As previously reported, Kinsmen Property Group bought the buildings over the past two years through the entity 62-64 Third Ave., paying more than $60 million for the parcel.
According to Straus News, which publishes several local weekly newspapers and associated websites, including Our Town — Eastsider, a spokesperson for the Department of Buildings said "that outstanding objections" have interrupted the developer's plans.
Further study of the objections indicates issues with the "phased demolition sequence," specified as "a clear and detailed demolition sequence in narrative and illustrated on the plans. All phases shall be designated by a number or letter to clearly depict the required sequence of the work." Other requirements such as pedestrian protections, debris removal plans, and the "context" of the demolition vis-à-vis adjoining buildings are also seemingly being objected to as inadequate.Inadequate, in this case, reportedly means nowhere to be found. Essentially, as the DOB spokesperson put it, Kinsmen was "missing a lot of the required drawings for the proposed demolitions."
It is not publicly known what Kinsmen has planned for this west side of the block, a development that will not include 48 Third Ave., the 4-story building owned by Isfahany Realty Corp. on the northwest corner at 10th Street with Healthy Greens Gourmet in the retail space.
Meanwhile, Village Preservation continues campaigning for landmark designation for their proposed South of Union Square Historic District. Find more details at this link.
9 comments:
I wonder what % of the people behind Village Preservation own property in the village? Ensuring buildings like this don't get turned into more housing only serves to limit housing stock and increase prices.
What I find baffling is that Kinsmen Property Group "'forgot" to come up with the drawings for the demolition. I know that the city has a myriad of bureaucratic regulations and red tape, but this requirement appears to be standard operating protocol, thereby making Kinsmen look inept, deceitful or who knows what.
I may be wrong, but that's my initial read of it.
Neighbor at 6:42 aka real estate industry shill: Above the ground floor those buildings were housing stock. They probably served the neighborhood far better than the undoubtedly standard glass block, extremely basic "luxury" housing that will supplant them.
@9:09 -"served the neighborhood far better." Sure, because 100 years of lead paint, asbestos used as insulation, rusty pipes, cloth covered electrical wiring, deflected floors and stairs, termites, roaches, mice, black mold and god knows what else make for the most delightful of accommodations.
Criticize modern construction all you want, but do you think Village Preservation's litigious landmarking of everything contributes to affordability? Of course it does not. It makes whatever gets tied up in it 3x as expensive to maintain. Which means that it should be used judiciously for things that are actual landmarks and historically significant buildings, not to lock in a row of buildings (empty and decrepit) to prevent an uglier-but-more-dense building from replacing them.
I sorta don't care what the rationale is anymore, no one low-income was moving into Third Avenue in that area anyway & the East Village has a huge historic district that is much more significant architecturally. They've got nothing. Don't defend them. Bunch of bored lawyers who never seem to like anyone else moving in.
This level of paperwork incompetence is NOT promising.
@Neighbor. Enough with the trickle down economics, it didn't work and never will and certainly not in the housing market. The housing affordability crisis in this City is not simply about supply and demand. If you think adding more lux housing is going to solve the problem you know nothing about the housing. As a developer of affordable and supportive housing I can't tell you the number of properties we have lost out on because some large corporation with international investors snatched it up for condos. The free market system has run amok and housing is a commodity not a necessity in in our current system.
False dichotomy favored by developers: housing vs. historic preservation.
9:56 AM. My East Village apartment which is in a charming building circa 1890 has none of the awful characteristics you describe. It has been well maintained as have so many other similar buildings in the neighborhood.
You must have recently arrived from the white-bubble suburbs and brought with you a erroneous idea of our neighborhood. I think you might be more comfortable in Murray Hill.
Post a Comment