[A rendering of 3 St. Mark's Place]
Local City Councilmember Carlina Rivera yesterday joined the chorus of opposition to the air-rights transfer for the new office building planned for the northeast corner of St. Mark's Place and Third Avenue.
To date, Rivera, who holds the key vote when the proposal comes before City Council, had previously expressed concerns about the project, but hadn't gone as far as officially opposing it.
During yesterday's City Planning Commission hearing, Rivera submitted joint testimony with Assemblymember Deborah Glick and State Sen. Brad Hoylman, which read in part:
"This development would clearly be out of context with the landmarked 4 St. Mark’s Place, as well as the surrounding street scape and character. It's clear that the developers, in the wake of numerous concerns raised by neighborhood groups, Community Board 3, several members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and elected officials, have not proposed or addressed any serious 'appropriate conditions and safeguards' that the 74-79 permit states should be considered in order to 'minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area."
St. Mark's Place is the gateway to the East Village - a globally recognized center of music, art and culture. This project fell short of the community's expectations and the neighborhood it leads to.
— Carlina Rivera 利華娜 (@CarlinaRivera) March 4, 2020
That’s why I urged the City Planning Commission to reject it. https://t.co/iZjps2UZ5Z
The City Planning Commission will cast their vote at a later date as part of the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. They are expected to approve the plan to transfer air rights from 4 St. Mark's Place to the new development across the street at 3 St. Mark's Place. In issues such as this, City Council usually follows the lead of the local Councilmember.
Andrew Berman, executive director of the Village Preservation, has long been opposed to this plan. He said that he was pleased by Rivera's decision.
"We are hopeful that her statement ... will be followed by a no vote in the Council and a call to her colleagues to do the same," Berman said in an email. "We have said from the beginning that this proposal to increase the size of the planned tech office tower at the 'gateway to the East Village' is wrong, and would only serve to accelerate the spread of Midtown South and Silicon Alley to this neighborhood."
The Village Preservation and more than a dozen residents also spoke out against the plan yesterday.
[Photo yesterday via Village Preservation]
With the air-rights transfer, developer Real Estate Equities Corporation (REEC) would be allowed to build 8,386 square feet larger than the current zoning allows.
Regardless of an extra 8,000 square feet, the project will continue. Per Gothamist:
At Wednesday's public hearing, the project's architect Morris Adjmi emphasized a building of a similar height size could be built as-of-right, saying, "one could build this building without a special permit, without transferring any air rights, and it is 22 feet taller at the street wall and also more or less the same height overall."
A rep for the developers, Adam Taubman of the law firm Kramer Levin, also said at the hearing the currently vacant lot would see construction whether or not the permit is approved.
REEC picked up the 99-year leasehold for the properties here for nearly $150 million in November 2017. The corner assemblage is owned by the Gabay family.
Previously on EV Grieve:
• Demolition permits filed for northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and St. Mark's Place
• End is nearing for the businesses on the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and St. Mark's Place
• New building plans revealed for 3rd Avenue and St. Mark's Place
• Concern over potential air-rights transfer for new office building on St. Mark's Place and 3rd Avenue
21 comments:
If they actually were going to build a beautiful or interesting piece of architecture that would become a new landmark they might have less resistance. Alas, they want to build another cookie cutter ugly building with no redeeming architectural value whatsoever. Now I ask you, who would want such a building in their backyard?
Where was Carolina in her opposition for the demolition of the east river park? Hypocrite.
The building is smaller than the 2 located to the north of it... certainly not out of character
The building is smaller than the 2 to the north of it. So much for out of character. There is no reason it should not go up. Stop the obstructionism.
That office building is a hell a lot nicer looking than those hideous NYU dorms in back of it.
Yeah okay Anon. 8:03/8:27, we get it, you want this thing built. Which developer signs your paychecks? Asking for a friend.
folks are going to be in for a real surprise when the as of right building goes up without any of the architectural nods to neighborhood context
It is extremely revealing that the GVSHP came out against a building that will be A. just as tall without this air rights transfer and B. would have given money to a landmarked building for preservation.
If landmarking isn't going to be abused as a tool to prevent development writ large, it necessitates these kinds of air rights sales––but then you can't go "protecting the East Village" from air rights sales!
Say no to huge shitty office buildings in the East Village.
So even when Carlina Rivera does the right thing she still gets criticism, got it. The building would fit in on that corner if it wasn't so large, but the ugly dorm building next to it is even larger. The rounded corners and windows are a lot like the Starrett Lehigh Building in Chelsea, so I give the architects some credit for not designing another Death Star glass monstrosity. St, Marks Place has died a thousand times and somehow it has always survived;
"St. Mark's Place is the gateway to the East Village - FORMERLY a globally recognized center of music, art and culture."
There, I fixed it.
There hasn't been much creative output associated with or taking place on St. Marks for the better part of two decades, even less so with the move of Trash and Vaudeville and the closing of St Marks Comics and all of the great record stores that once dotted the block.
Misinformed people like to go on about how the city has always changed throughout history and all of that, but the multinational corporate juggernaut is not something this city or the world has ever dealt with. There really ain't no coming back from this....
@East Villager
The street itself might physically survive time and time again, but has any of the culture associated with the block survived? Do you forsee it ever again becoming a true hotbed for political, musical and artistic influence?
Me thinks not.
@12:16
it might if we built a ton of housing and lowered what it costs to rent
First off, thanks to Carlina for not caving to developers this time. I would love to know what the supporters of this building commenting here and especially it's out of zoning additional floors believe who will gain or profit from it? If some of you are trolling for the developer you are wasting your time and not fooling anyone but yourselves.
The trolls who keep saying "Wah, the other buildings nearby are bigger, wah!" are apparently too stupid to know that dormitories are built under different regulations than office buildings. Or else they think WE are too stupid to know that!
<> The "Human" is over, replaced by the "Pod People". Science shows the cell phone addict - 90% of nyers under 40 - has a brain much like a heroin addict, methhead, alcholic or other addict. They have crumbs in their heads. Science demonstrates this with brain scans. They will never be capable of human level brainstates.
@6:13
It's irrelevant whether "other buildings", i.e. NYU dorms, are built under different regulations. It's matter of aesthetics. Those dorms are as banal and offensive as ugly as fuck. This office building is like the Chateaux de Vincennes compared to those shits.
If I remember correctly the NYU Dorms were built in the Eighties one on an empty lot that had a sign saying "Flat Tire Fixed 5 Dollars".Third Ave not such a prize back then. But this is on the Ave and not oversized for the Ave considering the residential buildings lining the Ave west side. If they already secured the building permits it should be a fiat accompli.
This developer is trying to set a precedence which dictates if they throw some money toward the upkeep of a landmarked building (the Hamilton house on St Marks) then as a thank you the residents of the neighborhood should let them build beyond the neighborhoods zoning laws. This is just another scam coming from one of the most dishonest industries in the city. Nobody asked them to contribute to a privately owned Hamilton house.
Oh wow she didn’t cave this time. Thanks but seriously when is she up for re-election? Where was she went they voted on the East River? Time to go. Someone please run against her!!
100%
Post a Comment