban renewal plans are expiring, along with other information, such as the status of current or former master plans. These seemingly basic accommodations may prove crucial for neighborhoods that wish to resist (or at least manage) the tidal wave of speculative real estate investment gentrification that sometimes swamps an area where urban renewal plans have lapsed.

Quote:
The avowed goal of the Two Bridge’s Urban Renewal Area’s designation (first proposed in 1961) was, “to improve the economic balance of the community by attracting more middle-income families” to the 14-acre waterfront district. At the time, according to a City report from that era, the district had, “only 20 dwelling units in six buildings, and a population of approximately 100. The general quality of the residential structures is poor. Redevelopment within [then-current] standards would permit a substantial net increase of approximately 1,450 dwelling units.”

For almost 20 years, this plan was gradually implemented with developments like Two Bridges Tower, a building near Rutgers and South Streets that was sponsored by two local non-profits — the Settlement Housing Fund and the Two Bridges Neighborhood Council. Together, they created 198 apartments for a mix of low- and moderate-income working families, integrated with formerly homeless people. Another pair of public housing development, called Lands End I and Land Ends II, were sponsored by the federal government, to provide subsided housing to disadvantaged populations, such as the elderly or the handicapped. Further north, near Montgomery and South Streets, the New work City Housing Authority built the Two Bridges Houses, with 250 units for low-income residents.

The prevailing design ethos of the years in which all of these structures were built (along with regulations that gave this vision the force of law) meant that many of these developments had large parking lots. For example, the master plan for the Two Bridges Urban Renewal Area called for a supermarket, to be sited on a riverfront site, bounded by South, Pike, Cherry, and Rutgers Streets, on the north side of the Manhattan Bridge.

Government agencies and community leaders set out to entice Pathmark to open a store there in 1983, when there were no supermarkets in Lower Manhattan. (This was part of the broader push to lure low- and middle-income residents to Lower Manhattan.) In a complex arrangement, the land was purchased for a token price by real estate investors Fred and Gary Spindler, who leased it to Pathmark on favorable terms. Pathmark built a large market, along with a parking lot big enough for several hundred cars. The agreement that governed the property required both the owners and their tenants to operate a supermarket there through the year 2049.

But what no public official seemed to notice at the time, or in the years that followed, was that the charter of the Two Bridges Urban Renewal Project was set to expire in mid-2007, unless renewed. Two decades later, the Bloomberg administration quietly chose not to extend its charter, and thus the Two Bridges Urban Renewal Area officially ceased to exist in June of that year. This lapse took legal force away from the agreement requiring the 2.6-acre site be used for a supermarket. As a result, the Spindlers ownership of the site was no longer encumbered in any way. They now owned outright a site they had purchased from the taxpayers at an artificially discounted price, reflecting its limited value as a supermarket location.

In 2013, the Spindlers sold their ownership of the land to Extell for $175 million, and that company in turn paid Pathmark another $75 million. (Approximately $50 million of this amount was to take over the lease, and another $25 million compensated Pathmark for vacating the site.) Community activists argued that the windfall, which benefited both the landowners and their tenants (along with the subsequent windfall that the new developers stand to make) are thus coming at public expense. Extell is now nearing completion on One Manhattan Square, an 800-foot tall apartment building that dwarfs the nearby towers of the Manhattan Bridge.

Quote:
This set off a stampede among other developers, all of whom eyed acquisitively the development potential of the parking lots surrounding other buildings within the former Two Bridges Urban Renewal Area. Each was, by then aware, that the demise of the Urban Renewal designation had taken legal force away from restrictions on height and use for property in the area, and had freed up for development the parking lots surrounding local buildings. Thus, in the last four years, a cavalcade of builders have paid prices running into hundreds of millions of dollars for other properties within the 14 acres that once comprised the Urban Renewal zone.

These developers currently plan four additional towers, ranging between 700 and 1,000 feet in height, which will bring many thousands of new apartments to a community with few schools or parks, and not a single subway station. On a more encouraging note, each of these builders plans to set aside approximately 25 percent of the apartments they will construct with some kind of affordability protection.

Quote:
Ms. Chin’s bill will require the City to notify communities in advance (via the local Community Board, the City Council representative, and the Borough President) when Urban Renewal Areas are coming up for extension or expiration. It passed the City Council unanimously in mid-December. (More than 150 of these districts were created throughout the five boroughs in the 1960s and 70s.) This will give residents, community leaders, and local elected officials time to consider the possible effects of Urban Renewal regulations and master plans losing their legal force, and perhaps to mobilize support for extending them.

Ms. Chin’s bill cannot, however, have any retroactive effect on the development now taking place along the East River waterfront, between the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges. On this front, she has partnered with Manhattan Borough president Gale Brewer to demand that the four residential towers currently in the planning phase be subjected to the full legal scrutiny of the City’s “uniform land-use review procedure” (ULURP). (Such a move would not affect the Extell buildings, which is expected to open within months.)

If successful, this push could enable the community and its representatives to negotiate (either with developers, or with the City, or both) for amenities and infrastructure needed to support a rapidly expanding residential population.

Such negotiations might also result in scaled-back plans, and smaller buildings. But such an outcome is far from assured. In 2016, Carl Weisbrod, the de Blasio administration then City Planning chief said that under existing zoning laws, these four super-tall apartment towers qualify as “minor modifications” to the existing parking lots on which they are slated to be built. This interpretation would allow all four buildings to skip ULURP and comply only with the far-less rigorous requirements of submitting an “enhanced environmental impact statement.” Unlike ULURP, the environmental impact statement process does not provide for any City veto power over a proposed development.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 6:05 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
http://rew-online.com/2017/12/20/ban...-crisis-worse/

Banks: Politicians making housing crisis worse


BY HOLLY DUTTON
DECEMBER 20, 2017


Quote:
In a column for Real Estate Weekly this week, REBNY president John Banks said opposition to development in neighborhoods like the Lower East Side, Midtown East, and Sunnyside i only exacerbating the city’s housing crisis.

“New York’s success and vitality has been, in part, the product of as of right development which has been the foundation of both the 1916 and the 1961 zoning resolutions,” wrote Banks. “To establish in law a mechanism which would undermine as of right development will be a serious deterrent to new development and building the housing our city needs.”

In the Two Bridges area of the Lower East Side, three proposed developments have been met with pushback from community groups.

The developments include JDS Development Group’s 79-story tower at 247 Cherry Street, L+M Development Partners and CIM Group’s 62-story and 26-story towers at 260 South Street, and Starrett Development’s 62-story building at 259 Clinton Street.

JDS Development Group is planning a 79-story tower at 247 Cherry Street, and a joint venture between L+M Development Partners and CIM Group are building a pair of 62- and 26-story towers at 260 South Street. Starrett Development is planning a 62-story building at 259 Clinton Street.

Manhattan borough president Gale Brewer and City Councilmember Margaret Chin have both called for the developments to go through the City’s uniform land use review process (ULURP), a lengthy review that often ends with the projects agreeing to compromises with the local community board, in an effort to stall the projects going forward.

The City Council would then vote on the projects at the end of the ULURP process, with the Council typically deferring to the local Council member — Chin, in this case — on such matters.

ULURP requires a full public review from the Community Board, Borough President, and a vote in the City Council (not mandatory for as-of-right developments). Chin and Brewer had attempted to ask the Department of City Planning for a ULURP on the projects last summer but were denied

This summer, Brewer and Chin came out against the projects in a press conference with community leaders. “These monstrous mega-towers are not a done deal,” said Chin at the press conference. “Should the City Planning Commission rule against this community by green-lighting these proposed towers without any real public input, I will use every tool at my disposal to challenge that decision, even legal action against the Administration.”

Banks argued in his column that with an apartment vacancy rate in NYC lower than the national average at 3.8 percent, demand is far outpacing supply, leading to increasing rent prices and worsening the housing crisis.

“The simple fact is that we need more housing — affordable and market rate,” said Banks. “There is no way around that reality. The politics of day based on our recent experience will ensure that our housing crisis continues unabated.”
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 6:22 PM
Prezrezc Prezrezc is offline
A.F.K.A. JayPro
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 607
Politicians make anything that can possibly be construed as benefical to people other than themselves look bad..........

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 6:30 PM
JSsocal JSsocal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 607
Margaret Chin is driving me nuts. She's pushing an 8 story senior housing project on Nolita's Elizabeth Street Garden, an actual beloved community asset that seemingly everyone else wants to save. Meanwhile she is actively trying to undermine the development at two bridges which can add a real quantity of market & affordable housing to the LES on areas that are currently parking lots. Going to go pull my hair out now..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 1:52 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Abiogenesis
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 22,219
ULURP is a bureaucratic shit storm. All it does is waste time, raise costs, and delay quality units from reaching the market place. Who suffers, the people!

Land prices are one thing, and its understandable so long as we are a supply/demand style economy, but A LOT of what raises costs in this city are because of bureaucratic bull crap and all of the lawyers and most importantly, their asinine clients. Not to mention lengthy environmental studies in some cases (which should be sped up).

Delays cost a lot of money. This really will result in the developer transferring costs to the potential folks who will live in these projects.

Now, when you consider a lot of the bs going around, it really starts to add. For every 1000 units that are pushed for several months into the gutters of the pipeline, the more people suffer. Think of it as a sort of leakage of units from the supply. Hindrances to the supply potential hurt the residents of the city and new comers.

You can have a city that looks to work with the people, but the people must respect the current zoning and codes. The developer by process of DOB approval has to get stuff right. They have to conform to the specs and constraints allowable by the zoning code for X parcel. Thus, the LES towers are perfectly legal. There is no monstrosity here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2018, 1:30 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 36,591
In this week's episode of NIMBYs...


(Let's hear the theme music)


Video Link



https://therealdeal.com/2018/01/18/a...r-two-bridges/

Officials move to stall towers planned for Two Bridges
An application for a text amendment was filed





By Kathryn Brenzel
January 18, 2018


Quote:
In the latest step to rein in large-scale development on the Lower East Side’s waterfront, two city officials are trying to force certain projects to go through the lengthy land use review process.

Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and Council member Margaret Chin proposed a zoning text amendment that would require certain projects in Two Bridges to receive a special permit, which would force the developments to go through the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP), the officials announced on Thursday.

If it were to pass, the amendment could drastically slow the development of four towers proposed by some of the city’s most established developers. JDS Development Group is planning a 79-story tower at 247 Cherry Street, and a joint venture between L+M Development Partners and CIM Group are building a pair of 62- and 26-story towers at 260 South Street. Starrett Development is also planning a 62-story building at 259 Clinton Street.

“In order to turn the tide against out-of-control overdevelopment across our city, we need to act decisively and close loopholes that would allow for the construction of out-of-scale luxury towers without a robust and transparent public review,” Chin said a statement.

The rezoning application has been expected for some time. City Planning rejected an earlier request to force the three planned projects to go through ULURP, but a related city council bill that was approved in October paved the way for the officials to file the application without going through the pre-application process. Politico reported in December that Brewer and Chin were preparing the draft text amendment.

This is the first time in roughly 15 years that a zoning text amendment has been filed solely by elected officials, Brewer said in Thursday’s announcement. In November, however, the council approved a zoning change to a 10-block area on the Upper West Side. The change was initiated by a neighborhood group that was co-founded by Council member Ben Kallos.



http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...-planning.html

Brewer, Chin File Application For Two Bridges Zoning Changes With Department of City Planning





Quote:
In a statement, Brewer said, “This is the real estate business in New York: there’s intense pressure to find and exploit loopholes to build huge ultraluxury buildings… That’s what’s happening in Two Bridges, where massive out-of-scale towers could move forward because of a staff-level determination that they are only a ‘minor modification’ to the neighborhood’s plan. Sometimes you need to clarify rules to make sure they’re enforced, and that’s what we’re doing here.”

Chin added, “Today, I join Manhattan Borough President Brewer to renew our demand that our city provide the Two Bridges community a real opportunity to shape the future of their neighborhood… In order to turn the tide against out-of-control overdevelopment across our city, we need to act decisively and close loopholes that would allow for the construction of out-of-scale luxury towers without a robust and transparent public review. This text amendment marks the latest chapter in our fight to strengthen the community’s voice in the land use process, and preserve the legacy of affordable housing that Two Bridges residents are fighting to protect.”



https://citylimits.org/2018/01/18/lo...-be-expedited/

Local Electeds’ Bid to Require Public Review for LES Towers Is Officially Submitted, Will Be Expedited

By Abigail Savitch-Lew
1/18/18


Quote:
On Wednesday, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and Lower East Side councilmember Margaret Chin took the next step in their ongoing battle to require four luxury towers proposed for the Two Bridges neighborhood of the Lower East Side to submit to full public review. The elected officials filed paperwork at the Department of City Planning for a zoning text amendment that seeks to clarify the land use regulations governing the Two Bridges area of the Lower East Side waterfront. That change, if passed, will require the developers to go through a more thorough approval process.

Thanks to the recent passage of a law sponsored by Chin that allows elected officials to expedite the ULURP process by exempting certain elected officials from the Department’s pre-application filing and meeting requirements, Chin and Brewer’s application will move right to “technical review” and then to ULURP for approval, according to a press release. Speediness is crucial to ensure the developers don’t get their approvals first.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.

Last edited by NYguy; Jan 19, 2018 at 1:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 6:25 AM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,031
What else more is there to say about these two crackpot politicians that hasn’t been said already?

I think we are all flabbergasted of the absurdity of their claims (like for example, according to Chin: “...preserve the legacy of affordable housing that Two Bridges residents are fighting to protect.” No, those Two Bridges housing projects are already perpetually protected. These proposed new projects do not remove any existing affordable units, they will add more.)

The crazy liberal politicians in this city is just getting out of hand.

Are the developers here going to sit idly by and watch this charade? Is there nothing they can do?

They have the legal, as-of-right to build, no?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:01 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.