NEW YORK | 250 Water Street | 2 x 470 FT | 38 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

Its a historic neighborhood currently capped at a height of 120ft. A tall skyscraper was a non-starter with the community. Since a rezoning would be necessary, the ULURP process can lead to the death of the project, which is why the height was so dramatically decreased, to simply bring it to the table without a unanimous disapproval.

Ah didn't know that. In that case we should expect even more height chops I'm assuming.

470' twins is still better than nothing but who knows if we'll even see that?

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Then we would have missed that!

The towers themselves aren't horrible to look at though. But from what was presented, actually all of them were preferable to this.

Yeh at least they ain't another set of shiny glass blue buildings.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

470' twins is still better than nothing but who knows if we'll even see that?

Knowing the NIMBY's it will end up 470ft underground instead.

[chris08876]

I wouldn't necessarily mind the height chop if they made up for it in units. The unit count is woefully low. Seems like a missed opportunity.

[BK1985]

While I preferred the tall one this one is pretty nice for the area and I’m happy that it’s not another blue glass building with zero personality. Some of you are so hysterically dramatic. Lol

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BK1985

While I preferred the tall one this one is pretty nice for the area and I’m happy that it’s not another blue glass building with zero personality. Some of you are so hysterically dramatic. Lol

Well, it was never gonna be a glass blue building, that much was clear. But it's not as if that area is overflowing with blue glass buildings. What was proposed was basically the same treatment (all versions), only taller. So the difference is in the height, not in the material.

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

Knowing the NIMBY's it will end up 470ft underground instead.

The problem for the NIMBYs, other than the height, which they still won't be pleased about, is the massive base. It's a large structure that can be built as-of-right. That much they can't do anything about. But in defense of the development, remove the towers above, and it fits in just the same as the block it borders.

Currently the site is an empty parking lot. So in that sense, anything built on site is an improvement. They're promising pretty much what they always have. But the way things are going, they would have been better off with the original plan of placing the tower on the waterfront. That way it wouldn't be in the middle of the historic district, and they get the lowrise development that they want. There will be no welcoming parade from the NIMBYs with this toned down version. They should have stuck with the original 1,000 ft plan, and make modest height cuts as concessions when needed. Learn from the other developers that have done it. You're gonna have to fight it out either way.

[Visionist]

I'd love to see the looks on their faces when 80 South finally goes ahead.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by Visionist

I'd love to see the looks on their faces when 80 South finally goes ahead.

Even better is when they realize there's not a thing they can do to stop it. and its to the south of the seaport so i'm sure the collective bed wetting about shadows would follow.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by BK1985

Even better is when they realize there's not a thing they can do to stop it. and its to the south of the seaport so i'm sure the collective bed wetting about shadows would follow.

NIMBYs should concentrate more on BULK of a building as much as HEIGHT. The neighborhood may be better with a tall skinny stepped back building than two bulky ones. I wonder how many residents really live within 4-5 blocks of that area anyway.

[NYguy]

https://friendsofsouthstreetseaport....water-st-site/

HHC reveals latest plan for its 250 Water St site

23rd October 2020

On Oct 22, 2020, the Howard Hughes Corp. (HHC) issued a Press Release to reveal its latest “visionary” project for its 250 Water St lot, located within the South Street Seaport Historic District.

In this latest iteration, HHC has now downsized from prior super-tall ambitions to just middling height as skyscrapers go these days, with its 2- 470ft towers – albeit still way off the mark in light of the 120ft height max in the historic area, but obviously viewed by HHC as a “compromise” gesture to win over recalcitrant parties.

HHC is promising all sorts of community benefits to lock in needed approvals from elected officials and city agencies, chief among them:

“Saving” the Seaport Museum with some funding, viewed in an HHC internal document as a means of providing “political cover” (refer: HHC NY Region 2020 Budget Presentation – October 2019 slide)

Including some “affordable” housing in the bargain – which is now actually required of any zoning upgrade.

Some of the key actions required to make HHC’s vision a reality:

-NYC Landmarks signoff that a 470 ft building in the Seaport is appropriate to the scale and character of the area

-Zoning amendment to allow for HHC’s latest proposed 470 ft tall structure in a protected 120 ft height limited area

-Sell-off of the Seaport’s publicly owned air rights to HHC, with the HHC caveat that it could use the rights at its 250 Water St site within the historic area. But this buts up against the intent in the original 1970’s Special South St. Seaport Transfer mechanism to use Seaport air rights as a tool to save and protect the Seaport through their sale and use only outside the district.

-The big secret in all this – revealed in HHC’s internal 2019 budget doc – is that HHC needs to make good on its overpriced S180MM buy of the 250 Water St lot, and if it can get all needed entitlements and approvals in place pre-development, it plans to sell 250Water, target – 2022.

It is now in full public relations mode to overcome Seaport advocates’ unwillingness to accept HHC’s false premise that the only way to save one public asset is to sacrifice another: HHC’s offer of Seaport Museum funding, for a carve-out to HHC of almost 10% the historic district for a tower that doesn’t belong there, and would set a bad precedent for not only the Seaport but other protected areas.

In its Strategic Plan of 2019, the Seaport Coalition proposed several ways to finance Seaport needs, including those of the museum, that would not undermine the very area it is trying to save, and not surrender control of our public assets to inappropriate private development.

The Coalition has reached out to elected officials and city-agencies, and they are well aware of the Coalition’s position. Whether dangling $$$ from a private developer holds sway remains to be seen.

Obviously, this fight for the soul of the Seaport is not over.

The fight continues. Smoking gun?





https://friendsofsouthstreetseaport....y-never-build/

250 Water St – Gaming the public and elected officials to gain approvals for a tower that the Howard Hughes Corp. may never build?

23rd October 2020

...spanning the same period that HHC was promoting its public plan, it was presenting an internal budget document to its NY Region – Oct 2019 – which reveals a different plan to sell 250 Water – as soon as 2022. As a key slide shows, if HHC is able to get pre-build entitlements needed for a tower, it intends to sell 250 Water – as soon as 2022, leaving the fate of an actual build to another developer.

The Seaport Coalition – an alliance of several groups that came together in 2019 around plans for yet another inappropriate build in the historic South St Seaport – held a public meeting on Sept. 17, 2020 (via Zoom) to provide an update on key events that have taken place over the course of the covid lockdown, centered around issues that HHC’s plans for 250 Water brought to the fore.

The full presentation provided an update on the Brownfield cleanup of the toxic wastes under 250 Water St; issues around air rights; the city required steps that the developer must follow in its attempt to gain approvals for a tower on the site; what the coalition has been doing to protect the seaport from inappropriate development; and how the public can help.

[NYguy]

Can't get into this right now, but here's the EAS....


https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning...street-eas.pdf

[NYguy]

In case I didn't say it loud enough before, BOOOOOOOO!!!
































On that graphic, you can see exactly where the affordable units will go.

[JMKeynes]

Is this as of right? If not, the NIMBYs will block it.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Is this as of right? If not, the NIMBYs will block it.

No, the as of right version is below. But the NIMBYs won't be happy regardless, which is why they should have went with the bigger plan, and then worked backwards if necessary for approvals.

[NYguy]

I don't even really care about the NIMBYs feasting on this.



https://tribecacitizen.com/2020/11/1...oric-district/

Howard Hughes’ plans for 250 Water vs. the Seaport Historic District






November 12, 2020

The Howard Hughes Corporation released its latest plans for 250 Water — the ‘mercury’ site next to Peck Slip School — showing towers that are drastically reduced in size from the developer’s first go-round but still well past the zoning limits of 12 stories — 35 stories bigger to be exact. And anyone who has ever believed the Seaport should be preserved as a historic district — or even that historic districts should be preserved! — has major grounds to push back.

A select group of CB1 members were quoted in HHC’s press release gushing over the proposal, but the board itself has long maintained that the zoning established for the site in 2003 was both carefully considered and vetted. The average building in the historic district is four to five stories tall; the highest is 90 feet tall; and the zoning at 250 Water — an entire square block — allows for 120 feet.

“Lower Manhattan is filled with high rise buildings and people don’t object to them almost everywhere,” said Paul Goldstein, who is on CB1 now and was district manager from 1983 to 2006. “But protecting and preserving special and unique areas is worth saving for a city.”

In the deal’s supposed life raft for the South Street Seaport Museum, the 53-year-old cultural institution that has been closed not just for the pandemic, but due to damage left over from Hurricane Sandy in 2012, HHC promises to put up $50 million for a new building and funding to renovate the old one. For some, that is enough of a deal to go along. But in theory, Landmarks should be considering just the appropriateness of the development, and not any bonuses or givebacks it is promising to neighboring institutions.

“Time and again, New York City depends on unreliable outside investors to do what we should (and can) do on our own,” wrote the members of the Seaport Coalition in a letter to the Trib, where they note that HHC is a Texas-based company. “If approved, the development’s malformed plans for the full-block site at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge will have long-term detrimental consequences to the neighborhood, the city, and the nation.”

If this wasn’t wonky enough for you, here are some other details.

HHC has to secure a lot of special permissions to build here, not the least of which is a permit for additional height. But it also has to get permission to move development rights off its sites at the Tin Building and Pier 17 and into the site at 250 Water. It seems obvious that the idea of creating a mechanism for the transfer of development rights is to move development OUT of a historic district, not into it.

“The sad fact remains that yes, it’s remained a parking lot,” said Goldstein. “But that’s because the owners have refused to put forth a building that complies with the zoning.” He also points to Historic Front Street, the development that restored eight 18th Century buildings while constructing a new infill project to create housing and commercial space within the historic district.

There’s also the affordable housing piece, which has garnered support from local elected officials as well. AND, let’s not forget how this all started most recently — with the cleanup of the site, which is a brownfield from contamination with mercury leftover from its industrial days. That will continue to be an issue not just for local residents but for parents at Peck Slip.

The CB1 Landmarks Committee will produce a resolution at its December meeting, and the proposal will come before the Landmarks Commission for a hearing in January.

[Visionist]

It's surrounded by buildings much taller than the as of right height limit.

Lmao

[NYguy]

Yeah, they went with the least offensive option, and will get slammed for it anyway. Good. You can't appease when it comes to proposals. They'll still hate it.

[NYguy]

• Video Link

[NYguy]

https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-h...ion=topic_page

Say 'NO' to HHC's Towers at 250 Water Street and Save the Historic South Street Seaport!
6,312 have signed. Let’s get to 7,500!

Howard Hughes Corporation ("HHC"), a Texas-based developer, is looking to destroy the integrity of the South Street Seaport Historic District by obtaining approval for two 470 foot tall towers on 250 Water Street.

The site is zoned for 120 feet and resides in a protected Historic District, which consists of early 19th century 4 and 5 story buildings and cobblestone streets.

HHC purchased the site from its prior developer, Howard Milstein in 2018 for ~$180 million - likely betting they could lobby city officials and have zoning laws changed. Now HHC embarks on just that, hiring lobbyists to change zoning laws and win approval for their 470 foot tall monstrosity.

We urge you to stand with us, reject this corporate greed, and protect one of our National Treasures. Not only is the South Street Seaport the birthplace of New York City and New York State, but also a key piece of America's national history!

The Seaport Coalition is by no means 'anti-development.' We simply ask that existing zoning laws be upheld and HHC develops within their right. Is that too much to ask?

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by NYguy

No, the as of right version is below. But the NIMBYs won't be happy regardless, which is why they should have went with the bigger plan, and then worked backwards if necessary for approvals.

If the scrap the current proposal and build as right, will they still have to build below market rate housing, community space, streetscape improvements? Were these changes were all concessions to build higher?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

If the scrap the current proposal and build as right, will they still have to build below market rate housing, community space, streetscape improvements? Were these changes were all concessions to build higher?

This would be the first MIH site in that area, but the as-of-right scenario just moves the bulk of the tower back to the riverfront, which they really didn’t want. But you never see the NIMBY’s bring that up. That’s because people would probably prefer the tower here rather than there.