Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

George4Mayor86 t1_isgmedx wrote

Imagine living in Manhattan as someone who hates skyscrapers. It would be like hating snow and moving to Greenland.

137

GVas22 t1_ishjv9o wrote

It's not even like they're tearing down a historic building. They want to build more housing where there's a fucking parking lot.

78

cdavidg4 t1_ishv1q5 wrote

But it's been there for a long time. So it's a HISTORIC parking lot. Cornerstone of the neighborhood.

37

acheampong14 t1_iskfpnp wrote

The heart of the issue— and the source of the opposition—is that directly across from the parking lot is the hideous HIGH-RISE complex Southbridge Towers. Several years ago, it’s greedy residents successfully voted to overturn their affordable Mitchell Lama designation so they could sell their government subsidized apartments at market rate prices. This new tower at 250 Water will substantially obstruct East River and Brooklyn Bridge views from all east-facing units, greatly reducing their values.

In NYC, the historic preservation movement has been mostly hijacked by self-centered residents who simply want to maintain their property values. Very little is actually about preserving significant architecture/history. It’s no coincidence that the vast majority of historic districts are in wealthy residential areas.

10

ctindel t1_ismr9tk wrote

As if being an old building is enough reason to not tear it down and build a newer, more efficient and likely bigger one.

Fuck these stupid rules, no building sacred just tear it down and build new shit like the city has done for hundreds of years.

1

elizabeth-cooper t1_isi5tbw wrote

Did you read the article? The Landmarks people denied building on that site for almost 40 years, then approved a builder who donated $40 million to the Seaport Museum.

Sounds corrupt as hell. Amazing how this sub suddenly approves of corruption.

−13

olli_bombastico t1_isiqa54 wrote

That's not corruption - that's contributing to the community you're trying to buid in. Other contributions include resilient infrastructure and capital improvements at Titanic Park and investment in expansion of maritime uses at Pier 17. It's a common practice in construction to please and get permission of local old NIMBYist fucks.

If anything the corrupt side is the commission and the locals.

20

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_isjapjd wrote

It was a quid pro quo. That is the definition of corruption. Ends justifying the means is never ok

−8

[deleted] t1_isjdgbx wrote

All building in New York is quid pro quo. They made 8 Spruce Street (Gehry Building) build a school in the first 5 floors of the building.

7

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_isjdri5 wrote

A school is a clear benefit for the community. $40M for a relatively small museum is just a bribe. Their entire annual budget is $4M

It's amazing the corruption people try to justify when it's for "their team".

−5

olli_bombastico t1_isk3f8o wrote

The museum was about to go under, it sold it's right to build to the developer, and is receiving the money as long as the plan gets approved. The city also pledged 10 million to the museum. Also, why are you conveniently ignoring the other pledges to the park and resilience infrastructure?

>Preservationists say the tower would block views of the Brooklyn Bridge and disrupt the character of an 11-block historic district in Lower Manhattan

source

Now let's see where this site is. Map.

Now tell me how this site is blocking views of the two blocks of low rises in front of it and "ruining" the characteristic of the site.

I am curious how many members of this preservationist group also owns real estate in the Southbridge Towers happened to be across the street from the parking lot.

5

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_isk4oqw wrote

Why are you conveniently ignoring a $40m "donation" to a failing museums that no one has any interest in. And the people fighting on environmental grounds are largely parents of children in the two schools whose children are being exposed to noxious fumes from a rushed brown site cleanup. So I frankly don't care what some preservationist group wants.

Ps - i know you need maps to identify the space. I don't. People should comment on things they have real knowledge of instead of doing Google gymnastics for fake internet "wins".

−2

Rottimer t1_ishacme wrote

I imagine that a good number of those people live in surrounding skyscrapers and are more concerned with losing their view which will also reduce the value of their homes. I doubt they care at all about the historic area of the seaport.

34

bkornblith t1_isiw2lq wrote

I live in the seaport area and I can guarantee you that no one here gives a damn about literally anything else other than their own bank account balance and ensuring that when they wake up, there are the minimum number of people walking around this neighborhood.

They would all describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative but all that translates to is fucking over anyone who wasn’t born wealthy.

15

SleepyHobo t1_isikfgw wrote

Guarantee you this is it. Pure NIMBYSM at its core. More affordable housing is a good thing.

9

brotie t1_isxrlkl wrote

For what it’s worth, I’m not necessarily on their side and in general I support all additions to our housing stock but this isn’t as cut and dry as “we hate skyscrapers and this blocks my view” - the location is an EPA Brownfields site that has not been fully remediated and surrounding schools have to keep all windows sealed to avoid toxic mercury exposure. There also appears to be some degree of credibility to the quid pro quo claim given the developer tossed $40mm at a city project nearby. Seems like the courts were where this was headed one way or another.

1

muderphudder t1_ishxuh9 wrote

My brother in christ, you live in lower manhattan.

23

joelekane t1_isiuqxe wrote

Interesting. It’s a former chemical factory now a parking lot. It’s being cleaned up as a part of the Brownfield Program and they are complaining about the VOC mitigation not being up to snuff. Might be true—but they also want to halt development, which will stall completely remediation, prolong vapor exposure and importantly—keep the Site an environmentally contaminated one.

Maybe I’m biased since cleaning up these Sites is what I do for a living—but the complaints made about the environmental cleanup feel a bit disingenuous and put forward with alterior motives.

23

Physical_Language144 t1_isjpro3 wrote

There are also 2 elementary schools facing the site. Not sure if this was raised in the complaint, but at least at one of the schools they are unable to open the windows in an attempt to minimize exposure - I think complaints about making sure the site is as safe as possible is fair in this instance, while attempts to block the development entirely are futile.

7

joelekane t1_isjscgu wrote

Understood.

Just to be clear, as a part of redevelopment under the Brownfield Program the Site is required to develop an environmental remediation plan with review/approval and oversight from both the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of Health. This includes the Community Air Monitoring Plan which institutes the continuous air quality monitoring requirements for the Site. Additionally, the Brownfield program requires periods of community review and comment on all these workplans. They send out notices to all neighbors, community boards, schools, elected officials in the area and send them notification that these plans are up for review.

All this is not in defense of the remediation quality at this Site or dismissing their complaints—but rather to say, this is not being done completely in the dark. There is mandatory government oversight of key agencies and community involvement in this process.

3

[deleted] t1_isjg83o wrote

[deleted]

2

joelekane t1_isjp7yr wrote

100%. Langan is like a report mill.

I don’t have enough info to say whether there is negligence on the part of Langan in this instance. Temporary work shutdowns from CAMP happen on jobs. Which it sounds like you know. Especially when you are working with potential mercury vapor—which is a lot higher stakes than typical CAMP monitoring analyses. I haven’t read the RAWP but I assume the threshold levels are very low.

2

[deleted] t1_isku9d5 wrote

[deleted]

1

joelekane t1_isl5lok wrote

Agreed. But to be clear—the project was shut down for one day for CAMP issues. This long term shutdown is unrelated.

1

Imagine357 t1_ishyt1s wrote

People just want their views and associated property value.

20

chillwellcfc1900 t1_isik2hu wrote

There’s literally super tall apartment buildings a block away from this site. It’s going to happen, it’s inevitable

17

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_isjasbi wrote

The issue is it’s a brown site full of embedded mercury. And there are two large schools on the block. Slowing the development to ensure safety is the prudent thing to do.

5

[deleted] t1_isjcx2y wrote

dear developer: put an Amazon distribution center there

2

kjuneja t1_isk76ox wrote

Southbridge Towers is a blight and needs to be demolished. And so does this parking lot.

Only high density construction should be allowed in downtown going forward

2