Yeah, they won't file any plans until what they are able to build is in place. I don't know what type of negotiations they had to have, but it wasn't significant enough to require a public review. I still think we could see a little more change in the design.

I've worked a lot with DOB granted on smaller projects. I've never heard of or experienced DOB 'approving' plans without a full set being filed for review by a plan examiner. You don't really negotiate with the DOB, they simply check off whether a building is designed in accordance to the building code. Its very black or white. You must submit (or file) plans in order for them to do so. Perhaps there is an alternative address they are using?

Also, DOB wouldn't determine whether a project is subject to public review. That is under the jurisdiction of the Department of City Planning. Public review is necessary when a project doesn't comply to zoning or is located on city property.

Perhaps bogus was too harsh, but I remain skeptical.

I used to work with HPD, and we absolutely did this. Representatives from HPD, DOB, and a developer (and sometimes DCP & other city agencies) would meet periodically long before filings were posted, and basically run through a host of potential issues. The developer would know how to file before actually filing.

Of course, there isn't explicit negotiation, as building code determines everything. But interpretation of the code is nuanced, and these initial meetings would clarify the rules. There are very few people on this earth who really grasp a large entirety of the NYC building code, which is byzantine to say the least.
I don't see any reference to as-of-right vs. zoning variance. DOB does indirectly determine whether public review is necessary in whether or not they rule the plans as proposed are as-of-right and therefore approved. Obviously a rejection doesn't necessitate public review, but that's one avenue moving forward.

You misunderstand, I'm not saying they've negotiated permits. It could be very minor, but something that doesn't require them to have to go through a public review process or get a special permit (which is city planning). They may simply want to have all their "ducks in a row" so to speak, nothing that would be rejected down the line. We don't know who is financing this tower, or what type of backing is behind it.



We've seen developments where the builders specifically state they had to get someone expert in NYC zoning. Anyway, the design appears to have been (and may still be ) in development until recently. No reason they would have filed unless they intend to move soon (as seen with other towers).



http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/0...or_seaport.php

http://www.cordmeyer.co/properties/80SouthStudio.htm

I'm happy to see this get bumped into supertall territory, it'll do much to connect 8 Spruce Street to the rest of the skyline when viewed from certain angles.

Yeah, I really hope this gets built because I want a little balance between the east an west sides of lower Manhattan. This would be a start, but I still want something a little higher.

This is great news, I think it's time this tower got a diagram of it's own.

http://observer.com/2013/02/a-garden...etative-tower/

A Garden Rises at South Street Seaport: Morali Architects’ Vegetative Tower


http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.c...02/80south.jpg


By Stephen Jacob Smith
February 8, 2013

I'm glad they removed the small tumor in the original rendering.

https://www.facebook.com/MoraliArchitects

^^ Now that makes a lot more sense. Claiming that your project had been "approved" by Landmarks on Facebook just didn't add up. Interesting that they will have to go through a public review on this project... this could mean that the height will eventually be reduced (thanks to NIMBYs). Fingers crossed that doesn't happen.

^ I don't believe there will be any public review necessary if the additional air rights were approved. That doesn't trigger a public review. However, if they were applying to build additional footage that they don't have, that would. But apparently they've bought air rights from neighboring buildings.



https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...12993215_n.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/MoraliArchi...type=1&theater

He didn't say "public review"; he said "review", which likely means DOB review.

Anything built in the city has to go through "review", but very few projects go through "public review"

This statement indicates this project will have to go through the ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure), also known as a public review.

From the DCP website:

Certification. DCP is responsible for certifying that the application is complete, and ready for public review through the ULURP process.

An application cannot be certified until DCP determines that the application includes all forms, plans and supporting documents that are necessary to address all issues related to the application. If the particular application is subject to environmental review, a negative declaration or a conditional negative declaration or a notice of completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be issued before an application can be certified. There is no mandated time by which this pre-certification review must be completed. The Charter permits applicants or the affected Borough President to appeal to CPC for certification after six months from the date of application submission.

Certified applications are sent within nine days to the affected Community Board, Borough President and the City Council and if appropriate, to the Borough Board.

Yes, it's possible, but we would need much more information to assume this.

Only some City Planning reviews require ULURP. Things like zoning text amendments, zoning certifications and the like don't require ULURP.

There are a large number of issues where City Planning has to make a determination, but a relatively small number of those issues require ULURP.

You treat me like I'm clueless, but I actually worked with NYCEDC for 4+ years on several projects that required public review. I've never heard the term "certification" used regarding a DCP review without there being ULURP.

And I worked with HPD for a similar span of time.

I'm not calling you "clueless"; for all I know you know much more than I, but I don't share your opinions on what these comments necessarily represent.

Many types of DCP review doesn't necessitate ULURP. On this I am certain. In many cases, the City Planning Commission reviews directly.

Direct from the DCP website-
Other actions require approval by the City Planning Commission or its chair but are not subject to ULURP. Such actions include zoning authorizations, certifications, review of Charter Section 197-a plans, UDAAP area designations and project approvals, business improvement districts, and modifications or follow-ups to previous land use actions.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulurp.shtml

Fair enough.

All I'm saying that "certification" isn't subject to public review, but it is a step leading up to public review - as seen in this process chart.

Anyway, perhaps the architect is mistaken and this project won't require public review after all. I continue to find it very odd that they keep broadcasting their progress on facebook. Very different than a typical (private developer driven) NYC project that operates in a shroud of secrecy.

He specifically stated that no public review would be required for the development...

So much legal mumbo jumbo -- What I want to know is the current status.