Open Thread Wednesday 8/27/14

That mannequin at the barber freaked my daughter and I out the other morning when we came out of the bagel shop!

As you say, the regulations are such that the buildings aren’t supposed to go any higher than the promenade fences. It reminds me of the recent revelations that the Verizon Building on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge was built much larger than zoning allowed at the time. But what’s done is done and that’s probably what they’re counting on here too.

Here’s to hoping they do not put one out front of RiteAid…

The portion you see at the current height is the north building. The south building hasn’t been built yet (maybe like 1 floor so far). The building north of the Squibb pedestrian bridge consists of the hotel and the north condo building (attached to each other). The south building will be south of the pedestrian bridge and it will be about half of the height of the north condo/hotel building. See how much smaller the south building is (right side of photo)? That’s the part that is closest to the promenade.

I agree Miriam, but in addition, the building itself is hideous, marring an otherwise beautiful view of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Had dinner at Armando’s the other night. What a mistake. Haven’t been there in 2 yrs and won’t be again. Ordered the “special” soft shell crabs. What was presented was literally unidentifiable and inedible, a mess of lumpy deep fried batter. I tried to separate the batter from the crab but they were welded together. Had to send it back. Next ordered scallops, which were done nicely but took so long to arrive that my companions had finished and I was left to eat alone while they chatted. Don’t know why it took a half hour to sear 4 scallops, as there were only 3 tables occupied including ours. Why can’t Armando’s hire a chef??? It should be the go-to restaurant in the Heights. A shame.

Anyone paying attention at the outset of this development could tell that the project would obliterate the view. And if you think it’s oversize from this angle, just walk along the park edge next to the construction. Then you will really get a sense of how the neighborhood has been raped by political and corporate interests.

Yes, but isn’t the park supposed to be an improvement over what was? A worldview that believes things can’t get better isn’t very attractive.

Besides which, the Pierhouse Condos are much taller than the previous marine warehouses (except apparently for the southern half), so they will block more of the view from the Promenade than what was there before.

Of course, having any hotel or condos in a public park was a huge mistake.

The overbuilding of the park, which was said to require hotel/condos to create additional funding, should have been avoided.

But at this point, all we can do is watch to make sure that Toll Brothers doesn’t violate what was approved.

Are you looking at the same two pictures I am? They look pretty similar in height and at the very least not “much taller.” I believe the height restrictions on the buildings were meant to mimic what they were replacing.

Are you also going to claim the park isn’t an improvement over what was? We have a beautiful park entirely because an agreement was put into place to tear down buildings at the edge of the park and replace them with the hotel/condo project. There is literally no chance of the park ever getting built without the development. To pretend otherwise is just being willfully ignorant in order to support your worldview. This I know from your insistence of referring to the buildings as “in the park.”

We have gained a beautiful park with the only difference to the view from the promenade being overlooking a park rather than ugly metal warehouses. I’d say that’s a win.

Perhaps you were in great haste to reply, which could explain why you didn’t actually read what I wrote.

I wrote “the Pierhouse Condos are much taller than the previous marine warehouses (except apparently for the southern half)”.

I wasn’t comparing them to the height of the building you showed.

And you are being either willfully ignorant or are working PR for somebody if you pretend the only way a park could have been built was with funds from a hotel and condos.

As I also wrote above, I believe it was the overdevelopment of the park site that led to talk about the need for such large funds to sustain it.

The view that the park is overdeveloped with attractions (and consequently overcrowded) is a common opinion on this blog, although some differ.

There seem to be two viewpoints on what the park should have been. There is the Robert Moses viewpoint that more is better, and even better yet if it is made of concrete, and the Olmsted viewpoint of natural beauty being an important counterpoint to crowded urban living. I’m obviously in the Olmsted camp.

The park has some wonderful features, and on balance, I’m happy it is there.
But considering the excellence of the site on which it was built, that was a low bar to achieve. I think either politics or poor urban planning, or both contributed to a missed opportunity that will exist for generations. Or until it is underwater. Whichever comes first.

Are you including the Applebee’s in Ashtabula?

I did read your post, and I think it is obviously wrong. Look again at the building that was there before. There are other vies that show the size of the old buildings if you look. The National Cold Storage building was huge. It equally blocked the view from the promenade as the new development. I don’t know how this isn’t plainly obvious. You either didn’t live here before the old buildings were taken down or are choosing to live in ignorant bliss so you can bash new development.

New development isn’t the only way to build parks in this country (though, find me the last large scale municipal park project that has been built with public money), but it was for THIS park. It just wasn’t going to happen without dedicated maintenance funding. Every argument to the contrary says it shouldn’t have been that way, not that it wasn’t a reality. And it wouldn’t matter if the park was as Olmsteady (Omstadian?) as it could possibly be, it would still be a park on piers and require a massive maintenance budget. The only reasonable plan they’ve come up with (even with a re-do) is the development along the edge of the park. So I’m comfortable saying that this park doesn’t happen without the condos being built. It’s been a worthwhile trade-off, in my opinion.

I’ve lived here since 1985, and during that time took many photos from the Promenade, which showed the view over what were mostly low warehouse buildings. But regardless, I’m reserving judgement until these Toll Brother buildings are topped off. The hotel however does clearly loom uncomfortably close over what was before a quiet somewhat natural area.

As for the rest, it has been already argued ad nauseam here on this blog. I haven’t noticed you posting here before, so if you are new here, you could go back and see what I and many others have written.

Thank you for posting this, Maggie. It gives me a few more names to pursue.

The DOB has told me that dust from buildings is a DEP issue. The DEP emailed me on Thursday, confirming that there was asbestos abatement on the building, but not addressing my concerns about the unchecked airborne dust and grime that now covers all the adjacent properties. My windows and screens are caked with it so that even opening them after work hours results in the grit blowing into my apartment. While my proximity to the site may well mean that I’ve taken the biggest hit, this problem is by no means limited to me or my building.

I’ve spoken to several people familiar with NYC building regulations who confirm that what is being done is illegal, but since it cannot be seen from the street, the contractor is making his own rules. I am posting here out of desperation to get the contractor to comply with regulations.

Everything goes in cycles, including Armando’s. They have been very good, and then very bad. Now they are very bad.