JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
The zoning board was incredibly irresponsible for granting variances to this developer. While that property definitely needs to be developed, a 50 unit residential building that provides no parking in an already saturated area is disastrous. If Torrei couldn't figure out how to supply parking spaces- he needed to scale down the building. I agree with the poster who said that if you overpay to get variances because of your purchase- there is a problem. There are no public lots anywhere around this area for residents to even TRY to rent a space. Just where is everyone going to park? This project wreaks of the typical greedy developer that presents his project as if he is doing everyone a favor. I am amazed at the naivete of some residents that are seduced so easily by his plan. And those in the community that approve this either have a business nearby yet live in another neighborhood. Well, let's see how that goes when they realize at 7pm that they have no where to park in this neighborhood....literally nowhere. But hey, that well-designed building will look cool as they circle it multiple times in their cars hoping that a space opens up!

Screw the merits of this project and all its supporters. What about my access to free parking! I have to wonder why live in a fast growing urban city if parking is that much of a concern? It's only going to get harder and harder to find free parking spaces with each passing year and each new building with escalating variances by greedy developers. Escape for green pastures in the suburbs while you can -- personally someone said earlier that the city should just rezone. I think that's a great idea and they should remove requirements to include parking -- lets attract more car free folks that walk to the PATH train or uber.

schmearwurst wrote:
The zoning board was incredibly irresponsible for granting variances to this developer. While that property definitely needs to be developed, a 50 unit residential building that provides no parking in an already saturated area is disastrous. If Torrei couldn't figure out how to supply parking spaces- he needed to scale down the building. I agree with the poster who said that if you overpay to get variances because of your purchase- there is a problem. There are no public lots anywhere around this area for residents to even TRY to rent a space. Just where is everyone going to park? This project wreaks of the typical greedy developer that presents his project as if he is doing everyone a favor. I am amazed at the naivete of some residents that are seduced so easily by his plan. And those in the community that approve this either have a business nearby yet live in another neighborhood. Well, let's see how that goes when they realize at 7pm that they have no where to park in this neighborhood....literally nowhere. But hey, that well-designed building will look cool as they circle it multiple times in their cars hoping that a space opens up!

Erobinsonh wrote:
jrsygrl - and other Village residents who are interested - the Visioning meeting is on Thursday at 7:30pm at Studio 365, 365 Second Street (between Monmouth and Brunswick)

http://www.jcvillage.org

07310 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Every downtown zoning variance for more units should have at least four extra floors added for Section 8 housing. Moving people out from Greenville to downtown can only help those living in distressed neighborhoods. Isn't Fulop progressive enough to support that? It's what de Blasio wants to do in Manhattan, so it should be good enough for JC.

Local residents and developers would never support this. The reputation of section 8 residents is enough to keep them out.

Monroe wrote:
Every downtown zoning variance for more units should have at least four extra floors added for Section 8 housing. Moving people out from Greenville to downtown can only help those living in distressed neighborhoods. Isn't Fulop progressive enough to support that? It's what de Blasio wants to do in Manhattan, so it should be good enough for JC.

Monroe wrote:
Every downtown zoning variance for more units should have at least four extra floors added for Section 8 housing. Moving people out from Greenville to downtown can only help those living in distressed neighborhoods. Isn't Fulop progressive enough to support that? It's what de Blasio wants to do in Manhattan, so it should be good enough for JC.

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Erobinsonh wrote:
the first of likely many 8 story buildings will now go up in the Village

This sounds like hyperbole and a bit overly dramatic. One approved variance does not automatically mean many more in the future.

It might. A lot of other developers building stuff in this area want to go higher and will surely be bugging city hall for variances. If they gave a variance to this project, why not to this one, or that one? If it starts happening they should just rezone the whole damn neighborhood so people know what they're buying into.

Erobinsonh wrote:
well, the developer won - the vote was 5-2.

the first of likely many 8 story buildings will now go up in the Village

but he was able to mobilize a lot of supporters - so if that's what the Village truly wants, then fair enough

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Erobinsonh wrote:
the first of likely many 8 story buildings will now go up in the Village

This sounds like hyperbole and a bit overly dramatic. One approved variance does not automatically mean many more in the future.

Erobinsonh wrote:
the first of likely many 8 story buildings will now go up in the Village

but he was able to mobilize a lot of supporters - so if that's what the Village truly wants, then fair enough

Erobinsonh wrote:
Tonight is the night - 6:30 in the City Council chamber, second floor of City Hall, 280 Grove Street.

Whether you like the look of the building or not, whether you think the Village should stay with its current group of 3 to 5 story buildings or start building high rises - please show up! Participation matters, numbers matter.

If approved, this will change the Village forever. Make sure you had a voice in the decision!

The opinions of the community definitely have an effect on projects like this - I've been attending Board of Adjustment meetings for the last several months, and I see how thoughtfully they listen to neighborhood feedback.

Erobinsonh wrote:
I'm all for thriving local businesses - but if you add thousands of people to the tiny Village neighborhood (Ben Torrei said at a VNA meeting this winter that more than 1000 potential apartments are in some stage of development in the Village right now), then you better hope that the taxes generated are enough for the city to deal with the added infrastructure needs of these people - water, sewage, schools, parking etc.

With increased business for these local shops may inevitably come higher rents and expenses. As the streets get clogged with traffic, deliveries and supplies take longer.

I used to live in on Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village - when I moved there about a decade ago, it was filled with funky stand-alone shops: antique shops, boutiques, a grocery store, the infamous Condomania - now they are all gone and that stretch of Bleecker is all Marc Jacobs and Coach and Mulberry - you can no longer buy a carton of milk, but you have an extraordinary amount of choice if you are looking to spend at least $6000 on a handbag.

At the moment The Village is a sleepy little neighborhood, relatively quiet at night and on the weekends. And a lot of people want to keep it as an oasis in this city, a place where people feel like they are part of a small community. At the "Vision" meeting for the Village last month, the suggestion about opening another PATH station on the south side of the Village drew some strong objections from residents who like it quiet and don't want floods of people going in and out of a PATH station.

As I said in my original post - lets decide on density and height by community consensus and a change to zoning codes if need be, not by having developer after developer push the variance envelope.

By the way - Dog and Cat mentioned the banners around the lot on Newark and Brunswick, which made it look like every business in the neighborhood was embracing the project - those were taken down this morning. Apparently the logos were used without permission (though some people I talked to didn't mind the free advertising, others were mad).

bodhipooh wrote:

Yet another person looking to encase in amber the neighborhood they have only known for a few years so it stays the way THEY like it. Progress, improvements and gentrification are GREAT, until *they* get there, then it is "hands off!"

bodhipooh wrote:
Yet another person looking to encase in amber the neighborhood they have only known for a few years so it stays the way THEY like it. Progress, improvements and gentrification are GREAT, until *they* get there, then it is "hands off!"

Erobinsonh wrote:
I'm all for thriving local businesses - but if you add thousands of people to the tiny Village neighborhood (Ben Torrei said at a VNA meeting this winter that more than 1000 potential apartments are in some stage of development in the Village right now), then you better hope that the taxes generated are enough for the city to deal with the added infrastructure needs of these people - water, sewage, schools, parking etc.

With increased business for these local shops may inevitably come higher rents and expenses. As the streets get clogged with traffic, deliveries and supplies take longer.

I used to live in on Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village - when I moved there about a decade ago, it was filled with funky stand-alone shops: antique shops, boutiques, a grocery store, the infamous Condomania - now they are all gone and that stretch of Bleecker is all Marc Jacobs and Coach and Mulberry - you can no longer buy a carton of milk, but you have an extraordinary amount of choice if you are looking to spend at least $6000 on a handbag.

At the moment The Village is a sleepy little neighborhood, relatively quiet at night and on the weekends. And a lot of people want to keep it as an oasis in this city, a place where people feel like they are part of a small community. At the "Vision" meeting for the Village last month, the suggestion about opening another PATH station on the south side of the Village drew some strong objections from residents who like it quiet and don't want floods of people going in and out of a PATH station.

As I said in my original post - lets decide on density and height by community consensus and a change to zoning codes if need be, not by having developer after developer push the variance envelope.

By the way - Dog and Cat mentioned the banners around the lot on Newark and Brunswick, which made it look like every business in the neighborhood was embracing the project - those were taken down this morning. Apparently the logos were used without permission (though some people I talked to didn't mind the free advertising, others were mad).