Friday, August 19, 2016

Rally to protest East 11th Street demolition on Monday



As we first reported on Aug. 8, the Lighthouse Group filed permits with the city to demolish five buildings — 112 to 120 E. 11th St. — that will yield to a 300-room hotel for Marriott's Moxy brand.

On Monday, the Greenwich Village Society For Historic Preservation is hosting a rally/protest in front of the buildings between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue.

Here are details via the EVG inbox...

Are you as angry as we are that the City is allowing five "landmark-eligible" 19th century buildings at 112-120 East 11th Street, which formerly contained long-term tenants and affordable housing, to be demolished to make way for a 300-room hotel geared towards globe-trotting millennials?

Are you as appalled as we are at the hypocrisy of the administration for refusing to save these buildings, which are being developed by a donor to and political appointee of the Mayor?

Are you disgusted by what this will mean for this block and this neighborhood?

Then join us on Monday, August 22 at 12:30 in front of 112-120 East 11th Street (3rd/4th Avenues) to protest the development and the City’s negligence and hypocrisy...

The Lightstone Group paid Pan Am Equities $127 million for the portfolio.

In July 2015, Mayor de Blasio appointed Lightstone Chairman and CEO David Lichtenstein to the New York City Economic Development Corporation’s Board of Directors. According to the Post, when de Blasio was public advocate, "he supported Lightstone's controversial plan for a massive, 700-apartment complex along the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn."

Previously on EV Grieve:
6-building complex on East 10th Street and East 11th Street sells for $127 million

Report: 300-room hotel planned for East 11th Street

Preservationists say city ignored pitch to designate part of 11th Street as a historic district

Permits filed to demolish 5 buildings on 11th Street to make way for new hotel (58 comments)

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

DeBlasio is such a total, utter piece of shit.

'Sad thing is he'll be re-elected because voter turnout for mayor of NYC is pathetic.

Even sadder is I can't think of one rich progressive liberal DEMOCRAT who is against luxury development and would run for mayor on his or her own dime.

Donnie Moder said...

Could we do this on the weekend?

Jessica Cox said...

We need a lawyer to stop this and protest outside the mayors home

Jill W. said...

I have really tried for a long time to give de Blasio the benefit of the doubt. This whole episode is making very hard to keep up the mental gymnastics. WTF Bill?

Anonymous said...

Terrible news. This will permanently damage the character of the East Village, both the look and architecture and the atmosphere of the neighborhood -- both of which are two of the the main things that make it a distinct and lovely place (as opposed to the ever-spreading generic, soullessness of Midtown). Shame on the politicians who ushered this through. Can the protest be on a weekend or at least a weekday evening? And is this a done deal now or is there any conceivable way we could reverse this decision? This is my first time commenting. Couldn't stay silent on this one. This is the biggest and worst infrastructural change in the E.V. in the past/next 5-10 years. What other infrastructural changes even come close to this one?

Anonymous said...

Terrible news. This will permanently damage the character of the East Village, both the look and architecture and the atmosphere of the neighborhood -- both of which are two of the the main things that make it a distinct and lovely place (as opposed to the ever-spreading generic, soullessness of Midtown). Shame on the politicians who ushered this through. Can the protest be on a weekend or at least a weekday evening? And is this a done deal now or is there any conceivable way we could reverse this decision? This is my first time commenting. Couldn't stay silent on this one. This is the biggest and worst infrastructural change in the E.V. in the past/next 5-10 years. What other infrastructural changes even come close to this one?

Anonymous said...

I've said it before but I'm afraid I have to say it again. If an individual or a business or corporation is so interested in the so-called 'charm' or attraction of the East Village WHY do they insist on knocking sh*t down and putting up buildings that visually have nothing to do with the surrounding environment. The landscape of this part of town, or really any part of the city is a visual extension of the history of the neighborhood. If it's so amazing that you have to set up shop here... leave it AS IS. Demolishing buildings doesn't do anything but subtract from the history and character of the neighborhood To be fair, I don't know what these new buildings will look like but if current events are any indication...

Mike the Laborer said...

On what grounds? "landmark-eligible" means only that the buildings are old enough to be considered, not that they have any architectural or historic significance. "which formerly contained long-term tenants and affordable housing" means the buildings are now vacant, so tenants rights don't come into play. I agree that deBlasio, a so-called progressive, is at the beck and call of the real estate industry, but unless this project is non-conforming, meaning it needs some sort of zoning change, then it's as-of-right, and neither our lousy mayor, nor our fine Councilwoman, could do anything about it.

Anonymous said...

Could this be done after 6 pm? Most people work during the day.

cmarrtyy said...

There are vague legal grounds that a good lawyer could exploit to delay the hotel. But like NYU Marriott has the resources to bankrupt their opponents and win. As for our mayor, council and assembly people, they may not have the law on their side but they can do the right thing for the EV and block the sale or throw up so many roadblocks that Marriott backs off. An alternate location is one solution. But that would be asking a lot. Imagine our politicians doing the right thing. I know, I know... beyond the realm of thought... But still... Let's show up anyway....

Anonymous said...

The character of the East Village is long gone....

Gojira said...

"Do the right thing"? Good joke, cmarrtyy, good joke, had no idea you were a professional comic. As for our dear "mayor, council and assembly people", as soon expect them to single-handedly take on a rabid Kodiak bear as stand up for the little people, since we lack access to the vast sums of money developers and other scum-suckers have that they dispense to suitable elected officials to fund their re-election campaigns; anyone who defies them would probably not get a penny, and that's all that really matters to our oh-so-brave representatives.

Anonymous said...

I guess private ownership of property should be banned. Laying out 127 million for some old turn of the century buildings and wanting to develop the property within the guidelines and regulations that are on the books should not happen according to the Havana on the Hudson gang. I do not see a request for a variance here by the developers so where's the beef? It's a hotel it will employee people Guest may spend money in local establishments. Unlikely students will stay here most likely their out of town parents coming to visit for a weekend will. I think the real issue is the Airbnb crowd you know the one's with the low rent stabilized apartments renting them out weekends so the low rent is even lower or free with a few bucks made on top.

Anonymous said...

Give it a rest with your "Havana On The Hudson" nonsense.

The Landmarks Comission is the reason why beautiful old buildings aren't replaced with Container Store and Lego Era buildings which uglify the city.

Manhattan is turning into Dubai On The Hudson.

Anonymous said...

There is a big difference between landmark eligible and land marked. My sixty year old Aunt Tootsie is marriage eligible but its not going to happen as well.The zoning law changes a few years back preserve the size and bulk perspective of the village and retention of every 1900-1910 five story walk up is not the best interest of both worlds. I like new buildings with fire sprinkler systems and fire resisted stairwells. What is ugly and what is beautiful comes out over time in the 1950's many thought the Modern style Seagram's building was ugly and out of place today many would take exception to that. Cities that are dynamic stay alive. Manhattan with all its centuries of building is not endangered of becoming Dubai even when a handful want to stick their collective heads in the sand and interfere with someone else dreams and plans but no real skin in the game themselves other than I live here and do not like yours.

Anonymous said...

You win the sexist analogy wars, 12:36 a.m. Congratulations.

Anonymous said...

This whole situation makes me want to vomit. These buildings represent (to me at least) the aesthetic of the EV - low-lying individualistic yet cohesive buildings with classic 18th-19th century details. Why in the world would someone want to knock them down is beyond me, except for sheer laziness and greed on the part of Marriott.