HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2016, 8:24 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is online now
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
This is there take on the green-ness, and its place in the City...


I guess it does have precedent, I'll give it that.
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2016, 12:16 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 398
^^^ maybe it was too obvious to mention, but the green seems to be echoing the manhattan bridge, which is a stone's throw away:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 12:17 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
http://therealdeal.com/2016/12/16/tw...the-lions-den/

Two Bridges developers head into the lion’s den
JDS, L+M, CIM and Starrett facing resistance from community over three megaprojects



December 16, 2016
By Rich Bockmann


Quote:
Michael Stern was approaching the lectern when a booming voice from the back of the Gouverneur Health Center on Madison Street stopped him in his tracks. “Boo!” the young man screamed, directing his anger at the JDS Development Group CEO and stunning the room into silence. “You greedy corporate fuck! Fuck JDS, you greedy corporate motherfucker!”

The outburst set off 10 minutes of argument between factions of attendees who wanted to hear representatives for developers who collectively plan a quartet of massive residential towers in Two Bridges, and those who felt the developers were indifferent to the community’s concerns, putting on a dog-and-pony show to inveigle public support.

The former bloc eventually won out. For the next hour or so Stern and his fellow developers from L+M Development Partners, CIM Group and Starrett Development discussed their projects in the context of an environmental impact study that will assess how the combined developments will affect traffic congestion and school enrollment in the neighborhood, which includes mostly low-income- and senior housing.

Opposition to new development has been brewing in the neighborhood for years, but hit a flashpoint when Extell Development began working on its 800-foot-tall One Manhattan Square condo tower at 250 South Street, which is already rising about two dozen stories out of the ground.

Extell’s project, along with the three others set to rise next to it along the East River, are being developed of-right, meaning they need no special approvals from the city to go forward.

But after a failed attempt to force them through the city’s laborious land use-review process, the trio of developments will now undergo an environmental study to determine what – if anything – can be done to mitigate any negative effects they’ll have on the community.

Attendees brought up topics like construction noise, displacement and the light and air the tall towers would block.

Gary Handel, the architect for the pair of 730-foot and 800-foot-tall towers L+M and CIM are developing at 260 South Street, said the team had originally considered a broader, single building rising 600 feet tall. But that would have blocked light and air going into the pair of Section 8 buildings L+M and CIM own next door, so they decided to go with a pair of taller but skinnier towers.

“That creates a taller building, but allows light and air into that courtyard,” he explained.
Stern noted that while his 247 Cherry Street development and the other buildings will add about 2,700 new housing units to the area, all of the developers are setting aside 25 percent of the apartments at below-market rents.

“We’re building a lot of market-rate units, which I think is a big focus. But this is also the single-largest creation of affordable units in one shot in this district in a very long time,” he said.

Still, the big question that remained unanswered by the end of the meeting is what would be done to temper the inevitable gentrification these three projects will bring to the area. Stern said it was up to the local elected officials, the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the developers to decide what income levels to set the affordable units at. The answer was not a crowd-pleaser.

Neighborhood resident Ozzie Hernandez was particularly concerned about what would happen to the Stop 1 Deli at 265 Cherry Street, one of the existing L+M/CIM buildings adjacent to its planned 1,350-unit complex.
Hernandez said Stop 1, the only source for food near the building, had been in court for the past year with L+M.

“So what’s going to happen?” he asked. “Are you going to renew their lease? Or is it going to be commercial displacement?”

A representative for L+M, Katherine Kelman, said the developer wasn’t looking to do expensive big-box retail at the site, and the kinds of retailers the company is looking for are in the vein of food or other similar neighborhood retail. She said that once the project moves closer to construction, “we’ll have to have a conversation with the owner of that business to see if they’d like to stay.”

“So what you’re saying to me, if I understand you correctly,” Hernandez responded, “is if they want to say in the community there’s an opportunity to stay and we’re not talking about tripling their rent as a way to get them out, because that’s always the option that you guys have to do that. It’s very simple for you to say, ‘Yea we want you to stay, but you’ve got to pay four times your rent’ and make it unattainable for them.”

“We understand and we know that tenant very well,” Kelman said. “It will be a discussion closer to that time whether they’d like to stay or not, and we’ll have a commercial discussion at that time.”


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

__________________
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
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2017, 4:15 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articl...n-two-bridges/

Rising tensions in Two Bridges
Even with four big towers on the way, developers are facing several hurdles in the area






January 01, 2017
By Rich Bockmann


Quote:
Michael Stern was approaching the lectern when a booming voice from the back of the Gouverneur Health building at 227 Madison Street stopped him in his tracks. “Boo!” the young man shouted, directing his anger at the JDS Development Group CEO and stunning the room into silence. “You greedy corporate fuck! Fuck JDS, you greedy corporate motherfucker!”

The guarded and low-spoken Stern stepped back as community members who showed up at the meeting to hear about three or four megaprojects coming to the Two Bridges neighborhood argued for nearly 10 minutes. On one side of the argument was a faction of attendees who wanted to hear the developers’ plans and how they would affect the neighborhood that sits between the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan Bridge. On the other side were those who felt the developers were indifferent to the community’s concerns and merely putting on a dog and pony show to inveigle public support.

The former bloc eventually won out, and for the next hour or so Stern and representatives from L+M Development Partners, CIM Group and Starrett Corporation discussed their upcoming projects, which will transform a neighborhood heavily composed of low-income and senior housing.

When Stern finally got a chance to speak, he laid out what he thought to be the big picture — the fact that all of the developers are setting aside 25 percent of their apartment units at below-market rents. “We’re building a lot of market-rate units, which I think is a big focus,” the 37-year-old developer said. “But this is also the single largest creation of affordable units in one shot in this district in a very long time.”

When Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration downzoned much of the Lower East Side in 2008, city planners stopped short at the boundary of the Two Bridges neighborhood, where land-use rights have largely remained frozen in time since the city passed the 1961 Zoning Resolution.

There, hidden in plain sight all those years, lies a four-block stretch along the East River with the same key elements that Gary Barnett’s Extell Development Company and Stern’s JDS, among others, used to transform West 57th Street into Billionaires’ Row.


In the blink of an eye, it seems, Two Bridges is set to undergo a radical change, with the planned gleaming towers that will range from 700 feet to more than 1,000 feet tall and add some 3,700 new apartments to the neighborhood. Industry players who know the neighborhood, however, say the influx of development should come as no shock.

“I’m not surprised by these developments,” said Michael DeCheser, an investment sales broker at Cushman & Wakefield who covers the area. “If you were a developer looking to either build inclusionary or generate inclusionary credits, these are the only blocks you could focus on in the area.”

The four-block area that major developers are homing in on contains sites big enough to include an affordable-housing component — which generates building bonuses that allow the developers to construct larger properties. The area also has the necessary R10 zoning, which allows for the densest residential buildings in the city. “If you want to build affordable housing, you have to look for R10, and there’s a very limited amount of it in Manhattan,” DeCheser said.

But it hasn’t all been smooth sailing for the opportunistic builders, as local community groups have pushed to curb out-of-character development in Two Bridges. Back in 2013, the community planning initiative Chinatown Working Group and the Pratt Center for Community Development conducted a study that recommended rezoning the area with a height limit of 350 feet. And earlier this year, City Council member Margaret Chin, who represents the neighborhood, spearheaded a failed effort to force three of the planned towers to go through the city’s arduous Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.
City Planning Commission Chairman Carl Weisbrod determined a few months later, however, that the developers could build their towers as of right, which means no additional approvals from the city would be required.

“I understand it’s as of right, but that doesn’t mean it is right,” said Trever Holland, a member of several community groups in the neighborhood.

“There’s absolutely no infrastructure to handle the Extell [project], let alone the other projects.”

Meanwhile, change in the neighborhood may not end along the waterfront.




Quote:
There are several blocks farther inland where developers and investors can find additional opportunities to build. In November, for instance, the Midtown-based development firm Ascend Group paid $47.5 million to buy the former Bialystoker nursing home at the edge of the neighborhood at 228 East Broadway. The property came with an adjacent site at the corner of Clinton Street that holds about 40,000 square feet of development rights.

One of the difficulties with finding buildable sites in Two Bridges is the large number of city-owned properties in the neighborhood, according to data from Cushman. Out of the 30 blocks between the Brooklyn Bridge to the west and Montgomery Street to the east, 15 are owned by the city.

Still, in between East Broadway and Monroe Street lie several parking lots that could be turned into additional high-rises. At 40 Henry Street, for example, a handful of properties that run through the other side of the block to Madison Street hold nearly 72,000 square feet of development rights.

And New Jersey-based Edison Properties owns a mini-storage facility along the water at 220 South Street, west of the Manhattan Bridge. The site is currently zoned for manufacturing use, though one of the proposals set forth the by the Chinatown Working Group would upzone it for commercial or residential use, giving the property 670,000 buildable square feet as of right.

At the community meeting last month, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer said that neighbors would have a chance to discuss things like affordability levels in the new towers and how the projects would affect school enrollment, traffic and open space. The existence of the towers themselves, however, was a done deal, she noted.

“Would I like to have smaller buildings? Yes,” Brewer said. “But I’m not so sure that would be as possible, but almost everything else is on the table.”


Quote:
247 Cherry Street (JDS)





Stern — who is developing the supertall 111 West 57th Street on Billionaires’ Row, near Barnett’s One57 — is following the Extell chief’s lead once again.

But JDS is not only facing opposition from community groups for the proposed 600-unit rental tower on Cherry Street. The firm is also dealing with pushback from a rival developer who claims Stern muscled him out of the development site, where Stern plans to build the tallest high-rise of the bunch at more than 1,000 feet. Park-It’s Spindler, who sold Extell the 252 South Street site, filed a lawsuit against JDS in August claiming he had a contract with the property’s owner to buy its air rights for $4 million.

Spindler has controlled a neighboring site at 235 Cherry Street since 1995 via a ground lease that runs through 2044. He claims that Stern interfered with the deal in order to co-opt his development and air rights so that JDS could “win the ‘prize’: to build the tallest skyscraper in Lower Manhattan.”

Spindler claims that as a tenant in the ground lease, his firm has the right to scuttle JDS’s planned 79-story tower, which would cantilever over his property and require the use of his site for construction.

“Stern is moving forward with this project as if it’s some sort of fait accompli,” said Raymond Hannigan, Spindler’s attorney at Herrick, Feinstein. “I think Stern’s own zoning advisers are aware. I think that to the extent he’s moving forward, he’s deluding himself.” Stern declined to comment.
__________________
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
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2017, 11:45 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...ns-jan-18.html





Developers website set up for the community...

http://www.twobridgeseis.com/





247 CHERRY STREET

Building Height
Tower Height: Approximately 79 floors / 1,008 feet
__________________
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
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2017, 1:52 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
N-methyl-D-aspartate
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,874
Two Bridges residents want to delay spate of waterfront skyscrapers

Quote:
The Two Bridges community met again on Wednesday with developers JDS, L+M Development Partners, CIM Group, and Starrett to discuss community concerns over the four 700-foot plus towers poised to rise on the neighborhood’s waterfront. The meeting is the second of four before April’s public scoping meeting during which preparation of the developments’ joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will begin.

The idea behind the meeting was to elicit community concerns through breakout groups, but an orchestrated coup of the soapbox by several community members made clear that Two Bridges has concerns beyond what the EIS will address. Attendees read a communal statement expressing their concern and asked to delay the scoping meeting, poised to take place in April, to allow the community more time to vet the impacts of the development.

“We go to our politicians and we ask you to help us and you know what we hear? ‘There’s nothing we can do,’” one community member said, speaking to already-stymied attempts to slow down the scoping process. Neighborhood resident Ozzie Hernandez said the whole exercise of soliciting feedback for issues that the community believes the developers have already decided on reminds him of “a lamb being led to the slaughter.”

After a dozen minutes of uproar in the auditorium, a lawyer for the developers approached the mic to note that his clients are “at the beginning of the process, with three additional meetings that don’t [usually] take place” in EIS studies. Those include the December meeting to introduce the projects to the community—just imagine how that went—and three additional meetings to familiarize community members with the EIS process and elicit their concerns. (In addition to hosting the community input meetings, the developers have also provided lovely sandwich trays.)

“I don’t think this huge group is here because you think this is an example of great urban planning,” Senator Daniel Squadron, in attendance, took to the mic to say. “These sites were originally for urban renewal. They’re for building up neighborhoods, not for tearing them down.”

About half of the people in attendance stayed at the meeting to participate in the breakout groups after the uproar, where community members were able to continue to voice their concerns about how the developments would affect everything from the neighborhood’s foundation to secondary displacement.

The third meeting is poised to take place in March, where select EIS topics will be presented for review.
===========================
http://ny.curbed.com/2017/1/20/14331...pact-statement
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2017, 1:45 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,069
Aggressive NIMBYISM is an unwavering sign of advanced mental decay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2017, 6:26 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is online now
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,740
It would be one thing if these towers were going up in a neighborhood of walk ups and rowhouses, but they are adjacent to post-war tower projects. If anything they will be beneficial to the character of the neighborhood.
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 1:40 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...ega-tower.html

Appeals Court Ruling Hands Victory to Developers of Cherry Street Mega-Tower





Quote:
There’s been a significant development in a lawsuit that’s hanging over one of the large-scale development projects in the Two Bridges area.

A state appeals court yesterday rejected an appeal in a case filed against the Two Bridges Neighborhood Council and Settlement Housing Fund, owners of the former Pathmark pharmacy building on Cherry Street.

The not-for-profit groups last year agreed to sell development rights to JDS Development Group, which is now planning a one-thousand foot residential tower at 247 Cherry St. But developer Roy Schoenberg of Little Cherry, LLC argued that the deal violated a separate 2012 contract he signed with Two Bridges and Settlement Housing Fund.

The case has been making its way through various courts. An order from the appellate division released yesterday morning stated that Schoenberg failed to provide sufficient factual evidence to show the defendants were in breach of contract. The non-profit groups and JDS believe the ruling essentially ends the legal back-and-forth over the development rights.

An attorney for Little Cherry, Robert Tils, disagreed in a statement provided to us last night. “(The) decision on the appeal,” he said, “is not the end of the legal process. We are currently reviewing the decision with our client, and we intend to do everything in our power to address this matter and to protect our client’s rights.”

Little Cherry still holds a long-term lease for part of the one-story building that now sits on the development site. The same goes for Extell Development, which is building an 80-story luxury condo tower on an adjacent site. JDS’s current plan envisions building on top of a senior building at 80 Rutgers Slip, leaving the contested site alone for the time being.

There’s still a pending lawsuit filed by Little Cherry against JDS head Michael Stern in connection with the Two Bridges development site.



http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...s-outrage.html

HUD Supports Relocation Plan For Seniors in Two Bridges Building; CM Chin Voices Outrage





Quote:
We have new information this afternoon about the potential relocation of senior residents to accommodate the construction of a thousand foot rental tower in the Two Bridges neighborhood.

JDS Development Group has publicly acknowledged that it might be necessary to move some tenants of a low-income senior housing complex at 80 Rutgers Slip. Plans call for the tower at 247 Cherry St. to be built over the senior building. The Lo-Down has learned new details about the proposal as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed in early January. The documents we obtained show that the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development offered its support for the plan in a letter dated Dec. 15.

The new revelations were not warmly received by City Council member Margaret Chin, who told us this afternoon, “I am outraged that this senior relocation plan has been given HUD support without any consultation with elected officials, the community or even the seniors that will have to suffer the impacts of this proposed building that will be constructed over their homes.”

The senior building is owned by Two Bridges Neighborhood Council. The not-for-profit organization and its partner, Settlement Housing Fund, sold development rights to JDS last year, making the new residential project possible. One-quarter of the apartments, or 155 units, will be set aside as affordable housing.

In a November letter to HUD, Two Bridges President Victor Papa and Settlement Housing President Alexa Sewell explained that it could be necessary to relocate the tenants of up to 19 apartments. Nine units, “which will have one window obstructed by the tower,” would be off-line for 12 months while full renovations take place. “Windows will be modified to maintain legally required light and air,” the letter stated, and full apartment renovations would occur. Ten additional apartments would be permanently taken off-line. JDS would provide replacement apartments in its new tower for those units. These 10 units for seniors would be in addition to the 155 rent-regulated apartments designated in the tower.

Two Bridges emphasized that it might not be necessary to move any residents. As vacancies occur, apartments are not being rented. “We are confident,” wrote Papa and Sewell, “that we will have enough vacancies in the senior building by construction start (in approximately two years) that we will not have to permanently relocate any current tenants into the new tower.” Any temporary relocations would be accommodated in two neighboring buildings (Two Bridges Tower and Lands End II). JDS has agreed to make up the difference in the rent between the senior building (a Section 8 property) and the temporary housing units.

The letter stated that, in the absence of JDS’s plan, it would be impossible to create affordable housing in, “this high cost, high opportunity neighborhood.” Other advantages of the proposal were cited, including flood protection measures for the senior building, new laundry rooms on each floor, lobby renovations and new retail.

“Based on the information provided to us,” wrote a HUD administrator, “our office is in support of this development plan.” HUD will require a formal request when the final plan is in place.

Council member Chin has been working closely with Two Bridges and with JDS to address community concerns regarding the project. It’s one of three-large scale developments coming to the immediate area. In a statement provided to The Lo-Down today, Chin did not mince words:

This week, in response to repeated requests for information on the senior relocation plan, a representative of Two Bridges/Settlement Housing Fund responded to my office that they didn’t ‘have anything written.’ That response, we now know, was completely untrue. Furthermore, this communication between Two Bridges/SHF and HUD shows that the development team has, on numerous occasions, deliberately misled residents about the senior relocation plan for 80 Rutgers. Today, I plan to make my opposition known to HUD, Two Bridges/SHF, and the development team, and to focus on community priorities and ways to achieve those priorities by any means necessary.

Contacted regarding the Council member’s statement, Victor Papa said a meeting has been in-the-works to detail for Chin and others a relocation work plan. Public meetings and meetings of a community task force, he said, are helping to focus the not-for-profit groups on what needs to be done to address the concerns of senior residents. The plan, he said, can’t be shared until it is complete. Papa said Two Bridges is working “carefully and deliberately” to make sure the construction of the new tower impacts the senior tenants as little as possible.

A spokesperson for Chin told us a short time ago that some written materials regarding the plan had been forwarded to the Council member’s office late today.

See below for the documents made available to us from HUD.

















More in the link...
__________________
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
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 1:39 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,589
^I still cannot believe they're incorporating a shitty, cookie cutter public housing building into the design of the base for this building. Definitely unique, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 6:10 PM
Hudson11's Avatar
Hudson11 Hudson11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
^I still cannot believe they're incorporating a shitty, cookie cutter public housing building into the design of the base for this building. Definitely unique, that's for sure.
that's a senior housing building which is already there - hence the need of relocation of the seniors. They can't live on a construction site.


photo: The Lo-Down
__________________
click here too see hunser's list of the many supertall skyscrapers of New York City!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 9:24 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Exhale solutions.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 4,492
^^^You are missing the point. The point is that it seems absurd to attempt to keep that crummy senior building and build a tower over it when it seems much more logical, sensible and reasonable to just relocate the residents to another site, knock down the stupid building, build the new tower and offer the residents units in the new building. This whole attempt to accommodate this building in the context of what is being invested is really bizarre. And no I don't think its being insensitive or cruel to coordinate the moving of the current residents temporarily and then move them back into this fantastic new building a couple years later. They should be so lucky. Its a deal normal apartment tenants don't get when a developer buys a walk-up(s) and builds a new tower.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener.

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 9:52 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is online now
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,282
Ewwwwww I can't believe they're keeping that POS for the base, that's insane. If it were an historic building that makes sense but that thing is ugly as sin. Well it's unique and probably a first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 11:54 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
^I still cannot believe they're incorporating a shitty, cookie cutter public housing building into the design of the base for this building. Definitely unique, that's for sure.
If they could, they would. But the City is covered with "inconvenient" housing developments that could otherwise be used for more upscale development, or gentrification. Luckily, developers can't just brush people out of the way in these developments. So they are making it work the best way they can. The temporary relocation of some during the construction is for the benefit of the tenants, despite what the critics say. I think all of them should be temporarily relocated, away from the noise and inconvenience.
__________________
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
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2017, 2:16 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Exhale solutions.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 4,492
^...yeah, so they can tear the building down. The relocated tenants get a reserved unit in the new highrise. Seems more than logical to me.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener.

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2017, 9:10 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
^...yeah, so they can tear the building down. The relocated tenants get a reserved unit in the new highrise. Seems more than logical to me.
Not so easy, nor should it be. You can't just ago around the city tearing down housing developments to put up new product. If that could be done, whole neighborhoods would be seeing major new construction. Entire blocks would be wiped out. The urban renewal schemes would look like child's play in comparison.



http://ny.curbed.com/2017/2/6/145239...pers-statement

Lower East Side waterfront developers won’t delay skyscrapers
Responding to community members requests, the developers of three waterfront skyscrapers say they won’t push off a scoping meeting






BY ZOE ROSENBERG
FEB 6, 2017


Quote:
The developers behind three new projects set to rise no less than 700 feet along the Lower East Side waterfront have issued a statement saying they won’t push back a scoping meeting that's part of the buildings’ joint environmental review, as neighborhood residents had requested. The decision to stick to their original schedule comes after a January 18 meeting, during which attendees expressed concern over the projects and asked to delay the scoping meeting until September—now poised poised to take place in April—in order to allow the community more time to vet the impacts of the development.

In a statement released by developers JDS, CIM Group, L+M Development Partners, and Starrett, and cited by The Lo-Down, the developers note they’re denying the request because "moving the Scoping Meeting to September will only delay the ability of community residents to access and review the kind of detailed information that they have asked for in order to evaluate the projects."

This information includes particulars pertaining to how the developers will combat overcrowding in schools and on the East Broadway F train platform caused by their developments, how future open space in the area will be utilized, and other concerns raised by the community at the first two open meetings. The meetings, of which there’ll be four, are intended to solicit feedback from and inform the community about what is, very likely, to come.

"To our knowledge, the current process is an unprecedented effort to provide community members with information regarding environmental review and providing an opportunities for input from local residents," the statement reads. It’s unusual for community members to be looped into the process leading up to the Department of City Planning’s issuance of a Draft Scope of Work.

The developers say that the community will have additional opportunities to become involved in the process—while also insinuating that it will be some time before anything actually happens at the sites:

[T]here will be many opportunities for community involvement once the EIS process begins. The preparation of a Draft EIS following Scoping will take four to six months. It will likely take several more months for the results of the Draft EIS to be reviewed, including through public hearings held by the Community Board and the City Planning Commission, and for a Final EIS to be issued.


A third community meeting will take place on Saturday, March 4, during which select Environmental Impact Statement topics will be reviewed.



http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...al-review.html

Developers in Two Bridges Area Decline Request to Push Back Environmental Review







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

Tenant Leaders in Two Bridges Area Are “Disappointed” After Bid For Delay is Rejected





Quote:
We are very disappointed by the developers decision to not extend the period of time that the community will have to discuss the impacts of these massive developments which will more than double the population of residents in the two block area affected prior to the official scoping hearing.

This additional time would have been for the community to have its own discussions to ensure we’re all sufficiently made aware of what’s being proposed. Citing the limits of the law is no consolation and does not give residents of Two Bridges any confidence that these developments will provide any additional housing that is truly affordable. There is nothing stopping developers from being specific about what affordable means, yet in two community engagement meetings they’ve failed to be specific.

There has been no real effort to address the issues raised by residents in the Two Bridges community who are adamantly opposed to these developments citing, gentrification, overcrowded subway stations, already scarce parking, excessive building heights, neighborhood character, displacement of senior citizens, etc.

We frankly disagree that it would be counterproductive to delay as this position presumes that the only discussions regarding these developments and their potential impacts would only need to involve direct engagement with the developers and their agents; we frankly need this additional time to discuss impacts within the community and with our representatives. We remain engaged and will continue to advocate for more comprehensive and inclusive engagement which allows for the fullest expression of the Two Bridge community.
__________________
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
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2017, 2:18 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
https://therealdeal.com/2017/03/21/o...rfront-towers/

Officials call on Two Bridges developers to allow more community input on waterfront towers
Developers said delaying review process is "counterproductive"






March 21, 2017
Kathryn Brenzel


Quote:
City and state officials are calling on JDS Development, Starrett Development and Two Bridges Associates to allow more time for the community to weigh in on their proposed waterfront developments in Two Bridges.

Community members stormed out of a meeting in January after the developers shot down a demand for an extended community engagement period before starting the environmental impact review process for their four planned towers.

The developers said delaying the review would be “counterproductive,” but elected officials — including Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, Councilwoman Margaret Chin, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, state Sen. Daniel Squadron and Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou — wrote a letter to the developers seeking an extension, DNAinfo reported.

“Embarking on community engagement with a community that feels rushed into making decisions on their priorities without adequate information is disingenuous,” the officials wrote. “We require time to create understanding and arrive at consensus about our community’s needs and desirable outcomes.”

The three developers plan to build massive residential towers along the waterfront, not far from where Gary Barnett is constructing One Manhattan Square.

JDS’ 247 Cherry Street would rise 77 stories, and Two Bridges Associates plans to build two towers at 260 South Street. Starrett’s 259 Clinton Street is set to rise 62 stories.
__________________
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
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2017, 11:55 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
As we near the start of the approval process, the DEIS has been released...




















Height






__________________
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
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 12:13 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
N-methyl-D-aspartate
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 19,874
An average of 850 sq/ft per unit is quite generous. At a premium of course. Thats one thing about the city, that anything over 1000 sq ft is big. You start to appreciate after seeing a shoebox thats 450 sqft. Friend of mine on UES pays $2200/month for 450 sq ft on the 2nd floor of a 6 story walkup. It's a sacrilege. But if your single, 850 sqft in Manhattan is the sweet spot. Plenty of room for a manpad.

I do envy those that win in the housing lottery. Some of the rental units are given away at absurdly low prices per month. Where talking 1200-1500 sq ft for sometimes less than $1500 a month. In Manhattan!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2017, 12:07 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 35,050
http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...dges-area.html

City Delays Environmental Review Meeting For Two Bridges Area





Quote:
The Department of City Planning today announced that it’s pushing off a public scoping meeting for the upcoming Two Bridges environmental review until May 25. It had originally been scheduled for April 27.

The environmental review is meant to study how the Lower East Side will be impacted by three large-scale residential projects along the East River. City Council member Margaret Chin and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer put out a press release heralding the delay.

The elected officials wrote a letter to the developers of the three projects March 17, asking them to support a delay. They declined, just as they had when local residents made a similar request earlier this year. Brewer and Chin then fired off a second letter to City Planning, noting that the environmental review documents were not made available in Spanish and Chinese.
There are a large number of non-English speakers within the impacted area.

“The Two Bridges community needs time to consider all of the impacts of these massive development projects – and that requires the release of information in a language that they can understand,” said Chin. “That is why I joined Borough President Brewer to fight for more time for the community to arrive at a consensus about its needs and desired outcomes. In order to achieve this goal, I will continue to fight to ensure that residents and business owners in Two Bridges are heard.”

The scoping meeting will now take place May 25 at the Manhattan Municipal Building, Mezzanine level, 1 Centre St. There are separate sessions at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. We published the “draft scope of work” last month.

On Wednesday, April 19, Community Board 3’s land use committee is scheduled to discuss its position on the draft scope of work. That meeting takes place at University Settlement, 273 Bowery at 6:30 p.m.

The projects planned in the Two Bridges area 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. A spokesperson for the developers declined to comment today. In late March, they released a statement saying, “We share the elected officials’ desire for meaningful community engagement, which is why we believe it’s important to start the scoping process and analyze the issues that have been raised. We have taken part in an unprecedented pre-development process and have gleaned important feedback from three public meetings in the neighborhood and several additional meetings with residents and community groups. We look forward to building on this as we head into the scoping hearing and the environmental review process.”

UPDATE 3:30 p.m. A few more details from a letter sent by DCP Director Marisa Lago to Council member Chin and Borough President Brewer today. The letter notes that the city is legally required to hold the hearing 30-45 days after the draft scope is released. Lago says her agency is committed to providing multi-language access to the community. The scoping notice, she said, would soon be posted in Chinese and Spanish on DCP’s website. The city has also asked the developers to provide translation services at the meeting. They have agreed.
__________________
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
     
     
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 9:55 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.