NEW YORK | UN Building | 546 FT | 36 FLOORS [Archive]

NYguy

Apr 2, 2007, 6:55 PM

NY Times

At a Longstanding Playground, Yet Another Plan to End the Games

By ALEX MINDLIN
April 1, 2007

The undistinguished little playground at First Avenue and 42nd Street, just south of the United Nations, has been tempting developers for years. Though it is called Robert Moses Playground, it is not much of a tribute to the master builder: a windswept 1.3-acre patch of painted asphalt, used by children, dog walkers and a roller hockey league.

In 1981, Harry Helmsley tried and failed to acquire the playground from the city to construct a 50-story glass tower. And in 2002, Mayor Bloomberg began pushing a plan to build a United Nations office building on part of the site. The State Legislature rejected that proposal in 2005.

Now the playground is back in play. Staff members from the office of Daniel Doctoroff, the city’s deputy mayor for economic development, have met with most of the legislators representing the neighborhood over the last two months, pitching a plan for a 35-story tower that would consolidate United Nations offices now housed in widely scattered city-owned buildings.
Because it involves taking parkland, the plan would require approval in the Legislature.

Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said that residents would be compensated for the park’s loss by a planned esplanade and bike path along the East River. “The esplanade park would be more than three times the size of Robert Moses,” she said in an e-mail message.

But the playground is 66 years old, and many neighbors say the esplanade is no substitute for this longstanding neighborhood institution. “What they’re proposing is park space for jogging or biking, or for people to sit on a bench and look at the river,” said Brian Kavanagh, the local state assemblyman. “That’s no replacement for a playground that’s used for active sports and kids running around.”

The playground’s most faithful constituency is the East End Hockey League, a roller hockey league that plays five games a weekend there and has used the playground since 1972, often lobbying fiercely for its preservation. Jack Collins, the group’s longtime president, generally plays goalie or defense, a position that strikes him as apt. “There’s a lot of defense going on these days,” he said.

Mr. Collins was skeptical about the group’s chances of finding a replacement space, in one of the city’s least green community districts. “I don’t see where there’s an alternative,” he said. “This is a modest space, but it’s someplace where you can use your imagination and make the most of a little playground.”

ALEX MINDLIN

NYguy

Apr 2, 2007, 10:06 PM

The playground, (right side)

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/29710281/large.jpg

Overhead view...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/36661265/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/36661265/large.jpg

NYguy

Apr 3, 2007, 11:28 AM

Once again, politics enters the fray...

(NY Sun)

Lawmakers Vowing To Block United Nations Building Effort

By GRACE RAUH
April 3, 2007

Elected officials are vowing to fight any proposal by the Bloomberg administration to erect a United Nations office tower at Robert Moses Park on 42nd Street, and say they would do everything in their power to stop such a plan from winning approval in Albany if were to come before the Legislature.

The most strenuous opposition is from members of the Legislature and City Council who mounted a vocal campaign against a previous plan to build an office tower on the property. The proposal required legislative approval, which it failed to receive in 2005.

The officials say they oppose any plan to help the United Nations, which they describe as an antidemocratic, anti-American, and anti-Israeli organization.

"When the holiday is over in the next 10 days, I and others will mount the same kind of campaign as we did before," an Assemblyman, Dov Hikind of Brooklyn, said yesterday, referring to the fight against the previous building plan. He said he thinks any future plan to build a U.N. office tower on the property would fail again in Albany.

"I don't know of anyone who feels differently from a year ago or two years ago," he said. "As far as I am concerned, anything with the United Nations turns my stomach."

A spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, John Gallagher, said in an e-mailed statement the administration is working with the United Nations to provide a range of expansion options, however, no decision is imminent. In the past, Mr. Bloomberg has said having the United Nations in New York is important for the city's economy.

Council Member Daniel Garodnick said that when he met with representatives from the office of Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff a few weeks ago, the city officials discussed their desire to revisit using Robert Moses Park as space for the United Nations.

For Mr. Garodnick's constituents, the issue of greatest concern regarding any possible development is the limited amount of open park space in his district, he said.

"Protecting the parkland that we have in an area that is starved for it is very important," he said. "Nobody will tolerate simply losing a park."

Previously, the United Nations had indicated it needed extra offices to be used as "swing space" during its renovation. Although that need has been met through other arrangements, the entity still is interested in an office building to consolidate employees scattered in rental space around the city, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corporation, Janel Patterson said.

A council member who counts himself among those opposed to the presence of the United Nations in New York, Simcha Felder, said it would be a mistake for the city to help it in any way.

"Arguments have been made about the economic benefits that this city has when it comes to housing the United Nations and I would never debate that," Mr. Felder said. "But the economic benefits of having an entity that's evil? It doesn't matter how much money the city makes on it. It shouldn't be here."

tdawg

Apr 3, 2007, 1:52 PM

I never realized there was such opposition to the UN here. Maybe it is time they moved to Europe or some other more welcoming environment.

NYC2ATX

Apr 4, 2007, 4:48 AM

I never realized there was such opposition to the UN here. Maybe it is time they moved to Europe or some other more welcoming environment.

oh snap....Bloomberg's gonna bite your head off for that one.

NIMBYs (and "elected officials") are pains in my ass

LETS SEE A REN-DER-RINGGG!! :notacrook:

Jularc

Apr 4, 2007, 5:24 AM

This is a proposal by http://www.krjda.com

http://www.pbase.com/image/65645795.jpg

BigKidD

Apr 4, 2007, 5:31 AM

I never realized there was such opposition to the UN here. Maybe it is time they moved to Europe or some other more welcoming environment.
The kids do need a playground though. ;)

antinimby

Apr 4, 2007, 6:59 AM

True New York kids don't play in those sissy playgrounds. They played in the streets. ;)

NYguy

Apr 4, 2007, 12:00 PM

True New York kids don't play in those sissy playgrounds. They played in the streets. ;)

I'm sure people probably do use that park, but I've never seen a single person in it. Not even homeless. But I'm not over there all the time.

Still:

Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said that residents would be compensated for the park’s loss by a planned esplanade and bike path along the East River. “The esplanade park would be more than three times the size of Robert Moses,” she said

NYguy

Apr 4, 2007, 12:01 PM

This is a proposal by http://www.krjda.com

http://www.pbase.com/image/65645795.jpg

Is that the Maki version? I remember it being about 500 ft.

CoolCzech

Apr 4, 2007, 12:03 PM

“The esplanade park would be more than three times the size of Robert Moses,” she said.

And let me tell you... Robert Moses was a pretty big man in this town... he'd a been a big man in ANY town! :haha:

NYguy

Apr 4, 2007, 12:04 PM

True New York kids don't play in those sissy playgrounds. They played in the streets. ;)

There's a real park a couple of blocks away, and most of those residential towers, even the newer ones have their own private spaces anyway.

Antares41

Apr 4, 2007, 1:08 PM

The Bush Adminstration will do everything it can to delay this construction until it get the type of reforms it wants from the UN. The political games influencing this project will be intense both on the local, state and national level.

GFSNYC

Apr 4, 2007, 1:31 PM

There are plenty of companies in New York that can be considered antidemocratic, anti-American, and anti-Israeli; it is a damn shame the council is letting irrelevant political views get in the way of their primary job, public service on behalf of the city. If they've got a problem with the UN they can take it up with Washington. I doubt Bush will really care if the UN has an office building in NYC, most Washington Republicans loathe New York, no matter how conservative our elected officials can be.

On the surface, the UN has always been getting a free ride (and dammit free parking!) from NYC, but they offer a great deal of benefits that are very hard to quantify, including self proclamation of the World's Capital. I know that park well and I can say very few kids ever venture to that park; sports leagues are always fun and often hurting for space, give the hockey players 200ft by 85ft of pavement and everything will be o.k. ;)

hoosier

Apr 5, 2007, 2:16 AM

NYguy

Apr 5, 2007, 11:36 AM

There are plenty of companies in New York that can be considered antidemocratic, anti-American, and anti-Israeli; it is a damn shame the council is letting irrelevant political views get in the way of their primary job, public service on behalf of the city. If they've got a problem with the UN they can take it up with Washington.

These politicians just want to sound tough, and pander to whatever base they believe they have. It's easy and popular the criticize the UN, but saying they should be kicked out of the City is ridiculous. If we go down that route, there's a whole list of companies waiting to be shown the door. That's not the kind of message the City should be sending anyway, which is why Bloomberg is doing everything he can to counter it.

CoolCzech

Apr 5, 2007, 10:49 PM

The proposed tower looks almost like the UN building itself, a 50 year old structure! Couldn't they have come up with something more original?

Dolemite

Apr 5, 2007, 11:18 PM

CoolCzech

Apr 5, 2007, 11:25 PM

BigKidD

Apr 5, 2007, 11:39 PM

Fuck those right-wing assholes that deride the UN for having the strength to criticize Israeli policy.

The "reforms" the Bush administration wants for the UN are just to make the organization even more of a lapdog to U.S. foreign policy, which is anathema to the UN Charter since it is beligerent and warmongering.

After the Iraq fiasco revealed that the UN was right all along and that Iraq did not have WMDs and the inspections were working, what ground does the Bush administration and its zionist lackeys have to stand on.

By opposing a UN expansion, these dickheads are hurting MILLIONS of people worldwide who benefit from the services the UN provides.
The UN is the lapdog of everybody. The French and Russians in the "Security Council" for one. It is far from a collective security organization that represents the world with just 5 nation-states representing the world's security. Also, every country has its own interests. Do you love the French because they resisted "Bush's war," but actually many French companies had business deals with Saddam's government and if that government was removed, then there goes the deals and money to the French.

Also, there have been many atrocities in the world post-cold war that the UN did not do much about nor did Kofi Annan want to get involved with. Of course this all falls to the nation-states that control this organization. And if a country does not want to send its troops to Africa or any other place, then nothing will happen.

CoolCzech

Apr 5, 2007, 11:45 PM

So does anybody have any feelings about the actual construction proposal?

Matty

Apr 6, 2007, 12:04 AM

Why is the UN thinking in terms of only 35 floors? You'd think they'd have the foresight to anticipate that 2 or 3 decades from now they'll have to go thru all this all over again... why not put up 50 or 60 stories?

Money?

I think they should be allowed to just turn that area, instead of into two buildings, into some sort of inter-connected complex. Why have so many separate buildings?

NYguy

Apr 6, 2007, 12:53 PM

Why is the UN thinking in terms of only 35 floors? You'd think they'd have the foresight to anticipate that 2 or 3 decades from now they'll have to go thru all this all over again... why not put up 50 or 60 stories?

Don't know what the zoning is for that site, but cost is also an issue. Also, don't forget that immediately south of the site is where all the fuss over the Con Ed development took place. And as you recall, the community reaction there was over the towers being taller than the UN. They don't want anything taller than the UN built there.

NYguy

Apr 6, 2007, 12:55 PM

The 42nd street canyon would stretch from river to river...

http://www.pbase.com/image/65645795.jpg

NYguy

Apr 12, 2007, 11:45 AM

NY Sun

Mayor Steps Up Pressure for U.N. Tower

By ANNIE KARNI
April 12, 2007

The Bloomberg administration is stepping up its efforts to erect a 35-floor U.N. office tower on Robert Moses Playground, but the community, which says it is starved for open space, is putting up a fight over the 1.3-acre concrete square.

Earlier this week, city officials presented a new plan at a community board meeting that would create a new ball field, jutting out over the East River around 38th Street, to host the roller hockey leagues and other activities that would be affected by the development.

Initially, local residents and elected officials said a planned waterfront esplanade to be built by the city, which would be almost three times larger than the current park space, would not be a viable land swap for the 66-year-old asphalt park. They said it would not provide recreation space for the sports leagues that currently call the small playground home.

"If we lose Robert Moses, there will be only one ball field in the area," the chairman of Community Board 6, Lyle Frank, said in an interview yesterday.

The city's new proposal, however, gained more traction with the community Tuesday night. Details of the plan have yet to be fully hashed out, but Mr. Frank said the Parks Department agreed to present the community board with renderings of the substitute ballpark soon. A spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, John Gallagher, said "the administration agrees with the community regarding the need for open space in the area," and that Mr. Bloomberg would be working toward "a plan that works for everyone."

Even if the new development plan wins community support, it could meet resistance at the state level. "The U.N. keeps themselves locked up in that little tower of theirs with no transparency or accountability," a state senator, Martin Golden, said in an interview yesterday. "As long as that's going to persist, there's no reason for the state to do anything for them."

Any plan that involves a loss of city parkland requires the Legislature's approval.

Yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg met with the new secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, at the United Nation headquarters at Turtle Bay, but the subject of the new tower was not discussed, according to an undersecretary-general, Alicia Barcena.

Mr. Bloomberg's first push to build a United Nations building on the playground site was killed by the Legislature in 2005. Developing the park space is back on the table now, as Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff seeks to build an office tower that would consolidate United Nations offices that are scattered throughout the city, for which many diplomatic tenants pay below-market rates.

The local City Council member, Daniel Gardonick, and other elected officials who represent the Upper East Side last week penned a letter to Mr. Doctoroff, expressing their view that any discussion of developing a United Nations office tower had to take place in the context of a larger redevelopment plan, and include the pending rezoning of the site of the former Con Edison Waterside plant for residential and commercial use, and the renovation of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Drive, including plans to move a ramp 20 feet west to open up waterfront park space in one of the densest neighborhoods in town.

Tuesday night's meeting, which drew more than 70 community members, as well as state senator, Liz Kreuger, and Mr. Doctoroff's chief of staff, Mark Ricks, marked the first time that city officials said they would tackle the various development projects in the area as pieces of a comprehensive development plan for the neighborhood, rather than as individual projects.

"There's new opportunity for collaboration between the community and the city," Mr. Gardonick, said.

The open space that has riled up the community is a nondescript concrete square at 42nd Street and First Avenue. But in a dense part of town that has only 26-acres of open space across almost 180 city blocks, elected officials say that every small park is vital to the neighborhood. "To take an existing park from this neighborhood before providing equal or better green space would be a serious blow to the community," Rep. Caroline Maloney said via e-mail.

"The community was happy that for the first time, the city was saying they want to address all the various development projects comprehensively, rather than piecemeal," a spokeswoman Ms. Krueger, Sarra Hale-Stern, said.

Scruffy

Apr 13, 2007, 6:20 AM

NYguy

Apr 13, 2007, 11:56 AM

they should go for my plan. Build a bigger playground and park, not much bigger, but enough so that you claim its bigger. And build it onto a pier over the east river half a block away from the current park. The only issue I see is making a safe, well lit crossing of the FDR either over or under and you have that space to build the new tower.

Sounds like the current City plan:

Earlier this week, city officials presented a new plan at a community board meeting that would create a new ball field, jutting out over the East River around 38th Street, to host the roller hockey leagues and other activities that would be affected by the development.

I'm sure someone will find a reasone to bitch about that one though...

And by augmenting the size of the park you can maybe get a larger tower built. If you double the park you get to go to 700 feet. triple the size, go to 850 and so on no good?

I don't think the UN cares too much about the height (although the community would be OUTRAGED over anything taller than the UN). It's more of a cost issue with them. It would seem better to build a larger tower, with extra space for future expansion. But being the UN, its not like they could lease the space publicly.

antinimby

Apr 14, 2007, 12:53 AM

CoolCzech

Apr 14, 2007, 1:49 AM

...the community would be OUTRAGED over anything taller than the UN.

Have they considered popping valium or prozac to calm their rage? :rolleyes:

What NIMBYs really are is people afraid of change, any change. And once the change happens, they'll fight to the bitter end to preserve THAT change from ever changing again. I wonder if that very same neighborhood wasn't horribly upset when the UN building was put up to begin with?

NYguy

Apr 14, 2007, 11:23 AM

Here's a look at the Robert Moses playground that the NIMBY's want so badly to preserve, like it was some beautiful piece of artwork or something:

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/282/unballfieldstg2.jpg

That's a good look at it. I believe the tower proposal would only take the western (on the left) side of the park, behind the shaft.

Scruffy

Apr 16, 2007, 4:58 AM

Sounds like the current City plan:

.

YES!! Finally! Listen to me. Im smart. Now do that.

Scoutthedog

Apr 16, 2007, 6:19 AM

For me personally it isn't about preserving this park so much as its a matter of giving into the United Nations. I know theres no shortage of parks in the area but why deprive the children their park to give a brand new tower to an organization trying to block our country out of the economic community in the 21st century? I'd hate to think of a bunch of European diplomats sitting in their new office tower in our own finacial capitol trying to think of ways to block our country out of a growing global market. I'm not agreeing with the community leaders, the Bush administration, or anyone else. This is just me. Any thoughts?

NYguy

Apr 16, 2007, 6:36 AM

Any thoughts?

Yeah, this is not a political discussion board. No one says you can't have your opinion, but there's an appropriate place in the forumn for your discussion.

Scruffy

Apr 16, 2007, 5:46 PM

I know a lot of people want the UN out of the city and all i'll say on the subject is policies notwithstanding, the united nations is valuable to NYC just as a tourist standpoint. It makes the city more worldly. If you've ever walked by it on weekdays, the line is out the door to get in. Those tourists need hotel rooms, need to eat and just pour a lot of money into the local economy. Sure they dont come to NY just for the UN but that and the Empre State and Times SQ are like the 3 most recognizable tourist spots for foreigners.

Scoutthedog

Apr 17, 2007, 3:43 AM

Politics is behind every major development that occurs in this city. Skyscrapers are nice but its whats inbetween the buildings that truly defines a cities urban culture. On that note, a building is worthless without tenants and in this case those tenants are foreign diplomats who I'm sure love our city very much. Still, they are a major component of this building, which will be a major component of the United Nations complex, which as Scruffy put it is a major component of our city. You can't ignore that fact. These are politicians moving into this building and hence there is some degree of politics involved in the discussion of this building. We can discuss the physical aspects of this project but I feel that as long as politics clearly pertains to this building and this city it has rightfully earned itself some degree of discussion status on this thread. Why argue about the politics behind this building on another forum when we could easily concentrate the discussion here.

NYguy

Apr 17, 2007, 6:42 AM

Politics is behind every major development that occurs in this city.

Spare me.

For me personally it isn't about preserving this park so much as its a matter of giving into the United Nations......why deprive the children their park to give a brand new tower to an organization trying to block our country out of the economic community in the 21st century? I'd hate to think of a bunch of European diplomats sitting in their new office tower in our own finacial capitol trying to think of ways to block our country out of a growing global market

Those European diplomats you speak of are already here, and as the city does with major corporations, Bloomberg knows it's in the best interests of the city to keep them here. You may or may not agree with everything the UN says or does, but I doubt you would with every practice of any other company or entity that occupies office space in the city.

antinimby

Apr 17, 2007, 7:05 AM

Scoutthedog sounds like just another troll.

As if moving the UN somewhere else would change their practices. :koko:

Creating an office building for them to move into while they renovate their headquarters and the world of politics are two separate issues. They are completely separate.

Lecom

Apr 17, 2007, 7:14 AM

Nice burn, NYguy.

CoolCzech

Apr 17, 2007, 11:27 AM

Whatever one's feeling about the UN, it's a plus for New York that it can quite legitimately be called "the Capital of the World." Having it here helps keep the City special, and thus indirectly fuels a lot of other construction.

wong21fr

Apr 17, 2007, 3:02 PM

Give the UN the damn tower, and another annex to boot. It's worth the investment to maintain NYC's reputation as the worlds capital.

Just as long as I don't see blue-helmets manning the checkpoints. :D

-GR2NY-

Apr 17, 2007, 3:20 PM

http://home.comcast.net/~Travis.Wolfe/Below-UN.JPG

NYguy

Apr 17, 2007, 7:20 PM

^ Since the tower would be built behind that tunnel shaft, I think the community wins by putting that park space on the waterfront.

city officials presented a new plan at a community board meeting that would create a new ball field, jutting out over the East River around 38th Street, to host the roller hockey leagues and other activities that would be affected by the development.

But its the tower they don't want.

Scoutthedog

Apr 17, 2007, 7:41 PM

All I'm saying (without intentionally instigating conflict) is that if it pertains to the building its open to discussion here. So...if you don't have an opinion don't post it. If no one has an opinion no one will post them and I'll continue quietly observing as I always have. So don't answer me or tell me what you think. No need to butt heads and vicously go after some high school student from Long Island...

antinimby

Apr 17, 2007, 8:46 PM

Okay, fine let's discuss the "politics" as you call it then.

Let me start off this political discussion you want so badly to conduct by first responding to your previous comments.

For me personally it isn't about preserving this park so much as its a matter of giving into the United Nations.What exactly are you giving into? What outrageous, unjust, heinous demands are they making to the United States or New York?

The current Secretariat building is in very bad shape.

There's asbestos and paint chips that's literally falling on people, the ventilation system is old, outdated, inefficient, inadequate and filled with airborne microorganism that can make a worker there sick.

It is not up to fire codes, meaning if there should be some kind of catastrophic fire, you have a big disaster facing the city.

Many of the workers there are regular New Yorkers that live in Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Long Island, etc.

These worker's livelihood depend on their jobs at the U.N. They contribute income taxes to the city, state, and the Federal government.

The visitors to the UN stay in hotels and use restaurants in the city.

These hotels and restaurants provide even more New Yorkers with jobs and income. I can go on with the economic contributions but you get the idea.

So it's not the U.N. that is getting something from the city and the U.S.

Quite to the contrary, it's the City and the U.S. that is getting the most benefit from having the U.N., not the other way around.

The only thing they are asking for is for the City and State to allow them to build, on vacant land no less.

They are not asking for subsidies or any kind of financial aid. They are paying for the construction themselves.

Don't even get me started on the huge debt the U.S. has towards the U.N. that they haven't paid yet. And this is a wealthy country that should have no problem fulfilling it's financial obligations, unlike many poorer countries who actually pay their bills on time.

So much for the U.N. being unfair to the U.S.:rolleyes:

I know theres no shortage of parks in the area but why deprive the children their park to give a brand new tower to an organization trying to block our country out of the economic community in the 21st century?First, look at the photo I posted of that park.

It's got a freaking tunnel ventilation shaft three stories tall right in between those courtyards, not to mention it's surrounded on 3 sides by 1) a highway exit ramp, 2) the six-lane First Ave., 3) an FDR service road/underpass.

On its fourth side it overlooks to the south, a Con Ed power plant that is now closed and is a vacant, debris filled lot that will see a lot of dusty, noisy construction in a year or two.

This is not some serene, idealic park. It's a freaking old asphalt, underused courtyard. I have heard from residents that it's mostly used as a place for area residents to walk their dogs. Yes, it is essentially nothing more than a dumping ground for dog feces and urine.

If you had children (assuming you're not a kid yourself), would you in your right mind send your children to play there to breathe in all that tunnel exhaust and crossing those lanes of traffic, surrounded by dog poop?

I'd hate to think of a bunch of European diplomats sitting in their new office tower in our own finacial capitol trying to think of ways to block our country out of a growing global market.For your information, the UN has representatives from every nation on every continent in the world.

If you even bother looking on a map, you'll see that European countries make up only a small portion of the countries of the world.

There are more African, Asian, Latin American, Caribbean, South Pacific, Middle Eastern countries than there are European countries. So if you're going to complain about "a bunch of Europeans" at least get your facts right first.

Second, each country has an equal voice in many of their matters, so if you think the UN isn't being fair to the U.S., maybe the problem isn't the UN but the U.S. Have you ever given that a thought?

On top of that, the U.S. has extra power by being a part of the Security Council since the very beginning.

So there is absolutely no reason for the U.S. to feel like it's getting treated unfairly because it has more power and influence than most countries, yes even European ones.

I'm not agreeing with the community leaders, the Bush administration, or anyone else. This is just me. Any thoughts?Yeah, have you had enough, or do you want to come back for more? If you do, you better have a better idea of what you're talking about first. :sly:

CoolCzech

Apr 17, 2007, 11:14 PM

Please, enough - I don't want this thread to attract certain posters I can't stomach. Let's just stick to the building and leave it at that. Liberals can go off to the political forum here, conservatives have plenty of other forums they can freely discuss their views. No more.

NYguy

Apr 18, 2007, 12:14 PM

GFSNYC

Apr 18, 2007, 2:28 PM

Like I've said before, the UN and its policies should have nothing to do with very local real-estate developments. An asphalt hockey park and geopolitics are pretty far apart IMO. The fact that there is opposition to this is evidence that NIMBYs oppose towers and development for the simple sake of opposition. Sort've like a war protester that can't point to where the war is taking place on a map.

London, Paris and and countless others are staking claims of World's Capital. I think that it is emblematic and flattering that the United States, in particular New York City is regarded as THE World's Capital. We should embrace every (except for some negative) aspect of what that is.

Remember too, that this neighborhood prior to the UN was not the most desirable. Instead of the high-rises of the Corinthian and Trump World, we really could've gotten an expanded power plant and a run-down strip mall complete with under utilized parks. One is demolished (would've made a great refurbished annex meeting hall for the UN IMO) making way for Solow's development, the strip-mall can be found a few more blocks south, it was only recently made upscale, still looks out of place, and the park... Well, the opposition really just wants enclosed asphalt, not schools, libraries, museums, affordable housing, etc. I really do think that the UN should explore more options in Queens though, and the city should encourage it.

CoolCzech

Apr 18, 2007, 2:44 PM

The fact that prior to the UN coming there it wasn't all that desireable a locale to begin with makes it particularly irksome that the NIMBY's (that moved to the place because of the UN to begin with) NOW turn around and demand all sorts of concessions regarding the new UN tower...

NYguy

Apr 18, 2007, 7:59 PM

Renton

Apr 19, 2007, 2:10 AM

pico44

Apr 19, 2007, 4:28 AM

I'm not a big fan of the UN being here in NYC. I have no feelings either way as far as the UN as an organization is concerned. I always see in the news though, how these diplomats run up huge parking bills in the millions without paying and clog the streets with there free parking passes. Plus theres always protest going on over there adding to the traffic nightmare. Not to mentioned we are probably the most hated country in the world. So like the user a bit back mentioned. Maybe move it to Europe which is more centrally located in the world. I remember right after 9/11 there was talk of moving the UN to one of the new WTC towers. Imagine how that would go down...

Complaining about the UN because of the traffic it produces is ridiculous. Are the couple of hundred diplomatic automobiles the reason it takes an hour to get into the city from Great Neck? Laughable. The fact remains that the UN is the closest thing we have to a place of open dialogue between countries. In spite of its sometimes impotence, it is without a doubt one of the most powerful organizations in the world. New York is blessed to have the UN and the UN is blessed to be in New York. End of story.

Swede

Apr 19, 2007, 7:16 AM

Again, This thread is about the proposed tower, NOT about the be or not to be of the UN.

Renton

Apr 19, 2007, 10:38 AM

Complaining about the UN because of the traffic it produces is ridiculous. Are the couple of hundred diplomatic automobiles the reason it takes an hour to get into the city from Great Neck? Laughable. The fact remains that the UN is the closest thing we have to a place of open dialogue between countries. In spite of its sometimes impotence, it is without a doubt one of the most powerful organizations in the world. New York is blessed to have the UN and the UN is blessed to be in New York. End of story.

You must be kidding. The UN does nothing to better this city. Plus having it in the U.S. has outlived its purpose. And name one time the UN really has done a positive thing in the world? Can't huh. Didn't do so good in Rwanda, or what was left of Yugoslavia. I spent enough time in the military to know thats its just a big paper tiger. People come, they complain, and nothing gets done. You don't live in the real world if you thing this organization is this almighty (blessed) group you think it is.

NYguy

Apr 19, 2007, 11:51 AM

Perhaps the moderator's warning should be shown again:

Again, This thread is about the proposed tower, NOT about the be or not to be of the UN.

-GR2NY-

Apr 19, 2007, 1:31 PM

One things for sure, at 35 stories I'm not really losing sleep over whether or not it goes up. Anyone feel that way?

NYguy

Apr 19, 2007, 5:37 PM

One things for sure, at 35 stories I'm not really losing sleep over whether or not it goes up. Anyone feel that way?

Why would you?

This is a planned 500 ft tower, basically the same height as the original. It would solidify the east riverfront skyline, bridging the gap between the UN and the large Con Ed development site. And it will solidify the UN into one location.

Scruffy

Apr 20, 2007, 2:58 AM

Well it may be shorter than what we usually get excited for, but its a very visible location right on the river and will be very visible from Queens. And with a sky scraper on each side of 42 it would solidify the canyon, river to river

NYguy

Apr 20, 2007, 9:16 PM

with a sky scraper on each side of 42 it would solidify the canyon, river to river

Exactly.

And think of the messages they could display with two towers...:)

http://www.un.org/issues/gallery/unday/imagesunday/99543.jpg
un.org

http://untreaty.un.org/images/un2000b.jpg
un.org

http://www.brama.com/news/press/thumbs/010625un_ribbon.jpg
brama.com

CoolCzech

Apr 20, 2007, 11:54 PM

Would the broad side of the second tower face the river?

Scruffy

Apr 21, 2007, 2:48 AM

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/282/unballfieldstg2.jpg

Based on this, it would have to. Thats the only way it would fit

NYguy

Apr 21, 2007, 11:50 AM

Would the broad side of the second tower face the river?

It won't have a "broad" side. It'll be equal on all sides. Here's one older rendering again:

http://www.pbase.com/image/65645795.jpg

I've seen another rendering that was of equal size.

CGII

Apr 21, 2007, 12:08 PM

That could be quite a great tower if it didn't have that silly little cut out on the corner...lamentably it seems to be the fad (BofA is just a better example of it). Something tells me that that cut out corner in this proposal will be one of the things that doesn't change, and as we see more versions I bet that ugly little slice on the side will still be there.

RLS_rls

Apr 22, 2007, 7:29 AM

From that rendering the facade looks...bulky and poorly proportioned. And that slice in the corner please, it's ridiculous. It makes me think of all those boy bands from the late 90s with the spiked and frosted hair, only it's being done today in the exact same style. That thing looks bad in the rendering, it'll look worse in real life, and it will be wholly regreted within five years of completion.

I say a total redesign, one a bit more imaginative and (at least) as idealistic as the original tower.

CoolCzech

Apr 23, 2007, 12:36 AM

Would this new building's lot be considered "international territory" the same way the original UN Building's is?

Scruffy

Apr 23, 2007, 2:24 AM

Would this new building's lot be considered "international territory" the same way the original UN Building's is?

Thats what ive been thinking about. The big hoopla is because this tower would be built over a park and the neighborhood would lose its park. Secondly building on city owned land requires certain approvals. But for the UN to buy this land for its international sanctuary and so that it wouldn't be considered part of the US anymore, that would create a shitstorm. in short, no. my belief is that the land will not be annexed into the UN territory. If this were otherwise, i think that would be the topic of protest instead.

NYguy

Apr 23, 2007, 9:40 PM

That could be quite a great tower if it didn't have that silly little cut out on the corner....

That's one of the older renderings...

NYguy

Apr 23, 2007, 9:44 PM

Thats what ive been thinking about. The big hoopla is because this tower would be built over a park and the neighborhood would lose its park.

They would lose just a portion of that particular park, which in reality would just be replaced on the other side...

building on city owned land requires certain approvals. But for the UN to buy this land for its international sanctuary and so that it wouldn't be considered part of the US anymore, that would create a shitstorm. in short, no. my belief is that the land will not be annexed into the UN territory.

Building on any city parkland requires approval from the state. It would have to be replaced, same as what happened with the new Yankee Stadium that is being built on the site of what used to be a park. Being annexed to the UN complex, it would no doubt have the same rules and regulations.

NYguy

Apr 23, 2007, 9:47 PM

APRIL 22, 2007

Site of the proposed tower and the vacant Con Ed site...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77641082/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77641089/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77641082/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77641089/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77641100/large.jpg

The UN...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77641134/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77641136/original.jpg

NYguy

Jun 5, 2007, 11:24 AM

http://www.nysun.com/article/55880

Six Architects To Compete For East River Esplanade Design Rights

By ANNIE KARNI
June 5, 2007

As the city mulls an expansion of the United Nations campus onto city park space and the state moves forward with plans to rebuild the Midtown segment of the FDR Drive next door, elected officials and community members are seizing the opportunity to open up access to the East River with a new waterfront esplanade.

Six prominent landscape architects, including the architect of the High Line, the architect of the Museum of Modern Art roof garden, and the architect of the Brooklyn Bridge Park, will participate in a design competition on Friday to create a sweeping vision for a waterfront park that would stretch to 63rd Street from 34th Street along the East River.

The proposed 35-story U.N. office tower would be built on the current site of the 1.3-acre Robert Moses Playground. The loss of parkland would require the creation of more open space nearby, and officials have said a new waterfront esplanade would be an appropriate trade. A new tower would require approval by the state Legislature, and the esplanade would require approval from the developer of the former Consolidated Edison power plant site just south of the United Nations, Sheldon Solow, who owns the land. Officials from the state's Department of Transportation and from the city's parks department, as well as representatives from Mr. Solow's office, are expected to meet on Friday for a briefing on the proposed waterfront esplanade.

The 12-hour design competition is being sponsored by elected officials who represent the Upper East Side, including Assemblymen Jonathan Bing and Brian Kavanagh, state Senators Liz Krueger and Thomas Duane, and numerous civic groups. The winning design is expected to be unveiled to the public on Sunday and would serve as a makeshift blueprint for future construction.

State support for the city's plan to expand the U.N. campus has been hard to come by. "I don't believe the Senate's there," a state senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden, said in an interview. "One would have thought the city would have moved on at this point. The U.N. doesn't curry favor with us. They are a useless group that is at best anti-American."

NYguy

Jun 11, 2007, 11:18 AM

http://www.nysun.com/article/56250

Plan Envisions Park Along East River

By ANNIE KARNI
June 11, 2007

East Side residents could soon enjoy close to 30 blocks of new park space along the East River, under a new plan unveiled yesterday by the Municipal Art Society.

While the United Nations seeks to expand its campus into what is now a local park and the state rebuilds the Midtown segment of the FDR Drive next door, community members and their elected officials are using the opportunity to lobby for park space in their dense neighborhood.

The park would stretch between 34th and 63rd streets, on the site of the abandoned Consolidated Edison waterside plant. The plan unveiled yesterday includes an elevated urban terrace over the FDR Drive, a wooded hill that would offer a new vista of the river, a ferry terminal, modern commercial development space, and waterfront access.

The blueprint provides the first unified vision for development of the area and was created by six architects in a 12-hour closed-door brainstorming session organized by the Municipal Art Society and Council Member Daniel Garodnick, who represents the district where the park would lie.

"It's not a substitute for a planning process, but it's a way to show people some really exciting ideas," a staff member of the Municipal Art Society, Jasper Goldman, said of the speedy design session. The plan would need approval from the developer and owner of the Con Edison site, Sheldon Solow, to move forward.

The landscape architects — including a designer of the High Line, Ricardo Scofidio, the designer of the Museum of Modern Art roof garden, Ken Smith, and an architect of the planned Brooklyn Bridge Park, Matthew Urbanski — worked together to create the first coordinated vision for a park that could make up for the loss of Robert Moses Playground, a 1.3-acre space on which the United Nations is seeking to erect a new office tower, with the city's support.

While strong opposition in the Legislature is likely to hold up the expansion of the U.N. campus, officials said the new esplanade project could move forward independently. Construction on the former Con Edison site could begin within months, according to officials from the Municipal Art Society.

samoen313

Jun 11, 2007, 3:11 PM

is fumihiko maki still the architect for the project?

as much as i love maki, something in me wishes everyone's favorite commie architect, oscar niemeyer, would return to do the expansion. i wonder why he wasn't invited?

NYguy

Jun 11, 2007, 8:07 PM

While the United Nations seeks to expand its campus into what is now a local park and the state rebuilds the Midtown segment of the FDR Drive next door, community members and their elected officials are using the opportunity to lobby for park space in their dense neighborhood.

The landscape architects — including a designer of the High Line, Ricardo Scofidio, the designer of the Museum of Modern Art roof garden, Ken Smith, and an architect of the planned Brooklyn Bridge Park, Matthew Urbanski — worked together to create the first coordinated vision for a park that could make up for the loss of Robert Moses Playground, a 1.3-acre space on which the United Nations is seeking to erect a new office tower, with the city's support.

More on the plan:
http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-east0611,0,1369136.story?coll=am-topheadlines

Residents push to open up East River waterfront

By Justin Rocket Silverman
June 11, 2007

A vision to transform the postindustrial no-man's land along the East River in midtown into a vibrant public space was embraced Sunday by elected officials and hundreds of concerned residents.

"There are 154,000 people living in this area, and I don't think [anyone] can remember what it was like to be able to walk down to the river," said Kent L. Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society. "River access has been sealed off for decades."

The society organized a meeting of top architects last week to come up with a plan for the stretch of waterfront running from East 34th to 63rd streets. There is currently no way for pedestrians or cyclists to access this part of the city -- a fact all the more problematic because the area has only one acre of open space for every 5,000 residents, the least amount anywhere in the city.

A major portion of the area in question, a former Con Ed site that stretches from 34th to 41st streets, is the site of a massive development project spearheaded by Sheldon Solow, ranked the 746th richest person in the world by Forbes.

The developer's plans include millions of square feet of residential, commercial and retail space in a waterfront complex.

The vision unveiled Sunday represents the "beginning of a long, complicated process," according to Borough President Scott Stringer, to reconcile Solow's plans with the community's desire for more open space and public river access.

Specs presented Sunday include a large park area elevated over the FDR -- much like the Brooklyn Heights Promenade extends above the BQE. A pedestrian ramp would provide a way to reach the water below. Architects estimated the elevated park between 34th and 41st streets would add 142,600 square feet of open space, at a total cost of $224 million.

"In the 20 years I've lived in New York, access to the rivers has been one of the greatest improvements to the city," said Nelson Smith, 55, a longtime East Side resident. "What exists at this site now is extremely discontinuous and frustrating."

Officials said they are hopeful their design proposal will be considered by the developer and the city's Planning Commission.

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-06/30426042.jpg

Current East River look. June 10, 2007

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-06/30426025.jpg

Rendering of possible East River plans. June 10, 2007

Dr. Taco

Jun 11, 2007, 9:38 PM

^ so, is this a competing proposal to the former UN proposal? Wasn't quite able to pull that out of the articles...

regardless of one's views on the UN (personally, I think they pander and waste too much money to really be any good), I really can't see a reason why they shouldn't get new space that they need. The UN is not going away, and as long as it exists, their existence in New York is a definite positive for New Yorkers.

that park looks like crap! Why would people defend it? while the proposal you have on the first page of the forums (the one with the gash on one of the top corners) doesnt look like anything special, this newest proposal looks gorgeous! and look at all that extra new park land!

do it

antinimby

Jun 11, 2007, 11:04 PM

Why would people defend it?That's why they're called NIMBYs.

NYguy

Jun 12, 2007, 10:16 PM

^ so, is this a competing proposal to the former UN proposal? Wasn't quite able to pull that out of the articles...

It's not an actual proposal, just an idea of what a waterfront park could look like on the site. The City is planning to build this park partly as replacement for the small park the UN tower would replace.

The society organized a meeting of top architects last week to come up with a plan for the stretch of waterfront running from East 34th to 63rd streets.

The vision unveiled Sunday represents the "beginning of a long, complicated process," according to Borough President Scott Stringer, to reconcile Solow's plans with the community's desire for more open space and public river access.

NYguy

Jun 12, 2007, 10:50 PM

The site, posted on curbed.com

http://www.curbed.com/2007_06_erivchar.jpg

NYguy

Jun 14, 2007, 12:16 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/realestate/commercial/13embassy.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Near the U.N., a Run on Office Space

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/13/business/13embassy1.190.jpg

The Diplomat Center.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/13/business/13embassy.600.jpg

Torben Gettermann, the Danish consul general, renewed Denmark’s lease early.

By J. ALEX TARQUINIO
June 13, 2007

The United Nations has been wrestling with how to renovate its headquarters in New York for nearly a decade. The creaky Secretariat and General Assembly buildings, perched along the East River in Midtown Manhattan, have not been refurbished since they were completed in 1952. Even the original mechanical and engineering systems are still in place.

The really tricky part was deciding where to house the United Nations while a renovation project was being completed. There was even some talk of picking up stakes and temporarily moving the United Nations to either Brooklyn or Queens.

But in December, the General Assembly approved a $1.9 billion plan that will keep it in Manhattan for the duration of this project. Only about 1,000 of the 3,500 employees will have to move out of the main complex, and most of them will be in temporary offices nearby. Werner Schmidt, a United Nations spokesman for the renovation project, said that work could begin early next year and should be completed by 2015.

The United Nations itself is not the only entity investing heavily in this neighborhood. The diplomatic offices of some governments — as well as nongovernmental organizations, or N.G.O.’s, working with the world body — have started renewing their leases early or are buying or renovating office space nearby. The countries involved range from small island nations to the United States, which is completely rebuilding its permanent mission directly opposite the United Nations.

Although many diplomats now scoff at the notion that moving to Brooklyn or Queens was ever a serious option, they say the approval of the renovation plans, known as the Capital Master Plan, has given them confidence to make their own real estate plans.

“The government of Angola prefers to purchase real estate in those capitals where we are going to be for a long time, and we hope the United Nations is going to be in this location for many, many years,” said Ismael Gaspar Martins, Angola’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Angola’s permanent mission to the United Nations is now housed in a brownstone that it has owned on Manhattan’s Upper East Side since the 1970s. But Mr. Martins said the building, on East 73rd Street between Lexington and Park Avenues, is rather far from the United Nations.

So Angola recently purchased the entire 12th floor of the building at 820 Second Avenue, at 44th Street. It is renovating the space, which totals more than 11,500 square feet, and Mr. Martins said he hoped that the employees would be able to move in before the next General Assembly session in the fall.

The building, which is just steps away from the United Nations, is also known as Diplomat Center because so many governments maintain their permanent missions to the United Nations there.

Philips International, a New York developer, bought roughly 70 percent of the office space in this 19-story building and all of the retail space for $48 million last year. The rest of the building had already been sold as office condominiums to a number of buyers, including the governments of Croatia, Nepal, Syria and Peru.

Some other governments have leased space in the building for years. Andrew Aberham, vice president for sales and leasing at Philips International, said that all the tenants would be allowed to renew their leases if they chose not to buy their space. He also said that Philips planned to retain all of the retail space, covering almost 12,000 square feet, and to renovate the lobby.

The republic of Madagascar, which had a little less than a year left on its lease, opted to buy its office two weeks ago. Madagascar purchased nearly 7,000 square feet, or a little more than half of the eighth floor. The government of Nicaragua rents the other half.

Philips is asking about $675 a square foot for the office condominiums. “I think that is typical for the market now, because we’ve been selling close to that number,” Mr. Aberham said.

Some governments that prefer to rent near the United Nations are taking the unusual step of renewing their leases years before they expire in order to lock in prices, even though this means paying higher rents sooner rather than later.

They are primarily motivated by soaring rents. The average rent for office space east of Third Avenue from 35th to 61st Streets, jumped more than 27 percent in the last 12 months, to about $68 a square foot, according to CB Richard Ellis.

So in April, the government of Denmark renewed its lease about a year and a half early at 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, which is at 885 Second Avenue at 47th Street. “I thought if we renewed early we would be able to secure a more reasonable rate,” said Torben A. Gettermann, the Danish consul general in New York.

Denmark’s offices occupy all of the 18th floor and about half of the 17th floor, and include both the mission to the United Nations and the Royal Danish Consulate General.

Many consulates in New York are along Fifth Avenue, but Mr. Gettermann said that it made sense to share space near the United Nations because “we have a tremendous traffic of people from Denmark — politicians, N.G.O.’s and anyone interested in the United Nations — who all pass through our offices.”

The republic of Ireland leases the entire 19th floor of 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza. The Irish mission to the United Nations was something of a trendsetter when it renewed its lease for the space, which is roughly 16,000 square feet, two years early in 2005. It secured a 13-year lease, which is relatively long in Manhattan, where landlords usually prefer to sign 10-year leases, said Matthew McBride, a broker at CB Richard Ellis, who represented the Irish mission in the lease negotiations.

Sean McDonald, Ireland’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, said the Irish government felt fortunate to have renewed its lease right before the big spike in rents.

“If you looked at what was happening with the Capital Master Plan at that time, it seemed pretty certain that there was no question of moving out of town,” Mr. McDonald said. “I don’t think it was ever realistic to think that we were moving to Brooklyn.”

Scruffy

Feb 13, 2009, 10:50 PM

I know its been mentioned that the UN was going to build something on their current land. Well something is being built right now but the structure looks too flimsy to be a high-rise. this is on the northern end of their land

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/new%20cam/IMG_4482.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/new%20cam/IMG_4481.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/new%20cam/IMG_4475.jpg

philvia

Feb 14, 2009, 5:54 PM

its the temporary chambers building or whatever.. right?

NYguy

Feb 15, 2009, 12:43 PM

its the temporary chambers building or whatever.. right?

Yeah, at least that's what was planned.

NYguy

Sep 16, 2010, 1:43 PM

http://www.cityrealty.com/new-york-city-real-estate/carters-view/avalonbay-reportedly-planning-58-story-rental-tower-willoughby-street-brooklyn/carter-b-horsley/34682

AvalonBay reportedly planning 58-story rental tower on Willoughby Street in Brooklyn

September 14, 2010
By Carter B. Horsley

AvalonBay Communities filed plans last week for a 58-story rental apartment tower on Willoughby Street between Bridge and Duffield streets in Brooklyn.

According to an article by Linda Collins today at brookyneagle.net, the 860-unit project will be known as Avalon Willoughby West and would become the tallest building in Brooklyn.

In June, The Clarrett Group topped out its 51-story rental tower at 111 Lawrence Street, known as "The Brooklyner," which was two feet taller than the borough's previous tallest building, the 512-foot-high Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building that has been converted to residential use and is now known as One Hanson Place.

AvalonBay Communities is already building a major complex nearby at Myrtle Avenue, Gold Street and Flatbush Avenue Extension called Avalon Fort Greene.

The article quoted Stephanie Cuba, project manager for AvalonBay as stating that her company sees "a big demand for apartments" and are "big believers in Downtown Brooklyn," adding that the company thinks "it's a great community."

Noting that the area has been an untapped market Cuba said she is well aware of the four hotels in various stages of development around the corner on Duffield Street, the article continued.

Ms. Cuba told the Brooklyn Eagle that she is not sure of a starting date but that demolition of existing buildings and construction on the new building should start within a year, and completion is estimated to take two years. She said that a final design of the project by SLCE Architects has not been completed.

The building will be about 596 feet tall and have parking for about 345 cars and street-level retail.

NYguy

Dec 11, 2010, 3:00 PM

Looks like the tower proposal may not be as dead as we thought...

http://www.dnainfo.com/20101210/murray-hill-gramercy/east-side-park-may-get-razed-build-new-united-nations-tower
East Side Park May Get Razed to Build New United Nations Tower
A notorious developer who bulldozed through communities may have his own memorial in Murray Hill destroyed.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R3000_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed.jpg

December 10, 2010
By Amy Zimmer

MURRAY HILL — Master builder Robert Moses was notorious for bulldozing through communities — without any public input — to construct highways, bridges and tunnels. Now, a 1.3-acre playground bearing his name in Murray Hill may be on the other side of the shovel — only this time around, the decision will be made by community consensus.

Moses was infamous for creating a gash through Bronx neighborhoods for his Cross Bronx Expressway and would have done the same in the Lower East Side, SoHo and the West Village to build the Lower Manhattan Expressway, if the activist Jane Jacobs and others had not stopped him. But Moses was also responsible for creating a vast amount of parkland, more than doubling parks acreage to 34,673 between 1934 and 1960.

The park that bears his name is anything but monumental. Sitting on 42nd Street between the FDR and First Avenue, across from the United Nations, the playground is bifurcated by the Queens-Midtown Tunnel ventilating tower, with a blacktop used mainly by a roller hockey league on one side and some handball and small basketball courts, a comfort station and dog run, on the other side.

City and state officials have long been talking about razing the playground to build a new tower for the United Nations, but the community will only give up the parkland — which must be approved by Albany — if it wins some concessions.

Residents want a replacement park of the same size in the vicinity and a waterfront esplanade that would stretch from 38th Street, past the UN, up to 61st Street.

Residents are hoping to act quickly on this since there are some pilings in the East River left over from the State Department of Transportation’s FDR temporary outer-detour roadway for a rehabilitation project. Using them for part of the esplanade, estimated to cost $130 million to $150 million, would save money.

"Robert Moses, he wasn’t interested in the preservation of New York," said Anthony, a homeless man who declined to give his last name and was the lone person was sitting on the blacktop on a frigid Thursday afternoon.

Anthony was practicing playing a penny whistle he made with a PVC pipe. He liked coming to this blacktop — where he slept for many years before some benches were removed — because it was often empty except for dog walkers, he said. Before the comfort stations were closed down about a year ago, they were a favorite for cabbies. "It’s one of the few places you can park your car and not get a ticket," he said of the street next to the park.

Matt Siegel, 25, who was playing with his Pitt bull mix, Havi, in the dog run, said he wouldn’t mind the park being demolished if another popped up nearby. When he learned that Robert Moses was one of the main forces behind the Brooklyn Dodgers moving to Los Angeles after blocking a Brooklyn relocation to get them to Queens, Siegel said, "We don’t like him."

State Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh said nothing would happen with the park unless the community agreed on a replacement park.

"The irony of potentially eliminating a park named for Robert Moses is not lost on some of us," he said. "We’re certainly not intending to do this Robert Moses-style."

He and other elected officials involved in the planning — State Senator Liz Krueger and City Councilman Dan Garodnick — held a public forum with Community Board 6 in June on the issue and planned to have more opportunities for public comment, Kavanagh said.

Even though the state DOT was supposed to have removed the pilings once its work was done in 2007, it was leaving them in place to give the city time, a DOT spokesman said. But the complicated real estate deal involves other moving parts, including selling off two city-owned office buildings occupied by UN tenants.

CB6 passed a resolution on Wednesday supporting the UN takeover of Robert Moses Park as long as they get what they want in return. They know getting a replacement park won’t be easy, and they don’t want small pocket parks.

"What good is that? You might be able to play hopscotch," said CB6 member Ellen Imbibo, noting that her district has the least amount of open space per capita in the city.

"We don’t know what’s going to be the piece to get the ball rolling, even slowly," Imbimbo said. "You’ve got to get state legislation through Albany for the park, but the community has to where the replacement is. In New York where can you find 30,000 square feet? You gotta look pretty hard."

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R687_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R456_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R8586_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R6634_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R5882_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed.jpg

NYguy

Jul 7, 2011, 1:18 PM

This proposal is back on the table, so I've taken it out of the UN renovation thread.

(Wall Street Journal)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576430350425149560.html

U.N. Building Plan Proceeds .

By JOE LAURIA
July 7, 2011

After getting a green light from Albany, the United Nations is expected to push ahead with a plan to build an office tower on a playground near its headquarters.

The new tower would house U.N. staff from two city-owned buildings and from the U.N. complex, which is undergoing a $1.8 billion renovation due to be completed in 2013.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-BB027_NYPARK_G_20110706183011.jpg

NYguy

Jul 7, 2011, 1:23 PM

(Crains New York)

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110705/REAL_ESTATE/110709982
Con Ed, U.N. moves boost East River park odds

By Theresa Agovino
July 5, 2011

...The plan involves, in part, razing a playground near East 42nd Street to construct a new tower for the United Nations and selling city-owned buildings that currently host U.N. offices.

Loqy Lion

Jul 7, 2011, 2:36 PM

How tall's she going to be? I hope 1,000! :cheers:

NYguy

Jul 8, 2011, 1:00 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP18b0067bb93f4bb09449b459726a9f48.html

Wall Street Journal

NY lawmakers approve new UN tower

Associated Press
July 7, 2011

New York lawmakers have passed legislation authorizing construction of a new United Nations office building on a playground next to its headquarters in Manhattan.

The measure, if signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, would require finding substitute Manhattan parkland to make up for the piece of the Robert Moses Playground that would be lost.

Alliance

Jul 8, 2011, 1:56 AM

That "playground" is really a dump and would be better off developed or as greenspace.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Jul 8, 2011, 2:35 AM

WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :DDDDD

Anybody know what the site is zoned for?

NYguy

Jul 12, 2011, 2:01 PM

WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :DDDDD

Anybody know what the site is zoned for?

The tower itself will be no more that 500 ft, or no higher than the current UN tower.

yankeesfan1000

Jul 12, 2011, 4:55 PM

That's too bad it won't be an impactful height, but since it's going to house UN staff there really shouldn't be much delay in regard to construction. But I also sort of having a feeling since it is a UN building the design will likely be more conservative. Are those fair assumptions NYGuy, or anyone else who is more knowledgeable on the situation than myself?

Anyways, I'll take a roughly 500 foot office building. It'll add to unparalleled density of Manhattan.

Loqy Lion

Jul 12, 2011, 5:05 PM

Anyways, I'll take a roughly 500 foot office building. It'll add to unparalleled density of Manhattan.

And we're about to retake the top spot for supertalls!

NYguy

Jul 22, 2011, 2:28 PM

http://www.dnainfo.com/20110721/murray-hill-gramercy/got-ideas-for-un-land-swap-east-river-esplanade-electeds-want-know

Got Ideas for UN Land Swap and East River Esplanade? Electeds Want to Know

http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2010/12/story_masterimage_2010_12_R3000_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed/image320x240.jpg

July 21, 2011
By Amy Zimmer

Besides the sinkhole-laden stretch of waterfront along the East River from East 60th to 125th streets, the chunk between East 38th to 59th streets isn't even open to the public. That mile-long gap might finally be completed if a complicated deal involving the United Nations building an office tower on parkland works out along with other serious financial, engineering and security issues.

The area's elected officials — state Sen. Liz Krueger, state Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh and City Councilman Dan Garodnick — are calling on residents to provide input in a series of public forums in August and September on the negotiations, which they announced Thursday.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo passed a law that would allow the UN to build an office tower on Robert Moses Playground on First Avenue between 41st and 42nd streets in exchange for a major park and improving open space along the East River.

NYguy

Aug 8, 2011, 4:43 PM

dna.info
http://www.dnainfo.com/20110805/murray-hill-gramercy/roller-hockey-players-want-penalty-called-on-un-land-swap

Roller Hockey Players Want Penalty Called on UN Land Swap

August 5, 2011
By Amy Zimmer

A plan to convert a portion of the East Side waterfront into a continuous greenway is being hailed by local joggers, cyclists, dog walkers and stroller pushers — but it's getting slapped down by a group of roller hockey players who say it'll take away their practice space.

The East End Hockey Association has been playing on the blacktop of the 1.3 acre Robert Moses Playground since 1972.

If a deal with the city on Robert Moses Playground isn't reached by Oct. 10, the law that Albany passed in July to give it to the UN to build its office tower — which would be connected to the Secretariat and the rest of its campus via a tunnel under 42nd Street — becomes moot.

NYguy

Aug 12, 2011, 9:52 PM

Solow's Con Ed site jumps back into the picture...

Crains New York
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110812/REAL_ESTATE/110819954#

Developer lobs 11th-hour pitch for new UN tower
Sheldon Solow offers development options, including building the spire on his nine-acre site, just south of the United Nations; prognosis not good.

By Theresa Agovino
August 12, 2011

Last week, he met with elected officials to propose that either he could erect the new United Nations building on a site he owns just south of the United Nations, or he could do it on the Robert Moses Playground, just across East 42nd Street from the United Nations along First Avenue. In that case, Mr. Solo is proposing that he would relocate the playground to his site.

Mr. Solow had proposed constructing a building for the Untied Nations a few years ago, but is raising it again presumably because current plans being advanced do not involve the nine acres he owns along First Avenue, just below the international body. His plan to construct seven towers on his property appears to have stalled.

NYguy

Sep 13, 2011, 9:55 PM

http://www.dnainfo.com/20110629/murray-hill-gramercy/united-nations-land-swap-one-step-closer

United Nations Land Swap One Step Closer

http://s3.amazonaws.com/sfb111/story_xlimage_2010_12_R3000_Robert_Mose_Park_to_be_razed.jpg

June 29, 2011
By Amy Zimmer

State lawmakers made the first move in a complicated and expensive deal — one that's been years in the making and would likely take years still to complete — to give Robert Moses Playground to the United Nations in exchange for a replacement park.

The law, which was recently passed by both houses and awaits the governor's signature, would allow the UN to build a new tower on the 1.3-acre playground sitting just south of its headquarters between 42nd and 41st streets between the FDR Drive and First Avenue.

NYguy

Sep 28, 2011, 1:54 PM

http://www.blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=4364

A New UN Building in New York
There is an active plan for a new UN building in New York City.

http://www.blackhillsportal.com/images/newsimage/UN%20Building.jpg

By Ed Randazzo

There is an active plan for a new UN building in New York City.

Apparently knowledge of this issue has been almost entirely localized in New York. However, constructing a second U.N. building would likely have significant financial implications for the U.S. federal government, which pays 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and would likely shoulder increased payments to the U.N. in future years resulting from costs associated with the project.

wong21fr

Sep 28, 2011, 2:05 PM

^Uh, that seems more like a political op-ed piece than a factual article on the new UN building. A factual article wouldn't use language such as, "the UN is morally bankrupt".

JayPro

Sep 28, 2011, 6:28 PM

^Uh, that seems more like a political op-ed piece than a factual article on the new UN building. A factual article wouldn't use language such as, "the UN is morally bankrupt".

Nor should such verbiage be applied to a *relevant* article about the new UN building. Whether you agree with the proposition or not, it doesn't belong in a piece about a high-rise.
Let op-ed writers from the Times pop the top off that can o' worms.

NYguy

Sep 28, 2011, 6:34 PM

Of course, you always consider the source. But we don't have to agree with everything someone writes to read it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9173-un-to-build-massive-new-tower-in-nyc
UN To Build Massive New Tower in NYC

Written by R. Cort Kirkwood
28 September 2011

The new UN tower will encompass some 900,000 square feet and cost upwards of $450 million and perhaps even more. The present 39-story UN Secretariat Building and new structure (which will be no taller, say planners) will connect “with with an underground tunnel to facilitate movement between the two buildings,” the Heritage Foundation’s Brett Schaefer reported in early September.

Inasmuch as no one in Washington seems to know anything about it, Schaefer recommended that the Obama administration and Congress "request immediately all relevant details, plans, and cost estimates related to the transfer of the Robert Moses Playground to the U.N. and the construction of a new U.N. tower. This information should be provided to Congress, and the Administration should facilitate access to additional details and materials as necessary.”

Congress must also tell the government of New York that it expects to see information about the “financial implications of the real estate deal,” including a “detailed analysis of the project’s expenses and the anticipated financial implications for the U.S. federal government resulting from the property deal and new U.N. building and related costs through the U.N. budget.”