Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas Hotel Penn
Merry Christmas Hotel Pennsylvania. This may be your last so we hope it is your bet one yet!
Friday, November 19, 2010
New York Times Ad
I finally managed to get a copy of the NY Times, full page ad from The Empire State Building. This ad appeared on the same day as the hearings, (Monday August 23, 2010), and is actually a letter to the following council members.
Speaker Christine Quinn,
Deputy Majority Leader Comrie (Consumer Affairs; Cultural Affairs, Libraries & International Intergroup relations; Finance; Land Use, Chair (Zoning & Franchises); Rules, Privileges & Elections)
Mark S. Weprin, (Land Use, Zoning & Franchises, Chair).
The ad can be found here.
Speaker Christine Quinn,
Deputy Majority Leader Comrie (Consumer Affairs; Cultural Affairs, Libraries & International Intergroup relations; Finance; Land Use, Chair (Zoning & Franchises); Rules, Privileges & Elections)
Mark S. Weprin, (Land Use, Zoning & Franchises, Chair).
The ad can be found here.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Final letter from the LPC
I just got a letter back from the LPC regarding regarding the Cafe Rouge landmarking Status. It was denied. They claim the Cafe "has been too significantly altered". This is a bunch of bull. I don't get why they couldn't just say the truth that the buildings demolition was already approved. Highly unprofessional if you ask me. I will post the full letter later.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
FM/TV signals could be in trouble because of 15 Penn Plaza Tower.
A recent article was published stating the obvious fact that the new 15 Penn Plaza building will more than likely disrupt FM and or TV signals from the Empire State Building. Jim Stagnitto, director of engineering for New York Public Radio, is concerned about both of his FMs at Empire, WNYC(FM) and WQXR(FM). “WQXR is a low-power Class B and will be especially susceptible to multipath in New Jersey. I’m very concerned. And without a predictive study to examine, we really don’t know how bad it could be,” Stagnitto said.
The question is what are they going to do about it? Can the FCC put a stop the the project because of this or until the find a way to relocate the antennas to a new higher location?
The question is what are they going to do about it? Can the FCC put a stop the the project because of this or until the find a way to relocate the antennas to a new higher location?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Testimony of Wally Rubin for Community Board Five at the New York City Council Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises, Monday, August 23rd, 2010
TESTIMONY OF WALLY RUBIN FOR COMMUNITY BOARD FIVE AT THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON ZONING AND FRANCHISES, MONDAY, AUGUST 23rd, 2010
Good morning. My name is Wally Rubin and I am the District Manager for Community Board Five. Thank you for the privilege of addressing you today on the topic of 15 Penn Plaza, one of the most important development projects our Board has faced in years.
Community Board Five and its Land Use & Zoning Committee spent considerable time meeting with the applicant and reviewing every available document before we voted 36 to 1 to deny this application.
Obviously, our Board felt very strongly about this application and here are the reasons why:
First, we think that the transportation improvements Vornado has proposed are inadequate. Many of the improvements are ultimately either self-serving or mandated and wholly insufficient for the 474,000 square feet Vornado will receive in exchange. Indeed, as one of our Board members put it, they are akin to Vornado cleaning up its own basement.
Second, Community Board Five is deeply troubled by this applicant's request for a midblock up-zoning, adding yet another 266,000 square feet to a tower that is utterly lacking confirmed details, including building size, height, tenancy, construction timetable or financing plan. The applicant conceded to us that it could be many years – years - before any development scenario might move forward, which entirely demolishes the argument that we should approve this project now as a salve for our current economic troubles.
If the up-zoning were to be granted now, it would remain with the zoning lot permanently, regardless of future development plans or even if the lot is eventually sold. It is ill-advised from a proper planning perspective to approve such an up-zoning without a clear rationale for its request. This up-zoning, just blocks from the Empire State Building, will allow Vornado, or whoever might eventually own this site, to build a building that will change the iconic skyline of New York City forevermore. Such a change must be deeply considered and well thought out, both in terms of its design and, more broadly, its impact on future land use decisions in the immediate area.
Community Board Five is not opposed to development and we recognize that this site is appropriate for a large commercial building. We value the job creation that will result not only during construction but also after the proposed building is complete. But we are also acutely aware of how the area
surrounding Penn Station is poised to undergo enormous development, growth, and change in the coming decade. This means that each individual land use decision will cumulatively contribute to its transformation.
Therefore, we hope that the ladies and gentlemen on this committee and the Council as a whole will join us in asking Vornado to return to the table with their request for a permanent up-zoning when they have a rationale and a final, financed plan in place. Until such time, we urge the Council to join with City Planning, the Moynihan Station Community Advisory Committee and Community Boards Four and Five to begin to outline a Moynihan Station subdistrict zoning plan and a future for this area that is both well-considered and comprehensive.
Thank you for your time.
Community Board Five and its Land Use & Zoning Committee spent considerable time meeting with the applicant and reviewing every available document before we voted 36 to 1 to deny this application.
Obviously, our Board felt very strongly about this application and here are the reasons why:
First, we think that the transportation improvements Vornado has proposed are inadequate. Many of the improvements are ultimately either self-serving or mandated and wholly insufficient for the 474,000 square feet Vornado will receive in exchange. Indeed, as one of our Board members put it, they are akin to Vornado cleaning up its own basement.
Second, Community Board Five is deeply troubled by this applicant's request for a midblock up-zoning, adding yet another 266,000 square feet to a tower that is utterly lacking confirmed details, including building size, height, tenancy, construction timetable or financing plan. The applicant conceded to us that it could be many years – years - before any development scenario might move forward, which entirely demolishes the argument that we should approve this project now as a salve for our current economic troubles.
If the up-zoning were to be granted now, it would remain with the zoning lot permanently, regardless of future development plans or even if the lot is eventually sold. It is ill-advised from a proper planning perspective to approve such an up-zoning without a clear rationale for its request. This up-zoning, just blocks from the Empire State Building, will allow Vornado, or whoever might eventually own this site, to build a building that will change the iconic skyline of New York City forevermore. Such a change must be deeply considered and well thought out, both in terms of its design and, more broadly, its impact on future land use decisions in the immediate area.
Community Board Five is not opposed to development and we recognize that this site is appropriate for a large commercial building. We value the job creation that will result not only during construction but also after the proposed building is complete. But we are also acutely aware of how the area
surrounding Penn Station is poised to undergo enormous development, growth, and change in the coming decade. This means that each individual land use decision will cumulatively contribute to its transformation.
Therefore, we hope that the ladies and gentlemen on this committee and the Council as a whole will join us in asking Vornado to return to the table with their request for a permanent up-zoning when they have a rationale and a final, financed plan in place. Until such time, we urge the Council to join with City Planning, the Moynihan Station Community Advisory Committee and Community Boards Four and Five to begin to outline a Moynihan Station subdistrict zoning plan and a future for this area that is both well-considered and comprehensive.
Thank you for your time.
Monday, September 27, 2010
NYC Council
This past weekend I was lucky enough to capture a recording of the NYC Council on Zoning meeting for 15 Penn Plaza on the NYC Gov TV Channel. Over the next few days I will be attempting to make an audio transcript of the meeting (minus the commercials). Please be patient with me as I do this. We have also reached out to CB5 for a copy of the speech that Mr. Wally Rubin gave that day, if we get it from CB5 will will gladly post it here.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
A letter to Mr. Roth and Mr. Greenbaum
I opened up my mailbox today and found this wonderful letter from Mr. Marco Zanaletti, who just happens to live in Italy. the letter is listed below and reads:
Thank you Marco, let us hope your letter does not fall on deaf ears.
Da: Marco <marcoz88@alice.it>Data: 18 settembre 2010 16.26.07 GMT+02.00Cc: sroth@vno.comOggetto: Pennsylvania Hotel
Dear Sirs,
From what it was once a beautiful and unique Country - Italy - I am begging you not to demolish the Pennsylvania Hotel. An awfully lot of money can be made more easily and smartly out of history than out of cheap consumerism. If we had preserved our country and our landscape, we would today be much richer, not only in our pockets, but in our hearts too. New York has lost already many landmarks, last but not least due to terrorism.So please, let the Penn hotel survive, as a piece of the America which changed the world for the better and that we learned to love and respect.
Yours truly,
Marco Zanaletti
Via Ticino 8820081 Abbiategrasso (Milano)
Italy
Thank you Marco, let us hope your letter does not fall on deaf ears.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Atlantic Yards Report: "Stealing the common from the goose": Henry Stern's compelling case against 15 Penn Plaza (and the glaring Atlantic Yards blind spot)
An interesting blog that I came across. He makes a valid point, and just for those who are wondering, it's not over, yet.
Atlantic Yards Report: "Stealing the common from the goose": Henry Stern's compelling case against 15 Penn Plaza (and the glaring Atlantic Yards blind spot)
Atlantic Yards Report: "Stealing the common from the goose": Henry Stern's compelling case against 15 Penn Plaza (and the glaring Atlantic Yards blind spot)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Letters from CB5 to the CPC and City Council
A few posts ago I wrote about a letter that was sent from CB5 to the CPC admonishing them about their decision to approve the 15 Penn Plaza Project. And to my surprise CB5 also sent a letter to the City Council telling them how they felt. Is it me or is the community the only sane people left in NY?
Below are a copy of those letters:
"The Board does not oppose this project per se. However, we have serious concerns about the building's proposed size, possible only through the granting of special permits, in an application that offers few public benefits in exchange.
First, in exchange for a 20% transit bonus, the applicant's proposal includes the restoration and reopening of the Gimbel's Passageway plus various other access and egress improvements, all of which we applaud. But as we note in our resolution, some of these improvements are either self-serving or mandated, and thus not sufficient for the 474,000 square feet received in exchange.
Second, Community Board Five is deeply troubled by this application's request for midblock up-zoning (from a C6-4.5 to a C6-6) adding another 266,000 square feet to an application that lacks many confirmed details, including building size, height, tenancy, construction timetable or financing plans. The applicant conceded to us that it could be many years before any development scenario might move forward. Yet if granted, the upzoining would be permanent and remain with the zoning lot regardless of future development plans or even if the lot were to be sold.
Third, we ask that the Commission evaluate this application from the perspective of consistency. The Commission recently considered the Jean Nouvel/MoMA building, and despite noting the proposed building's exemplary design and the lasting benefits that this project would generate for landmarks and cultural institutions, it voted to reduce its size due to its impacts on the city skyline and the surrounding neighborhood.
In comparison, the 15 Penn Plaza application wholly lacks the MoMA project's distinguished architectural features, produces no benefits for landmark preservation or cultural access, would have similarly detrimental impacts on neighborhood density and traffic, and would notably diminish, not enhance, the skyline position of its iconic neighbor, the Empire State Building.
Indeed, the proposed buildings would directly obstruct the view of the Empire State Building from the west, thereby fundamentally altering and diminishing New York City's skyline in a way few projects have in decades. Should 15 Penn Plaza not be held to the same standards and criteria as Nouvel/MoMA? "
Letter sent by CB5's Chair Vikki Barbero:
"The ULURP process has ended and the Council has made its final determination. We remain distressed and dismayed, however, by the level of discussion and debate both in the media and at the Council.
The issue before the Council was not principally about women and minority employment, as important as this issue continues to be in all job areas. Yet, if you were present for the Council debate you would have thought it was at the heart of the matter being voted on. The issue before the Council was not about a battle between two major real estate developers, as many press reports made it out.
The issue before the Council was not about the need to foster jobs during this bad economic climate, for even the developer admits they won't be building for years to come. Yet, a number of our political leaders used that bogus argument as an excuse to support the project.
And the issue before the Council was certainly not about sticking it to the Empire State Building because it failed to light up for Mother Teresa.
The issue before the City and the Council was, in fact, about far more than just one project on one block of midtown Manhattan. It was about giving strategic and prudent oversight to a section of our city - the area around Penn Station - that is about to undergo significant change.
The City has created the Moynihan Station sub-district precisely because this area of midtown is poised for major development -- and the City has a responsibility to prepare for it, to be thoughtful about it, and to set the parameters for it.
One development should not be permitted to set a bad precedent for the next, as we believe this one does by upzoning an entire block without a rationale and with limited resultant public benefit. A city as dense as ours, with so many competing interests, needs to thoughtfully and inclusively plan for its future and not let one wealthy and powerful developer override that process.
That was the debate that was entirely missing this week both in most of the media and, even worse, at the City Council. We were disheartened and discouraged by its absence."
Credit to Huffington Post for publishing these letters.
Below are a copy of those letters:
"The Board does not oppose this project per se. However, we have serious concerns about the building's proposed size, possible only through the granting of special permits, in an application that offers few public benefits in exchange.
First, in exchange for a 20% transit bonus, the applicant's proposal includes the restoration and reopening of the Gimbel's Passageway plus various other access and egress improvements, all of which we applaud. But as we note in our resolution, some of these improvements are either self-serving or mandated, and thus not sufficient for the 474,000 square feet received in exchange.
Second, Community Board Five is deeply troubled by this application's request for midblock up-zoning (from a C6-4.5 to a C6-6) adding another 266,000 square feet to an application that lacks many confirmed details, including building size, height, tenancy, construction timetable or financing plans. The applicant conceded to us that it could be many years before any development scenario might move forward. Yet if granted, the upzoining would be permanent and remain with the zoning lot regardless of future development plans or even if the lot were to be sold.
Third, we ask that the Commission evaluate this application from the perspective of consistency. The Commission recently considered the Jean Nouvel/MoMA building, and despite noting the proposed building's exemplary design and the lasting benefits that this project would generate for landmarks and cultural institutions, it voted to reduce its size due to its impacts on the city skyline and the surrounding neighborhood.
In comparison, the 15 Penn Plaza application wholly lacks the MoMA project's distinguished architectural features, produces no benefits for landmark preservation or cultural access, would have similarly detrimental impacts on neighborhood density and traffic, and would notably diminish, not enhance, the skyline position of its iconic neighbor, the Empire State Building.
Indeed, the proposed buildings would directly obstruct the view of the Empire State Building from the west, thereby fundamentally altering and diminishing New York City's skyline in a way few projects have in decades. Should 15 Penn Plaza not be held to the same standards and criteria as Nouvel/MoMA? "
__________________________________________________________
Letter sent by CB5's Chair Vikki Barbero:
"The ULURP process has ended and the Council has made its final determination. We remain distressed and dismayed, however, by the level of discussion and debate both in the media and at the Council.
The issue before the Council was not principally about women and minority employment, as important as this issue continues to be in all job areas. Yet, if you were present for the Council debate you would have thought it was at the heart of the matter being voted on. The issue before the Council was not about a battle between two major real estate developers, as many press reports made it out.
The issue before the Council was not about the need to foster jobs during this bad economic climate, for even the developer admits they won't be building for years to come. Yet, a number of our political leaders used that bogus argument as an excuse to support the project.
And the issue before the Council was certainly not about sticking it to the Empire State Building because it failed to light up for Mother Teresa.
The issue before the City and the Council was, in fact, about far more than just one project on one block of midtown Manhattan. It was about giving strategic and prudent oversight to a section of our city - the area around Penn Station - that is about to undergo significant change.
The City has created the Moynihan Station sub-district precisely because this area of midtown is poised for major development -- and the City has a responsibility to prepare for it, to be thoughtful about it, and to set the parameters for it.
One development should not be permitted to set a bad precedent for the next, as we believe this one does by upzoning an entire block without a rationale and with limited resultant public benefit. A city as dense as ours, with so many competing interests, needs to thoughtfully and inclusively plan for its future and not let one wealthy and powerful developer override that process.
That was the debate that was entirely missing this week both in most of the media and, even worse, at the City Council. We were disheartened and discouraged by its absence."
Credit to Huffington Post for publishing these letters.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Another letter to Christine Quinn
Congratulations! Thanks to you and the other members of the NYC Council, you have caused nearly 1000 people in Manhattan lose their jobs. And to what benefit? The demolition of a building you know was landmark worthy? The destruction of the NYC skyline? Was it the "donation" from Vornado? It always comes down to selfishness and money. The demolition of Penn Station was a huge mistake, and I bet you agree! Thank you for making the same mistake again with Hotel Pennsylvania. Congratulations Ms. Quinn. A job well done. We will remember this when you are up for re-election. Thank you for your contribution to the history of New York. You have failed.
With Love,
Steven Lepore
With Love,
Steven Lepore
A letter to Christine Quinn
Ms. Quinn:
I would personally like to thank you on behalf of the all the employee's of the Hotel Pennsylvania. Because of your vote, and the votes of other members of the NYC Council you have effectively put them out of work, and increased the unemployment of NYC. All for a few campaign contributions from Vornado. Fantastic job Ms. Quinn, we will be sure to remember this next time we go to the polls on election day to vote for you.
Gregory Jones
Save The Hotel Pennsylvania Foundation
I would personally like to thank you on behalf of the all the employee's of the Hotel Pennsylvania. Because of your vote, and the votes of other members of the NYC Council you have effectively put them out of work, and increased the unemployment of NYC. All for a few campaign contributions from Vornado. Fantastic job Ms. Quinn, we will be sure to remember this next time we go to the polls on election day to vote for you.
Gregory Jones
Save The Hotel Pennsylvania Foundation
Monday, August 30, 2010
Response from Vornado regarding obtaining pieces of the Hotel
This is the quite comical response I got from Barry Langer of Vornado:
Steven,
We have noted your request and when the hotel is eventually demolished we will get back to you.
Barry Langer | Vornado Realty Trust
888 Seventh Avenue, 44th Floor, New York, New York 10019
212.894.7911 | 212.894.7949 F
Steven,
We have noted your request and when the hotel is eventually demolished we will get back to you.
Barry Langer | Vornado Realty Trust
888 Seventh Avenue, 44th Floor, New York, New York 10019
212.894.7911 | 212.894.7949 F
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Email them
If you wish to express your feeling to Vornado personally, and tell them how you feel about the "15 Penn Plaza" office tower (that no one wants). Feel free to email the President of the New York Office.
David R. Greenbaum (dgreenbaum@vno.com), or if you prefer to go straight to the top and ask the boss himself, contact Steve Roth (sroth@vno.com).
If you would like to send him a letter via snail mail, or perhaps some other gift you can do so by sending it to this address:
Vornado Realty Trust
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10106-4498
Be sure to put it to the attention of whomever you are sending it too so we make sure the parcels get to the correct location.
David R. Greenbaum (dgreenbaum@vno.com), or if you prefer to go straight to the top and ask the boss himself, contact Steve Roth (sroth@vno.com).
If you would like to send him a letter via snail mail, or perhaps some other gift you can do so by sending it to this address:
Vornado Realty Trust
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10106-4498
Be sure to put it to the attention of whomever you are sending it too so we make sure the parcels get to the correct location.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Last ditch effort
Despite meeting with Christine Quinn's office (and getting outnumbered 7 to 1), and meeting with Jessica Lapin's office (and her not even bothering to show up for the final land use and council meeting), despite getting support from Assemblyman Gottfried, and having him make a plea to the NYS assembly. Despite all of that, we still lost the battle. But the war is not over, yet. We still have one last tactic that we can deploy that unfortunately I cannot get into the details of the plan, but I guarantee it will cause enough media attention to get recognized, and with luck get the legal support that we so desperately need.
This project when the time comes will require the support of everyone involved. More details will follow later but for now, we will be keeping an eye on Vornado and making sure they stick to the rules, and follow through to the promises that they made.
This project when the time comes will require the support of everyone involved. More details will follow later but for now, we will be keeping an eye on Vornado and making sure they stick to the rules, and follow through to the promises that they made.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Its over and we lost. :-(
The city council voted this morning, 8 in favor, 2 abstained, 1 absent in favor of the destruction of the hotel. Vornado has won, we lost. Read the decision here. http://bit.ly/aowiRi and here http://bit.ly/aB2WX4
Monday, August 23, 2010
More Tower Blues
Anthony Malkin, the owner of the Empire State building took out a full page add in the New York Times on Monday, about the proposed tower replacing Hotel Pennsylvania. Marklin's ad asked the City Council to amend or reject the 15 Penn Plaza tower proposal. The height of the tower is certainly causing an uproar due to the fact of it "destroying" the Manhattan skyline.
City Council Vote
The City Council meeting is over. Among some of the speakers were Empire State Building's Anthony Malkin, and Vornado's David Greenbaum. The vote won't be posted until the council finishes it's deliberations. As soon as we have more info we will post it.
We have learned the the Council will make its vote on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010.
We have learned the the Council will make its vote on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Public Meeting for Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchise
I contacted the Land Use Committee and inquired how you can go about speaking at this meeting. Have your speech ready and sign in to speak when you show up, your name will be called and you will be allowed a finite amount of minutes to talk. You may speak on behalf of those who cannot show up, but be sure to sign that person’s name when you register as well. Remember this is the absolute last shot at saving the hotel. If you want to be heard make sure you or someone representing you shows up on time, and in the right place.
The meeting will be held at:
250 Broadway - Hearing Room, 16th Fl.
New York, NY 10007
Monday August 23, 2010 @ 9:30AM
The meeting will be held at:
250 Broadway - Hearing Room, 16th Fl.
New York, NY 10007
Monday August 23, 2010 @ 9:30AM
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchise
The Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchise has posted the agenda for the meeting on August 23rd. the link to it can be found at their website listed below: Remember this may be our only chance to speak out against this.
http://legistar.council.nyc.gov
http://legistar.council.nyc.gov
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
MBPO accepts donations from Vornado and other REIT's.
The NY Observer reported that Scott Stringer (currently Manhattan Borough President) in his bid for the Mayor’s office has amassed a sum of $655,163 in campaign contributions. From that, $195,000 came from Vornado, and other Real Estate Companies Executives, their families, and related organizations. As you know, Vornado currently has a ULURP application, on file with (now) the City Council.
"To name a few donors who maxed out: CB Richard Ellis top broker Steve Siegel; RFR Holdings' Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs; and Sherwood Equities' Jeff Katz." reports Elliot Brown of the NY Observer.
There is a law that dictates the campaign limits by which numerous developers that have projects on file with the city, cannot give more than the limited amount to candidates of $400. Vornado's Steve Roth, who is in the process of a rezoning of the Hotel Penn, (who also received approval from the MBPO), gave $1,000 to Mr. Stringer on July 2 of this year. Mr. Roth was able to do this due to a provision in the law that does not require subsidiary LLCs to list the owners of their parent companies. Because the Hotel Penn is listed as "401 Hotel REIT, LLC", Mr. Roth was able to use this provision to his favor to "donate" more than the allowed amount by normal regulations. A Vornado spokesman said the donation was a "mistake", and Mr. Stringer's campaign claimed the contribution had been "refunded".
It’s amazing how the politicians of NYC, can be bought so inexpensively.
"To name a few donors who maxed out: CB Richard Ellis top broker Steve Siegel; RFR Holdings' Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs; and Sherwood Equities' Jeff Katz." reports Elliot Brown of the NY Observer.
There is a law that dictates the campaign limits by which numerous developers that have projects on file with the city, cannot give more than the limited amount to candidates of $400. Vornado's Steve Roth, who is in the process of a rezoning of the Hotel Penn, (who also received approval from the MBPO), gave $1,000 to Mr. Stringer on July 2 of this year. Mr. Roth was able to do this due to a provision in the law that does not require subsidiary LLCs to list the owners of their parent companies. Because the Hotel Penn is listed as "401 Hotel REIT, LLC", Mr. Roth was able to use this provision to his favor to "donate" more than the allowed amount by normal regulations. A Vornado spokesman said the donation was a "mistake", and Mr. Stringer's campaign claimed the contribution had been "refunded".
It’s amazing how the politicians of NYC, can be bought so inexpensively.
Friday, July 30, 2010
City Council Meetings
We need to be careful in the next month. With all of the City's rules and regulations that Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchise are going to pass on the meeting for the Hotel to the Land Use Committee. The following are the meeting schedules for the Hotel. As things change I will keep everyone posted.
8/24/2010 10:00 AM 250 Broadway - Hearing Room, 16th Fl.
8/23/2010 9:30 AM 250 Broadway - Hearing Room, 16th Fl.
8/24/2010 10:00 AM 250 Broadway - Hearing Room, 16th Fl.
8/23/2010 9:30 AM 250 Broadway - Hearing Room, 16th Fl.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
City Council Public Meeting
The City council subcommittee on zoning and franchise will hold a meeting on (or about) Aug 23rd at 9:30am @ 250 Broadway 16th floor. I will keep you up to date as the day grows closer. Now that we know for sure what subcommittee will be reviewing it, we can keep an eye on their calendar.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
DCP decisions.
The following are a list of the decisions handed down by the DCP for the various ULURP filed for 15 Penn Plaza. A copy of each has been sent to MBPO and Christine Quinn.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100237.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100050.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100048.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100047.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100049.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100237.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100050.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100048.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100047.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/100049.pdf
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
CB5 admonishes MBPO and DCP
Sources tell us that CB5 is very unhappy with the decision handed down by the MBPO and DCP and told them so. CB5 states "No such letter was sent. At least not from Community Board Five."
However, CB5 made no secret to their unhappiness during the start of the public hearings of this ULURP project. with a nearly unanimous vote declining the project.
However, CB5 made no secret to their unhappiness during the start of the public hearings of this ULURP project. with a nearly unanimous vote declining the project.
Friday, July 16, 2010
WPIX-TV
We sent a letter to WPIX-TV (Ch 11 in NY) to ask them to do a story on the preservation efforts. We hope to hear back from them soon. In the mean time if you are attending "the next hope" please ask to sign the petition to help us save the Hotel Pennsylvania!
Petition
If you are attending HOPE at the Hotel Penn this weekend, please be sure to sign the Petition to help save the Hotel from being demolished!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
DCP votes "Yes" to demolition
The DCP has voted unanimously to approve the 15 Penn Plaza project. We will post more information when it becomes available.
Friday, July 2, 2010
DCP Public Hearing Closed!
Apparently the DCP pulled a fast one on us and already held the public hearing on the Hotel Penn back in May!
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/rs_dispo/2010-05-24rs.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/dispo/2010-05-26cal.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/rs_dispo/2010-05-24rs.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/dispo/2010-05-26cal.pdf
Saturday, June 26, 2010
A quote from Steve Roth
Back in March Steve Roth gave speech at Columbia's Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. The Observer quoted the following:
Mr. Roth, who bought Alexander's in large part for its real estate holdings, offered his take on his reticence to build, and why he let the site sit empty for so long:
The New York newspapers, he complained, said "I couldn't make a decision; I didn't know what I wanted to do.
"Bullshit. I knew exactly what I wanted to do. I wanted the price to go up. A lot. And I was willing to wait because I had almost no basis in the land."
There was another plus to waiting, he noted, offering a refreshingly candid developer's take on one way to pursue government subsidies:
"My mother called me and said [of the site], 'It's dirty. There are bums sleeping in the sidewalks of this now closed, decrepit building. They're urinating in the corners. It's terrible. You have to fix it.'
"And what did I do? Nothing.
"Why did I do nothing? Because I was thinking in my own awkward way, that the more the building was a blight, the more the governments would want this to be redeveloped; the more help they would give us when the time came.
"And they did."
The city is obviously being played for a fool, and yet they still play into his hands.
Mr. Roth, who bought Alexander's in large part for its real estate holdings, offered his take on his reticence to build, and why he let the site sit empty for so long:
The New York newspapers, he complained, said "I couldn't make a decision; I didn't know what I wanted to do.
"Bullshit. I knew exactly what I wanted to do. I wanted the price to go up. A lot. And I was willing to wait because I had almost no basis in the land."
There was another plus to waiting, he noted, offering a refreshingly candid developer's take on one way to pursue government subsidies:
"My mother called me and said [of the site], 'It's dirty. There are bums sleeping in the sidewalks of this now closed, decrepit building. They're urinating in the corners. It's terrible. You have to fix it.'
"And what did I do? Nothing.
"Why did I do nothing? Because I was thinking in my own awkward way, that the more the building was a blight, the more the governments would want this to be redeveloped; the more help they would give us when the time came.
"And they did."
The city is obviously being played for a fool, and yet they still play into his hands.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Pennsylvania Station 100th Anniversary Lighting Facebook
Please join our Facebook group supporting the Empire State Building's potential lighting of Pennsylvania Station for it's 100th Anniversary.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Light-the-Empire-State-Building-for-NYCs-Penn-Stations-100th-Anniversary/121121067930931?ref=ts
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Light-the-Empire-State-Building-for-NYCs-Penn-Stations-100th-Anniversary/121121067930931?ref=ts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
L Magazine Article
In an article posted on L magazines website Henry Stewart quotes Colum McCann as saying "It was a city uninterested in history. Strange things occurred precisely because there was no necessary regard for the past. The city lived in a sort of everyday present. It had no need to believe in itself as London, or an Athens, or even a signifier of the New World, like a Sydney, or a Los Angeles. No, the city couldn't care less about where it stood. He had seen a T-shirt once that said: NEW YORK FUCKIN' CITY. As if it were the only place that ever existed and the only one that ever would.
New York kept going forward precisely because it didn't give a good goddamn about what it had left behind. It was like the city that Lot left, and it would dissolve if it ever began looking backward over its own shoulder...He had said to his wife many times that the past disappeared in the city. It was why there weren't many monuments around."
To Mr Stewart I say "Thank you!" You have said what we have been trying to tell people for years!
New York kept going forward precisely because it didn't give a good goddamn about what it had left behind. It was like the city that Lot left, and it would dissolve if it ever began looking backward over its own shoulder...He had said to his wife many times that the past disappeared in the city. It was why there weren't many monuments around."
To Mr Stewart I say "Thank you!" You have said what we have been trying to tell people for years!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer Announces Conditional Approval For Proposed Redevelopment Of 15 Penn Plaza
The full approval document of President Stringers office can be found here:
http://archive.citylaw.org/bpm/2010/May/15pennFINALpdf.pdf
http://archive.citylaw.org/bpm/2010/May/15pennFINALpdf.pdf
City Council Meeting Final
We had our meeting with the City Council Member Jessica Lapin's Chief of Staff, Jane Swanson. The meeting was informative. We learned that Ms Lapin, no longer with the subcommittee on landmark but is still on the Land use committee They seemed surprisingly unaware of the current plight of the Hotel, (but we fixed that.)
We didn't take away much from this except that the only public hearing there will be on this will be held by the subcommittee on land use and zoning. After that no more public hearings will be held.
Special thanks to those of you that showed up to join us.
We didn't take away much from this except that the only public hearing there will be on this will be held by the subcommittee on land use and zoning. After that no more public hearings will be held.
Special thanks to those of you that showed up to join us.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
City Planning Commission Review
The City Planning Commission final review has been pushed to July 19th 2010. Apparently the commissioner has recused the proposal.
http://bit.ly/aGYxu1
http://bit.ly/aGYxu1
Friday, June 18, 2010
Jessica Lapin meeting update
Our meeting with Jessica Lapin's Chief of Staff Jane Swanson @ 1pm on Monday has been moved to 250 Broadway, 17th Floor. If you plan on attending please be sure to bring valid photo ID.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
NYC Council pt 2
We have a meeting with Jessica Lapin's chief of staff Jane Swanson @ 1pm on Monday @
330 E 63rd st. Suite 1K
330 E 63rd st. Suite 1K
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Meeting with NYC Council Pt 2
We successfully made contact with NYC Council member Lappin's office, we have a meeting set for Mid July.
Meeting with NYC Council
We have requested a meeting with NYC Council member Jessica Lappin. She currently heads up the Landmark Committee as well as being a council member of Manhattan Borough.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Protest!!
We are planning to protest the city council 6/30/2010 @ 1:30 PM in front of city hall!
We hope to get as much media as possible, spread the word. Lets show the city council we mean business and refuse to let them tear down this Hotel!
We hope to get as much media as possible, spread the word. Lets show the city council we mean business and refuse to let them tear down this Hotel!
Friday, June 4, 2010
CPC hearing on 15 Penn Plaza
The final review hearing on the 15 Penn Plaza Project is set for July 14th at 1PM. See the link below for more information:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/env_review/15_penn/notice_completion_feis.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/env_review/15_penn/notice_completion_feis.pdf
CPC deadline looms closer
Reminder that you only have until Monday June 7th to cast your vote against the building of the !5 Penn Plaza Tower, with the CPC office.
Contact the CPC @
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Calendar Information Office -
Room 2E 22 Reade Street, New York, N.Y. 10007
Or fax to: (212)720-3219
Please include the following pieces of information:
• Your name
• Your address
• The organization which you represent, and your position, if any
• Subject and ULURP or CEQR Application #
• Borough. Comments will be reviewed until June 7th, 2010 Full details on the EIS is available from:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/15_penn_plaza.shtml
Contact the CPC @
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Calendar Information Office -
Room 2E 22 Reade Street, New York, N.Y. 10007
Or fax to: (212)720-3219
Please include the following pieces of information:
• Your name
• Your address
• The organization which you represent, and your position, if any
• Subject and ULURP or CEQR Application #
• Borough. Comments will be reviewed until June 7th, 2010 Full details on the EIS is available from:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/15_penn_plaza.shtml
Thursday, June 3, 2010
15 Penn Plaza Tower
Bad news on the hotel front, looks like the tide is turning in favor of Vornado. According to the recent study the occupancy rate of offices has risen dramatically. Reuters reports, "Manhattan office tenants leased 2.6 million square feet in May, the largest since 2006." This gives Vornado the leverage they need to build the tower at the site of the Hotel Penn. The article can be found below.
http://www.reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Apparently 2600 Magazine has started their own twitter account, for saving the Hotel Pennsylvania, we tried to reach them to inform them, that the official one already exists at http://twitter.com/savethehotel but we got no responce from them.
A few weeks ago they were contacted to have a representative sit down with us to speak with Christine Quinn's office, but pulled a no show instead.
We will continue our efforts to save the hotel, and keep everyone informed.
A few weeks ago they were contacted to have a representative sit down with us to speak with Christine Quinn's office, but pulled a no show instead.
We will continue our efforts to save the hotel, and keep everyone informed.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
CPC leans heavly twoard OK of Vornado building
http://blog.tstc.org/2010/05/27/midtown-pedestrian-tunnel-inches-closer-to-reality/
Yesterdays hearings on the fate of the Hotel Penn loomed even darker as the CPC gave an unofficial nod of approval for the development of the site.
Yesterdays hearings on the fate of the Hotel Penn loomed even darker as the CPC gave an unofficial nod of approval for the development of the site.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Hotel Penn Demolition Review
Although the CPC hearing is over you can still register your comments before the final decision by the CPC is made.
Contact the CPC @
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Calendar Information Office - Room 2E
22 Reade Street, New York, N.Y. 10007
Or fax to:
(212)720-3219
Please include the following pieces of information:
• Your name;
• Your address;
• The organization which you represent, and your position, if any;
• Subject and ULURP or CEQR Application #;
• Borough.
Comments will be reviewed until June 7th, 2010
Full details on the EIS is available from:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/15_penn_plaza.shtml
Contact the CPC @
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Calendar Information Office - Room 2E
22 Reade Street, New York, N.Y. 10007
Or fax to:
(212)720-3219
Please include the following pieces of information:
• Your name;
• Your address;
• The organization which you represent, and your position, if any;
• Subject and ULURP or CEQR Application #;
• Borough.
Comments will be reviewed until June 7th, 2010
Full details on the EIS is available from:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/15_penn_plaza.shtml
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
PUBLIC HEARINGS OF THE FOLLOWING MATTERS TO BE SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010
NOTICE
On Wednesday, May 26, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in Spector Hall, at the Department of City Planning, 22 Reade Street, in Lower Manhattan, a public hearing is being held by the City Planning Commission in conjunction with the above ULURP hearing to receive comments related to the 15 Penn Plaza Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) concerning Amendments to the Zoning Map and the text of the Zoning Resolution (ZR); easement acquisitions; various special permits modifying mandatory District Plan elements as well as height and setback regulations within the Special Midtown District, a floor area bonus in exchange for Subway Station and Rail Mass Transit Facility Improvements, and other related actions, to facilitate the construction of a new commercial office building (known as “15 Penn Plaza”) on the block bounded by Seventh Avenue on the west, Avenue of the Americas on the east, West 33rd Street on the north, and West 32nd and Street on the south (Block 808, Lots 1001 and 1002), located in Manhattan Community District 5.
On Wednesday, May 26, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in Spector Hall, at the Department of City Planning, 22 Reade Street, in Lower Manhattan, a public hearing is being held by the City Planning Commission in conjunction with the above ULURP hearing to receive comments related to the 15 Penn Plaza Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) concerning Amendments to the Zoning Map and the text of the Zoning Resolution (ZR); easement acquisitions; various special permits modifying mandatory District Plan elements as well as height and setback regulations within the Special Midtown District, a floor area bonus in exchange for Subway Station and Rail Mass Transit Facility Improvements, and other related actions, to facilitate the construction of a new commercial office building (known as “15 Penn Plaza”) on the block bounded by Seventh Avenue on the west, Avenue of the Americas on the east, West 33rd Street on the north, and West 32nd and Street on the south (Block 808, Lots 1001 and 1002), located in Manhattan Community District 5.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
MBPO Votes Yes to 15 Penn Plaza redevelopment
Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer Announces Conditional Approval For Proposed Redevelopment Of 15 Penn Plaza
The full document is available for download here.
Borough President Stringer’s favorable recommendation rests on a judgment that the applicant, Vornado, follows through on commitments secured by the Manhattan Borough President’s Office. These conditions for approval relate to:
Increasing access to open space by:
- Working with the City Planning and Parks and Recreations Departments to determine the appropriate form of mitigation for open space impacts; and
- Providing accessible open space on the proposed building’s podium to reduce impacts on nearby public open spaces;
Managing traffic by:
- Implementing the new off-street truck loading plan for the Multi-Tenant Building that will allow trucks to enter and exit head first;
- Creating a black car management plan for the Single-Tenant Building;
- Hiring a dock master to coordinate loading and unloading activities; and
- Updating traffic studies to reflect new traffic initiatives in Midtown;
Reducing pedestrian impacts by:
- Working with the Department of Transportation to widen crosswalks and other pedestrian elements; and
- Working with the 34th Street Partnership to relocate any planters which may serve as an obstruction to pedestrian movement;
Mitigating construction by:
- Implementing path controls to address construction noise issues;
- Studying additional measures that may be undertaken to reduce noise impacts;
- Establishing a construction taskforce to address and respond to construction impacts and issues, which meets regularly as required by the phasing and nature of construction and includes representatives from the community board, local council member and other local stakeholders; and
- Having a single point of contact during construction to resolve any community concerns;
Improving sidewalk conditions by:
- Working with Community Board 5 and the Parks Department to determine appropriate locations for the 56 street trees that cannot be planted at the perimeter of the development site; and
- Incorporating street wall design elements to the West 32nd Street façade of the Single-Tenant Building to enliven the pedestrian experience.
The project site consists of the entire city block bounded by West 32nd and West 33rd Streets, and Sixth and Seventh Avenues. The proposed office building would be constructed at the western end of the project site where the Hotel Pennsylvania currently stands. The remainder of the project site is occupied by the Manhattan Mall, a 14-story office and retail building. Vornado plans to merge the development site and the Manhattan Mall site into a single zoning lot.
The two proposed development scenarios – a Single-Tenant Building and a Multi-Tenant Building – incorporate the maintenance of the Manhattan Mall and demolition of Hotel Pennsylvania. Either of the proposed office buildings will have, at minimum, a LEED Silver rating. The applicant proposes the same mass transit improvements for each development scenario.
Borough President Stringer made his advisory recommendation on the project as part of his Charter role in the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The proposed project must also be approved by the City Planning Commission, which will hold its hearing on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, at its offices at 22 Reade Street. The project must also be approved by the City Council.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
15 Penn Plaza
The City council are a bunch of narrow minded money hungry SOB's. They only give a shit about what they think is best for them and not what the community thinks. I brought up the finical instability of Vornado, and the "Hole in the Ground" that is Filenes basement in Boston, and the almost $500 million in loans that Vornado has defaulted on in the past few months. Doesn't matter to them, they are only interested in rolling the HP into the Moynihan station and west side development projects with MSG and getting paid off on it. Never mind that it will take 4 1/2 years to build (if they build at all) and all the environmental hazards that a project of this size comes with (noise and air pollution and ground transportation) nope, none of that matters to them, if they feel the FAR is worth the opening of the Gimbels passageway then so be it they will get the approval to build.
Bottom line this project is going to get approved one way or another. So with that I say thanks to all who DIDN'T SHOW UP to help.
Bottom line this project is going to get approved one way or another. So with that I say thanks to all who DIDN'T SHOW UP to help.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
A letter to Brian Footer requesting a meeting with Ms. Quinn
I sent a letter to Mr Footer requesting a meeting with Ms. Quinn, lets see what happens now. In the mean time I suggest that anyone wanting to go, contact me and let me know what their schedule is going to be like before we book it so we can organize as many people as possible.
Mr. Footer,
I was directed to you to request a face to face meeting with Council Woman Quinn and my colleges, in regards to the 15 Penn Plaza Project. If possible please contact me at either this email or the phone number below to discuss a time. Thank you.
Gregory Jones
Save The Hotel Pennsylvania Foundation
New York, NY 10001
gregory.jones@savehotelpenn.org
http://www.savehotelpenn.org
Mr. Footer,
I was directed to you to request a face to face meeting with Council Woman Quinn and my colleges, in regards to the 15 Penn Plaza Project. If possible please contact me at either this email or the phone number below to discuss a time. Thank you.
Gregory Jones
Save The Hotel Pennsylvania Foundation
New York, NY 10001
gregory.jones@savehotelpenn.org
http://www.savehotelpenn.org
Friday, April 23, 2010
CB5 Zoning review resolution
http://www.cb5.org/cb5/resolutions/april_/#15_penn_plaza
Here is the full CB% resolution denying the request to allow the rezoning. As we know CB5 like most of the groups int he ULURP are only advisory and do not have the final say. That is left to the NYC Council.
Here is the full CB% resolution denying the request to allow the rezoning. As we know CB5 like most of the groups int he ULURP are only advisory and do not have the final say. That is left to the NYC Council.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Responce from Mary Beth Betts (LPC)
Mary Beth Betts replied to my request for evaluation of the Cafè Rouge. Here's what she wrote:
April 19, 2010
Re: Café Rouge, Manhattan
Dear Mr. Lepore,
Thank you for submitting a request for evaluation. Staff will review the material and keep you informed of the process. We appreciate your interest in historic preservation and in the work of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Sincerely,
Mary Beth Betts
April 19, 2010
Re: Café Rouge, Manhattan
Dear Mr. Lepore,
Thank you for submitting a request for evaluation. Staff will review the material and keep you informed of the process. We appreciate your interest in historic preservation and in the work of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Sincerely,
Mary Beth Betts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Hotel Penn Forever? Community Board Scoffs at Giant Vornado Tower
http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/hotel-penn-forever-community-board-scoffs-giant-vornado-tower
Thursday, April 15, 2010
CB5 says NO to re-zoning!
Cb5 final vote to deny Vornado the rezoning, main reason was the greed, of Vornado, they are trying to "sell" the package as the next wave of the transportation hub, however the people are no fools, the supposed upgrade of the MTA is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, turns out Vornado has to upgrade the entrances to the subways anyway with or with out the rezoning, and they were attempting to get a huge re-zoning variance with a 20% bump in the area that they are re-zoning on top of it. To quote a CB5 member "what they are asking for is way more then what they are offering". One huge IMO issue that killed it was the fact that they have no tenants slotted for this disaster they call a project, that would even give a reason to ask for all this space.
The vote was 21-0-0-1.
The vote was 21-0-0-1.
Additional information on the meeting last night. Below is a list of the companies that were in favor of the proposed plan.
Tri state transportation trust
NYC transit council
34 st partnership
The Penn group
Stonehenge partners
Madison Square Garden Corp
Building trade unions association
Utility union
Real estate board of NY
Newman real estate institute
Chief planner of NJ Transit
Macy's
Columbia university real estate
Durst Residential
NYC transit council
34 st partnership
The Penn group
Stonehenge partners
Madison Square Garden Corp
Building trade unions association
Utility union
Real estate board of NY
Newman real estate institute
Chief planner of NJ Transit
Macy's
Columbia university real estate
Durst Residential
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Land Use & Zoning
Land Use & Zoning
Kevin Finnegan, Chair
Matthew Schneid, Vice Chair
MEETING CANCELED!!
Matthew Schneid, Vice Chair
MEETING CANCELED!!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Reminder for RE-ZONING Review!
The rezoning review board of CB5 for the Hotel Penn, was rescheduled to the April meeting. There is still time to get your speeches together and tell them what you think.
The meeting of the Land Use & Zoning is scheduled for:
WEDNESDAY
April 7, 2010
at 6:00 pm
LOCATION:
Flatiron BID
27 West 24th
Suite 800
Following that there will be a Full Board meeting to approve or disapprove:
THURSDAY
April 15, 2010
at 6:00 pm
LOCATION:
First Alliance Church
127 West 26th St.
buzzer #3003
The meeting of the Land Use & Zoning is scheduled for:
WEDNESDAY
April 7, 2010
at 6:00 pm
LOCATION:
Flatiron BID
27 West 24th
Suite 800
Following that there will be a Full Board meeting to approve or disapprove:
THURSDAY
April 15, 2010
at 6:00 pm
LOCATION:
First Alliance Church
127 West 26th St.
buzzer #3003
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Request for Evaluation
I sent out a Request for Evaluation form pertaining to the Cafe Rouge. If the building itself can't be saved, maybe the Cafe Rouge can.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
List of Subsidiarys owned by Vorndao.
VORNADO REALTY L.P. SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT Name of Subsidiary State
14 West 64th Street Corp. New York 150 East 58th Street L.L.C. New York 1740 Broadway Associates L.P. Delaware 20 Broad Lender L.L.C. New York 201 East 66th Street Corp. New York 201 East 66th Street L.L.C. New York 314 West 40th Street L.L.C. New York 330 Madison Company L.L.C. New York 350 North Orleans L.L.C. Delaware 40 East 14 Realty Associates L.L.C. New York 40 Fulton Street L.L.C. New York 401 Commercial Son, L.L.C. Delaware 401 Commercial, L.P. Delaware 401 General Partner, L.L.C. Delaware 401 Hotel General Partner, L.L.C. Delaware 401 Hotel, L.P. Delaware 527 West Kinzie L.L.C. Delaware 570 Lexington Associates, L.P. New York 570 Lexington Company, L.P. New York 689 5th Avenue L.L.C. Delaware 770 Broadway Company L.L.C. New York 825 Seventh Avenue Holding L.L.C. New York 866 U.N. Plaza Associates L.L.C. New York 888 Seventh Avenue L.L.C. New York 909 Third Avenue Assignee L.L.C. New York AmeriCold Corporation Oregon AmeriCold Logistics II L.L.C. Delaware AmeriCold Logistics L.L.C Delaware AmeriCold Real Estate, L.P. Delaware AmeriCold Realty, Inc. Delaware Americold Services Corporation Delaware Amherst Holding L.L.C. New York Amherst Industries L.L.C. New York Arbor Property, L.P. Delaware Atlanta Parent, Inc. Delaware Atlantic City Holding L.L.C. New Jersey B&B Park Avenue L.P. Delaware BBE GP Corporation Delaware Bensalem Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Bensalem Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania Bethlehem Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Bethlehem Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania Bethlehem Properties Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Bethlehem Properties Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania
Bordentown Holding L.L.C. New Jersey
Brentwood Development L.L.C. New York Bridgeland Warehouses L.L.C. New Jersey Camden Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Carmar Freezers Russellville, L.L.C. Missouri Carmar Group, Inc. Missouri Carmar Industries, L.L.C. Missouri Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P. Delaware Chicopee Holding L.L.C. Massachusetts Clementon Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Cumberland Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Darby Development Corp. Florida Delran Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Design Center Owner (D.C.) L.L.C. Delaware Dover Holding L.L.C. New Jersey DSAC L.L.C. Texas DUN L.L.C. Maryland Durham Leasing L.L.C. New Jersey EH L.L.C. Maryland Eleven Penn Plaza L.L.C. New York Evesham Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Gallery Market Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Gallery Market Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania Gallery Market Properties Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Gallery Market Properties Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania GBSPI L.L.C. Maryland Graybar Building L.L.C. New York Green Acres Mall, L.L.C. Delaware Hackbridge L.L.C. New Jersey Hanover Conran's Plaza L.L.C. New Jersey Hanover Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Hanover Industries L.L.C. New Jersey Hanover Leasing L.L.C. New Jersey Hanover Public Warehousing L.L.C. New Jersey Henrietta Holding L.L.C. New York HHC L.L.C. Maryland Jersey City Leasing L.L.C. New Jersey Kearny Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Kearny Leasing L.L.C. New Jersey Lancaster Leasing Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Lancaster Leasing Company L.P. Pennsylvania Landthorp Enterprises L.L.C. Delaware Lawnside Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Lawnwhite Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Lewisville Centre L.P. Texas Lewisville TC L.L.C. Texas Littleton Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Lodi Industries L.L.C. New Jersey Lodi Leasing L.L.C. New Jersey M 330 Associates, L.P. New York M 393 Associates L.L.C. New York Manalapan Industries L.L.C. New Jersey Market Square L.L.C. Illinois Marple Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Marple Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania Mart Franchise Center, Inc. Delaware Mart Franchise Venture, L.L.C. Delaware
Menands Holding L.L.C. New York Mendik Management Company Inc. New York Merchandise Mart Enterprises, Inc. Delaware Merchandise Mart L.L.C. Delaware Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc. Delaware Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc. (DE) Delaware Mesquite - Texas Crossing L.P. Texas Mesquite TC L.L.C. Texas Middletown Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Montclair Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Morris Plains Leasing L.L.C. New Jersey MRC Management L.L.C. New York National Hydrant L.L.C. New York New Hanover L.L.C. New Jersey New Woodbridge L.L.C. New Jersey Newington Connecticut Holding L.L.C. Connecticut Ninety Park Lender LLC New York Ninety Park Manager LLC New York Ninety Park Option LLC New York Ninety Park Property LLC New York North Bergen Stores L.L.C. New Jersey North Plainfield Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Office Center Owner (D.C.) L.L.C. Delaware One Penn Plaza LLC New York Philadelphia Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Philadelphia Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania Phillipsburg Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Pike Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Pike Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania Portland Parent, Inc. Delaware Rahway Leasing L.L.C. New Jersey Rochester Holding L.L.C. New York Russia Fund, L.L.C. Delaware Skillman Abrams Crossing L.P. Texas South Capital L.L.C. Delaware Springfield Holding L.L.C. Massachusetts Star Universal L.L.C. New Jersey Stardial GP Corporation Delaware T.G. Hanover L.L.C. New Jersey T53 Condominium L.L.C. New York TGSI L.L.C. Maryland The Second Lawnside L.L.C. New Jersey The Second Rochester Holding L.L.C. New York Turnersville Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Two Guys From Harrison Holding Co. L.P. Pennsylvania Two Guys From Harrison Holding Co. LLC Pennsylvania Two Guys From Harrison L.L.C. New Jersey Two Guys From Harrison N.Y. L.L.C. New York Two Guys Mass. L.L.C. Massachusetts Two Guys-Connecticut Holding L.L.C. Connecticut Two Park Company New York Two Penn Plaza REIT, Inc. New York Unado L.L.C. New Jersey Unifreeze Services Partnership Delaware Upper Moreland Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania Upper Moreland Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania
URS Logistics, Inc. Delaware URS Real Estate, L.P. Delaware URS Realty, Inc. Delaware VC Carthage, L.L.C. Delaware VC Freezer Amarillo, L.P. Delaware VC Freezer Fremont, L.L.C. Delaware VC Freezer Garden City, L.L.C. Delaware VC Freezer Omaha Amarillo, L.L.C. Delaware VC Freezer Phoenix, L.L.C. Delaware VC Freezer Russelville, L.L.C. Delaware VC Freezer Sioux Falls, L.L.C. Delaware VC Freezer Springdale, L.L.C. Delaware VC Logistics, L.L.C. Delaware VC Missouri Holdings, L.L.C. Delaware VC Missouri Real Estate Holding, L.L.C. Delaware VC Omaha Holdings, L.L.C. Delaware VC Omaha Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. Delaware VC Omaha Texas, L.L.C. Delaware VC Superior, L.L.C. Delaware VC Texas, L.P. Delaware VFC Connecticut Holding L.L.C. Delaware VFC Massachusetts Holding L.L.C. Delaware VFC New Jersey Holding L.L.C. Delaware VNK Corp Massachusetts Vornado - Westport L.L.C. Connecticut Vornado 1740 Broadway L.L.C. New York Vornado 330 West 34th Street L.L.C. Delaware Vornado 401 Commercial L.L.C. New York Vornado 401 Commercial Son L.L.C. New York Vornado 401 Hotel, Inc. New York Vornado 550/600 Mamoroneck L.P. Delaware Vornado 570 Lexington L.L.C. New York Vornado 63rd Street, Inc. New York Vornado 640 Fifth Avenue L.L.C. New York Vornado 90 Park Avenue L.L.C. New York Vornado B&B L.L.C. New York Vornado CAPI L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Catalinas GP Inc. Delaware Vornado Center Building L.L.C. New York Vornado CESCR II L.L.C. Delaware Vornado CESCR L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Crescent Atlanta Partnership Delaware Vornado Crescent Holding L.P. Delaware Vornado Crescent Logistics Operating Partnership Delaware Vornado Crescent Omaha Partnership Delaware Vornado Crescent Portland Partnership Delaware Vornado Deer Park L.L.C. New York Vornado Finance GP L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Finance L.P. Delaware Vornado Green Acres Acquisition L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Green Acres Delaware L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Green Acres Funding L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Green Acres Holdings L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Investments L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Lending L.L.C. New Jersey Vornado M 330 L.L.C. New York
Vornado M 393 L.L.C. New York Vornado M/H L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Mamaroneck L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Management Corp. New Jersey Vornado Montehiedra Acquisition L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Montehiedra Acquisition L.P. Delaware Vornado Montehiedra Holding II L.P. Delaware Vornado Montehiedra Holding L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Montehiedra Holding L.P. Delaware Vornado Montehiedra Inc. Delaware Vornado Montehiedra OP L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Montehiedra OP L.P. Delaware Vornado New York RR One L.L.C. New York Vornado Newkirk L.L.C. Massachusetts Vornado NK Loan L.L.C. Massachusetts Vornado Omaha Holdings, Inc. Delaware Vornado Realty L.L.C. Delaware Vornado RR Midtown L.L.C. New York Vornado Two Park Holdings L.L.C. Delaware Vornado Two Penn Plaza L.L.C. New York Vornado/Team Room L.L.C. New York VR Retail Holdings LLC New York VRT Massachusetts Holding L.L.C. Delaware VRT New Jersey Holding L.L.C. Delaware Washington Design Center L.L.C. Delaware Washington Office Center L.L.C. Delaware Watchung Holding L.L.C. New Jersey West Windsor Holding L.L.C. New Jersey Whitehorse Lawnside L.L.C. New Jersey York Holding Company L.L.C. Pennsylvania York Holding Company L.P. Pennsylvania
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
ULURP Review Process
Below is the step needed for Vornado to rezone and ultimately demolish the hotel. Since this now goes before the CB5, we are at step 3.
ULURP Review Process
Filing of Application. An applicant must file a standardized Land Use Review Application and all required accompanying documentation with the Department of City Planning (DCP). Copies of all applications and accompanying material are sent to the affected Borough President, Community Board and the City Council within five business days of receipt. If the application involves land in more than one community district it is also sent to the appropriate borough board. The Borough Board is comprised of the Borough President, all Community Board chairs and City Council members within the affected borough.
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.
Community Board Review. Within sixty (60) days of receiving the certified application, the Community Board is required to hold a public hearing and adopt and submit a written recommendation to CPC, the applicant, the Borough President and when appropriate, the Borough Board. The ULURP rules include provisions relating to the notice and conduct of a Community Board public hearing. ULURP provisions also govern the quorum, vote and content for a Community Board recommendation. If a Community Board fails to act within its time limit or waives its right to act, the application proceeds to the next level of review.
Borough President Review. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Community Board recommendation, or if the Community Board fails to act, within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the Community Board's review period, the Borough President shall submit a written recommendation to the City Planning Commission. If an application involves land in more than one community district, the Borough Board may (within the Borough President's review period) also review and submit a recommendation to CPC. If the Borough President fails to act within the time limit, the application proceeds to CPC.
City Planning Commission Review. CPC must hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the application within 60 days of the expiration of the Borough President's review period. City Planning Commission hearings are generally held twice a month on Wednesdays in Spector Hall at 22 Reade Street. Adoption of a CPC report approving, modifying or disapproving an application requires an affirmative vote of seven commissioners. If the Borough President has recommended against an application for site selection, disposition of city owned property or acquisition and has recommended an alternative site pursuant to the fair share provisions of the Charter (section 204), then nine affirmative votes are required. CPC then files copies of its decision with the City Council. In most cases, disapproval of an application by CPC is final and terminates ULURP. Disapproved applications for urban renewal plans are subject to Council review. In addition, disapproved applications for special permits, zoning text changes and zoning map changes that the Mayor has certified as necessary are subject to review by the City Council. (Note: No "certificate of necessity" has been issued by any mayor since ULURP went into effect).
City Council Review. The City Council does not automatically review all ULURP actions that are approved by CPC. The Charter requires the Council to review certain actions, some only under special circumstances, and makes provision for the Council to elect to review other actions.
If, during the course of its 50-day review period, the Council decides it wants to approve an application with a modification, it can do so only by referring the proposed modification back to CPC. CPC must then determine if the modification is of such significance that additional environmental review is necessary or that additional review pursuant to ULURP is required. If CPC determines that additional review is needed, the Council may not adopt the modification. If no additional review is needed, the Council can adopt the application with the modification. When the Council proposes a modification, CPC has 15 days to make its determination and during that period the City Council's 50-day clock is stopped.
A City Council action approving, approving with modifications or disapproving most CPC actions, requires a majority vote of the Council. Urban Renewal Plans that have been disapproved by CPC can only be approved by a 3/4 vote of the Council.
If the Council fails to act within its review period, the Council shall be deemed to have approved the decision of the City Planning Commission.
Mayoral Review. Mayoral approval is not required. A decision by the City Council to approve or disapprove a land use application is considered to be final unless the Mayor elects to veto a Council action within 5 days of the vote. The Council, by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of its decision within 10 days of the veto.
Applications approved by CPC that the Council did not assume jurisdiction or act on within its 50 day review can also be vetoed by the Mayor within 5 days of the expired Council time period. The Council , by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of the CPC decision within ten days of the veto.
ULURP graphic:
The ULURP process is graphically shown in a diagram in PDF format (22K).
To view and print the graphic file, you will need the most recent version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader. The pdf file has been optimized for Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4.0 to save significantly on file size and download time. Earlier versions of the Reader will not view these files correctly. The Adobe Acrobat Reader is available for free downloading.
ULURP Review Process
Filing of Application. An applicant must file a standardized Land Use Review Application and all required accompanying documentation with the Department of City Planning (DCP). Copies of all applications and accompanying material are sent to the affected Borough President, Community Board and the City Council within five business days of receipt. If the application involves land in more than one community district it is also sent to the appropriate borough board. The Borough Board is comprised of the Borough President, all Community Board chairs and City Council members within the affected borough.
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.
Community Board Review. Within sixty (60) days of receiving the certified application, the Community Board is required to hold a public hearing and adopt and submit a written recommendation to CPC, the applicant, the Borough President and when appropriate, the Borough Board. The ULURP rules include provisions relating to the notice and conduct of a Community Board public hearing. ULURP provisions also govern the quorum, vote and content for a Community Board recommendation. If a Community Board fails to act within its time limit or waives its right to act, the application proceeds to the next level of review.
Borough President Review. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Community Board recommendation, or if the Community Board fails to act, within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the Community Board's review period, the Borough President shall submit a written recommendation to the City Planning Commission. If an application involves land in more than one community district, the Borough Board may (within the Borough President's review period) also review and submit a recommendation to CPC. If the Borough President fails to act within the time limit, the application proceeds to CPC.
City Planning Commission Review. CPC must hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the application within 60 days of the expiration of the Borough President's review period. City Planning Commission hearings are generally held twice a month on Wednesdays in Spector Hall at 22 Reade Street. Adoption of a CPC report approving, modifying or disapproving an application requires an affirmative vote of seven commissioners. If the Borough President has recommended against an application for site selection, disposition of city owned property or acquisition and has recommended an alternative site pursuant to the fair share provisions of the Charter (section 204), then nine affirmative votes are required. CPC then files copies of its decision with the City Council. In most cases, disapproval of an application by CPC is final and terminates ULURP. Disapproved applications for urban renewal plans are subject to Council review. In addition, disapproved applications for special permits, zoning text changes and zoning map changes that the Mayor has certified as necessary are subject to review by the City Council. (Note: No "certificate of necessity" has been issued by any mayor since ULURP went into effect).
City Council Review. The City Council does not automatically review all ULURP actions that are approved by CPC. The Charter requires the Council to review certain actions, some only under special circumstances, and makes provision for the Council to elect to review other actions.
The City Council automatically reviews (Mandatory Review):
- zoning map changes;
- zoning text changes (not subject to ULURP but subject to Charter section 200 and 201);
- housing and urban renewal plans;
- disposition of residential buildings, except to non-profit companies for low-income housing
The Council may elect to review the following by voting to take jurisdiction within 20 days after CPC files its report (Council "call-up"):
- - City Map changes;
- - maps of subdivisions or plattings;
- - zoning special permits;
- - revocable consents, franchise RFP’s, and major concessions;
- - non-City public improvements;
- - sanitary and waterfront landfills;
- - disposition of commercial or vacant property;
- - disposition of residential buildings to nonprofit companies for low-income housing;
- - acquisition of real property; and
- - site selection.
Applications disapproved by the Community Board and Borough President (Triple no):
- An application which is subject to elective review by the Council, will be reviewed if that application was disapproved by the Community Board and Borough President, was approved or approved with modifications by the City Planning Commission, and the Borough President files an objection to CPC approval with the Council and CPC within 5 days of receipt of CPC's approval.
If, during the course of its 50-day review period, the Council decides it wants to approve an application with a modification, it can do so only by referring the proposed modification back to CPC. CPC must then determine if the modification is of such significance that additional environmental review is necessary or that additional review pursuant to ULURP is required. If CPC determines that additional review is needed, the Council may not adopt the modification. If no additional review is needed, the Council can adopt the application with the modification. When the Council proposes a modification, CPC has 15 days to make its determination and during that period the City Council's 50-day clock is stopped.
A City Council action approving, approving with modifications or disapproving most CPC actions, requires a majority vote of the Council. Urban Renewal Plans that have been disapproved by CPC can only be approved by a 3/4 vote of the Council.
If the Council fails to act within its review period, the Council shall be deemed to have approved the decision of the City Planning Commission.
Mayoral Review. Mayoral approval is not required. A decision by the City Council to approve or disapprove a land use application is considered to be final unless the Mayor elects to veto a Council action within 5 days of the vote. The Council, by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of its decision within 10 days of the veto.
Applications approved by CPC that the Council did not assume jurisdiction or act on within its 50 day review can also be vetoed by the Mayor within 5 days of the expired Council time period. The Council , by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of the CPC decision within ten days of the veto.
ULURP graphic:
The ULURP process is graphically shown in a diagram in PDF format (22K). To view and print the graphic file, you will need the most recent version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader. The pdf file has been optimized for Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4.0 to save significantly on file size and download time. Earlier versions of the Reader will not view these files correctly. The Adobe Acrobat Reader is available for free downloading.
CB5 Zoning review
The rezoning review board of CB5 for the Hotel Penn, was rescheduled to the April meeting. There is still time to get your speeches together and tell them what you think.
The meeting of the Land Use & Zoning is scheduled for:
The meeting of the Land Use & Zoning is scheduled for:
WEDNESDAY
April 7, 2010
at 6:00 pm
April 7, 2010
at 6:00 pm
LOCATION:
Flatiron BID
27 West 24th
Suite 800
Following that there will be a Full Board meeting to approve or disapprove:
Flatiron BID
27 West 24th
Suite 800
Following that there will be a Full Board meeting to approve or disapprove:
THURSDAY
April 15, 2010
at 6:00 pm
April 15, 2010
at 6:00 pm
LOCATION:
First Alliance Church
127 West 26th St.
buzzer #3003
First Alliance Church
127 West 26th St.
buzzer #3003
Monday, March 8, 2010
State and National Registers of Historic Places
Thank you for your interest in seeking State and National Registers of Historic Places status for the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City. In 2003 our office determined that the hotel met the criteria for listing to the National Register. If any state or federal funds or permits are being used by the developer in the redevelopment of the property, the state or federal agency involved with the project must consult with our agency. As far as listing is concerned, a building cannot be listed to the National Register if the owner does not support the nomination.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. Howe
Historic Preservation Program Analyst
NYS OPRHP
P.O. Box 189
Peebles Island
Waterford, NY 12188
518-237-8643, extension 3266
kathy.howe@oprhp.state.ny.us
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. Howe
Historic Preservation Program Analyst
NYS OPRHP
P.O. Box 189
Peebles Island
Waterford, NY 12188
518-237-8643, extension 3266
kathy.howe@oprhp.state.ny.us
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
2009 EOY Report
EOY earnings report are in for Vornado and the Hotel Pennsylvania: Hotel made $15,108,000 for the year ending 09. This is down again from the previous year of $42,269,000. With numbers like this, Vornado will have no concerns about ripping it down. Earnings can be found here:
http://www.secinfo.com/dRej6.rb.htm#1stPage
http://www.secinfo.com/dRej6.rb.htm#1stPage
Friday, February 19, 2010
HDC Conference is Two Weeks Away! Last Chance for Groups to Participate in Friday Reception
Registration is Now Open for HDC’s Sixteenth Annual Preservation Conference, Preservation in New York: The Next Generation
This year the conference will examine the future of preservation in New York City as a movement, both in terms of the types of buildings we should be preserving and the audiences we must engage in order to be successful. What will be the landmarks for the next generation and who will be fighting to preserve them? The Conference will focus on specific types of architecture, including modern, cultural and vernacular, that have been less appreciated in the past but are now increasingly seen as significant. We will examine the reasons these buildings are important and the future of their preservation.
Although preservation is a populist movement, preservationists have not been successful in involving a wider citizenry in our campaigns. In order to be effective, a broader base must be engaged in our efforts to protect New York’s historic buildings and neighborhoods. Speakers will address ways to involve diverse populations, including low-income communities, new immigrants, and youth, in successful neighborhood preservation initiatives. A distinguished group of preservationists, educators and community advocates from across New York City’s five boroughs will address these issues. The Conference consists of two panel discussions, “New Landmarks: Modern, Vernacular and Cultural Sites” and “New Audiences: Identifying and Partnering with Diverse Populations.” Each panel will be immediately followed by a breakout session where Conference attendees will be able to have a discussion with individual panelists in a more focused, roundtable format.
MEET PEOPLE!
March 5: Opening Night Reception
We’re almost out of exhibit space – if you want a table, you must contact ftolbert@hdc.org immediately.
This year the Opening Reception will be held in the LGBT Community Center, housed in an historic 19th-century school. As with last year’s event, in addition to refreshments and good preservation-minded conversation, this festive kick-off event will feature presentations on proposed historic districts and preservation campaigns across the city. Come meet fellow neighborhood advocates and learn about their preservation efforts.
Friday, March 5, 6:00pm, at The LGBT Community Center, 208 West 13th Street between Seventh and Greenwich Avenues. Tickets for this event are $35/person, $30 for Friends of HDC, seniors and students. Reservations required. Please call (212) 614-9107 or visit our website.
LEARN THINGS!
March 6: “The Next Generation” Conference Panels
This year’s Conference Panels will bring together a distinguished group of preservationists, educators, community activists and non-profit leaders from New York City’s five boroughs to present their views in a series of panel discussions: “New Landmarks: Modern, Vernacular and Cultural Sites” and “New Audiences: Identifying and Partnering with Diverse Populations” and a keynote address delivered by Fran Leadon, architect, professor, and co-author of the forthcoming AIA Guide to New York City, Fifth Edition. In a change to our usual program, following each panel discussion, attendees will have the opportunity to join breakout sessions to learn more about the specific topics that interest them most.
Saturday, March 6, 8:30am-4:30pm, at St. Francis College, 180 Remsen Street between Court and Clinton Streets, Brooklyn. Full day admission is $45/person, $35/person for Friends of HDC and seniors. Fee includes continental breakfast, box lunch, and afternoon snack. Entrance fee will be waved for students with valid university ID (meals are not included). For reservations, please call (212) 614-9107 or visit our website.
SEE STUFF!
March 7: Walking Tours
TOURS ARE SELLING OUT, SO RESERVE NOW!
The final day of HDC’s Preservation Conference features six walking tours of neighborhoods throughout New York City:
v The Grand Concourse: Ain’t It Grand! ~ 11am-1pm
v A Walk Through Norwegian Brooklyn: Lapskaus Boulevard ~ 11am-1pm
v Chelsea and Lamartine Place: A Cultural History ~ 10am-1pm
v Modern in Midtown: Landmarks of the Recent Past ~ 11am-1pm
v Parkchester: A City Within a City ~ 11am-1pm
v West End Avenue: Way Out West ~ 11am-1pm
Sunday, March 7. Space is limited, so reserve early. Directions and meeting locations will be provided upon registration. To register via PayPal, please visit our website or call (212) 614-9107. You may also access a mail-in registration form here.
WANT MORE?
All three events are free – but space is limited and RSVPS are necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)