Rule of thumb

You might think of me as some clueless, obsessive-compulsive, old-time New Yorker who is chronically dismayed and confused as his surroundings constantly change. That would be a mistake -- for one thing, I've only lived in the city on a regular basis for the past 15 years. For another, I'm in no way against all change and development. New York is a city that has always reinvented itself. High-rise towers have been going up for ages, taking away views and sunlight, and sometimes corrupt and negligent public officials carry the day. It's always been like that.

Here's what's different about much of the current makeover: New York is being reinvented to look like the suburbs, and much of the flavor and character of the big city is being lost.

I really have no problem with the Olive Garden, for example. The service is good, and the fare never claims to be anything more than predictable, very edible, tasty, and totally forgettable dishes vaguely inspired by Italian food. But people don't need to come to New York to go to an Olive Garden. It's a chain -- they're everywhere. If we reach a point where the nicest, most interesting restaurant in town is an Olive Garden, we've destroyed New York.

Think it can't happen? What were New York's coffee shops like before Starbucks moved in?

So here's my rule of thumb for New York's development: If it gives the city something unique, will create decent jobs that pay a fair wage, and is paid for mostly with private money, I'm for it. If it's cookie-cutter nonsense like an Ikea or a Wal-Mart, promises to create only a few minimum-wage or temporary jobs, and the principal developers are coming to me for a handout, I'm against it.

Whoever reads this blog (and there aren't many of you) should know I'm not a knee-jerk naysayer. If you hear of a development which should be getting support and sounds like it meets these criteria, let me know. You'll get some exposure for your favorite development project, and I'll have the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with not being a reactionary NIMBY. Deal?

March and rally against sweetheart deals

From Big Cities Big Boxes: A rally this afternoon against sweetheart deals. The focus here is on developer Bruce Ratner's proposed development of a Nets arena and luxury housing on the site of the Atlantic Rail Yards, to be funded with $1.5 to 2 million of taxpayer money.

Easing up on the makeover

Well, there you are. For a while I was convinced the West Side Stadium would be built anyway, but it seems the forces of change were put in check by leaders who couldn't accept the $300 million price tag for the platform alone. Michael Bloomberg seemed pretty locked into position, but of course if he really wanted the stadium he could probably have paid for the whole thing with his own money. I still wasn't keen on the location, but I would have had less of a problem with that than with a tax gift to the Jets and bonds that would have taken the city years to pay off. Maybe now that the fight is over the Mayor can stop thinking about the Olympics long enough to give our teachers a new contract.

D-day for West Side Stadium

The IOC says that New York is still in the running to do the 2012 Olympics. A vote on the West Side Stadium is expected today.

New York One picked up Gifford Miller's observation that our Stadium Mayor, who is digging in his heels in his insistence that the stadium be built in Manhattan, may actually be hurting New York's chances for the Olympics with his zero-sum approach.

"It's clear from the evaluation the mayor's obsession with a West Side stadium has seriously undermined our Olympic bid. We would be in better standing if the mayor listened to New Yorkers by moving to create a stadium the public can support."

Meanwhile it came out in Sunday's Daily News that an anti-stadium billboard sponsored by the New York Association for Better Choices couldn't find any union workers to hang it.

"Whoever hangs this sign loses their job," a member of the Metal Workers International Association Local 137 told the president of the advertising company who owns the billboard space.

Aren't you glad we have workers in this country who understand American values?

Wave of new construction hits West Side

From an article in today's New York Sun:

"A wave of construction is crashing onto the Upper West Side, bringing 12 planned or proposed developments to an 11-block stretch between 59th and 70th streets, according to the civic group Coalition for a Livable West Side."

"The new buildings include Fordham University's proposed 2.4-million-square-foot expansion along Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues and a 35-story glass tower on a one-acre parcel at 59th Street."

I don't know enough about all these proposed developments to have an opinion on whether all these projects are good or bad for the community. But here are the highlights:

1. An unpopular move by Fordham University to put up ten buildings in a "superblock" in the area between 60th and 62nd Street, to include a 60-story apartment complex. The article doesn't say this outright, but it sounds like this building would be several sizes larger than anything else in the vicinity, and would go against zoning restrictions.



2. A new facade at Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall. Community leaders appear to be a bit happier about this project, which will include wider sidewalks, a new restaurant, and a new look for the concert hall's exterior.



3. A new street, called Freedom Place South, part of Donald Trump's Riverside South development. You already know what I think of Donald Trump. But at least this development is going to include 120 studio apartments for senior citizens.



4. The former home of the American Red Cross at 66th Street at Amsterdam Avenue may soon be the home of the New York City Opera.
   

Sheldon Silver and the West Side Stadium

Although he's one of three men who will ultimately decide whether it ever gets built, New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver has remained publicly cautious about his position on the West Side Stadium. He shows no taste for Michael Bloomberg's magical thinking that the stadium will bring paradise on earth to the region, but for the most part he's taken no strong position, either because he hasn't wanted to show his hand, or because he really hasn't been sure whether a 3 billion dollar taxpayer gift to the New York Jets to develop an unwanted, unnecessary stadium on the site of the West Side Railyards is a good idea. He, along with state senate majority leader Joseph Bruno,has raised some sober questions about the financing for the stadium, but for the most part he's been quiet about his opinion of the project as a whole.

This week, though, it appears that an opinion is beginning to take shape. His delay of a crucial vote last night means that time is running out for the facility to be approved before the International Olympic Committee votes on a host city for 2012. Our starry-eyed Stadium Mayor has maintained that, without the stadium, New York's bid to host the Olympics is doomed. Sheldon Silver, Bruno, and governor George Pataki need to have the approval of the stadium wrapped up by July, when the Olympic committee meets, or New York will lose its chances.

But, even without regard to the financial hole that will be dug if the project is approved, there are lawsuits that need to be resolved before Silver will even begin to seriously consider the idea of taking a vote. The delay of a vote might be his way of expressing an opinion that the proposed project is just too costly, too rushed, and leaves New York too open to community opposition and litigation to implement right now.

SUNY: Give the UFT a chance, please

New York's teachers are criticized a lot. They get called onto the carpet every time test scores drop, or whenever violence erupts in some classroom, or when world peace fails to materialize. The teachers' standard response is that they don't have enough resources at their disposal -- an argument with some merit, given that the supreme court has ruled that New York City has not gotten their share of state funding for most of the past decade. The teachers also say they don't have enough control over their curriculum, which is increasingly oriented towards performing well on standardized tests.

I myself have never been a big fan of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), whom I see as part of the entrenched establishment which, more often than not, has fought change and accountability every step of the way, and prevented New York's public schools from becoming all they could be. But I thought it was a positive step when the UFT submitted an application to start their own charter school. It's creative, it's proactive, it's out-of-the-box thinking. But today it came out that the SUNY Board of Regents postponed a vote on whether to authorize the school. Apparently some on the board expressed concerns that union president Randi Weingarten would have too much control over the proposed school's policies, while at the same time she would not have a seat on the school's executive board. (A seat on the board would ensure accountability and prevent her from pulling the strings from behind the scenes.) Some also expressed skepticism over the whole idea of a UFT-controlled charter school, arguing that the UFT already controls most or all of the city's public schools.

The first objection might carry some weight. Over the years, Ms. Weingarten has drawn too much attention to herself and not enough towards the children which her union is supposed to serve. But the second objection is ridiculous. The UFT is proposing their own school precisely because they feel they have no control over curriculum planning and budgeting. Teachers in this city are told what to teach and how to teach it, on an almost hourly basis. It's disingenuous, at best, to ram standardized testing and other curriculum formats down teachers' throats, then say they have too much control over New York's public schools to be worthy of starting a charter school. The UFT says they can educate New York's kids if teachers are left alone to do their job. Let's take them at their word and see what they can do.

Donald Trump on architectural aesthetics

According to the New York Sun, Donald Trump calls the proposed Freedom Tower "the worst piece of architectural crap I've ever seen in my life." This from a man whose building at 40 Wall Street (where I worked for five years) features fake, inset columns with garish gold paint. A man whose idea of giving panache to a name of a building on Central Park South is by misspelling part of the park's name. Whose entire aesthetic seems to derive from a combination of the schools of minimalist, sterile design and the cheesy old-world kitsch of Prospect Hall.

What does Trump want at Ground Zero in place of the Freedom Tower?

He wants the Twin Towers back.

You heard me. He wants them put back just the way they were before September 11, 2001, with only a few security enhancements.

Where was the Don when the other movers and shakers of this city were putting together plans for the Freedom Tower? Probably putting together plans for The Apprentice, the incredibly cruel and bad reality TV show that has taken television to new lows. But just last week, when the New York Police Dept. expressed concerns about security flaws, Daniel Liebeskind's project had to go back to the architects for some redesign. So I guess the Don figures it's time to re-open the discussion of what to do with the property.

I'd like the Twin Towers back too. I'd also like to put Al-Qaeda back in the box, overturn the results of the last Presidential election, and go back to paying $1 for subway fare.

But you know, there was a long, emotional, and often heated discussion for the two years leading up to the decision to go with the Freedom Tower design. A decision was taken early on not to go back to the original design because -- not unlike our real-estate superstar -- the Towers were never very well liked. They cut West Street off from the rest of downtown, the central plaza was hard and had almost no green, and the towers' appearance was overbearing and sterile. The Don can't possibly expect, at this late juncture, that his suggestion is going to be taken seriously, which makes me think it's not about the Towers at all.

So what's this whole thing all about? It's all about Mr. Trump, of course. He's taking this opportunity to grab some media attention and re-open the whole debate again, for no good reason.

Bad architecture all over town, I can deal with. Bad TV, oh, all right. But putting the Twin Towers back and shelving the Freedom Tower? Give me a break.

Donald Trump, you're fired.

Slow on the uptick

Well that was short-lived. Redhooky reports that it's a done deal.

Chalk one up for the makeover artists. I just hope this one's a good one.

Red Hook's Clash of the Titans

The New York Sun is a thorough, readable, and moderate little newspaper that deserves way more attention and respect than that other paper. They're probably reporting more than anyone else on the ultra-rapid makeover which the Bloomberg administration is perpetrating on New York. They require a paid subscription to view articles online, so I can't link to them. But this is part of what they wrote yesterday about the Red Hook Waterfront:

As high-end residential development moves beyond Manhattan, New Yorkers are taking a fresh, even covetous, look at the waterfront, which has been inaccessible to the public for most of the city's history.

Working harbors have generally been dangerous, polluted places that protect themselves by keeping the public out. Yet as traditional maritime businesses have declined, New York's underused waterfront has become increasingly attractive for housing and parks. Are industrial retention advocates right to raise the alarm that the pressures of residential demand will drive out other uses, such as industry, manufacturing, and even necessary public services, like marine transfer stations?

Among the juicier details of the whole Red Hook phenomenon (which I've written about before) are the conversion of a warehouse on Imlay Street into luxury housing. A lawsuit brought by the Red Hook Chamber of Commerce to stop it was recently thrown out by a judge on procedural grounds.

The two most important things to consider about this case are 1) the spectacular views of Manhattan across New York Harbor, making the site potentially some of the most valuable real-estate in the region, and 2) the fact that the site is close to Brooklyn's last operating container terminal. The Bloomberg administration has been trying for a long time to ease the company out, mainly because business has been slow, and because Bloomberg apparently feels that converting the site to housing for some of New York's wealthiest professional classes would be a better use.

But Robert J. Hughes, the owner of the property where the NYPD's impoundment garage sits, and someone who has been under pressure from a city councilman to allow development of a public park on that site instead, doesn't want the upscale residents. He's learned by experience that such changes tend to bring litigious people. "If people move in next to me, they'll end up suing me."

Hughes is no lightweight. He's a partner in the Erie Basin Marine Associates, a group of two families who have owned and operated ships in and around the harbor since before my great-great grandfather jumped ship and settled illegally on Van Brunt Street in 1861.

It's hard to take sides when the conflict is between old, established and possibly Jurassic business interests and well-heeled luxury housing developers with a lot of money and political muscle. But New York certainly doesn't need any more luxury condominiums, and before we just go full speed ahead with development, there should be a long debate on just how the public will most benefit from some of the most under-utilized real estate in the world.

Read about the wanton destruction of South Brooklyn's historic waterfront:

City Leader Says Ikea is Racially Divisive

Participate in a discussion about Red Hook's transformation.

Red Hook's Leaky Bubble

Blogging the Big Apple's destruction

I didn't want to set up a new blog. I'm already taking up too much time keeping up to date on my existing blog. Broken Bread is my forum to talk about single parenting, faith, and politics, with the occasional foray into changes in the housing and real estate landscape in the city that's been my home for fifteen years.

But mayor Michael Bloomberg has forced me to do things a little differently. His makeover is happening at such a rapid pace that it's going to take a little more than a posting or two every few months to track them all. Between the Brooklyn waterfront, the West Side Stadium, Coney Island, Times Square, the whole city is going to look completely different within 5-10 years.

Check back here soon for updates!