Showdown in Murray Hill
Time for Daniel Garodnick to put up or shut up over billionaire Sheldon Solow’s plans for Manhattan’s biggest private development
On the far East Side site of the former Con Edison plant, patience appears to be a virtue for Sheldon Solow, the billionaire developer and owner of the land. For the seven-plus years since he agreed to buy the 9.2-acre site, Mr. Solow has slowly planned for a mostly residential development defined by seven modernist, skinny, Skidmore Owings & Merrill-designed towers to rise along the East River, just south of the United Nations, on the border of Turtle Bay and Murray Hill.
Now, five months into the city’s review and approval process, the clash over Manhattan’s largest privately owned development site is finally reaching a crescendo, as Mr. Solow’s plans for the $4 billion project will soon fall into the hands of the City Council, a body that seems poised to greet the proposal coolly, at least as currently presented.
Pivotal at the Council level will be Daniel Garodnick, the ambitious first-term local councilman who could throw a wrench in Mr. Solow’s plans, as he wants substantial drops in height and density, as well as the exclusion of a commercial office building that Mr. Solow is said to hold close. Mr. Garodnick, 35, is perhaps best-known for spearheading the failed tenants’ effort in late 2006 to buy Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, the apartment complex where he grew up and now lives.
In the final stage of the city’s approval process, the Council must vote by mid-March on Mr. Solow’s proposed zoning changes, and legislators tend to yield to the local council member on such votes. Given his public statements backing major modifications and the strong level of local opposition in his district, Mr. Garodnick must either buckle before Mr. Solow or deliver significant changes to the current plans.
Mr. Solow’s position on major revisions is unclear, though he has invested substantially in seeing the planned 6.1 million-square-foot project move forward thus far. Since 2004, he has spent more than $1.8 million on lobbyists and land-use-related legal expenses between at least six firms, according to state lobbying records.
The enigmatic 79-year-old Mr. Solow is said to be insistent upon details and intimately involved in the design process of the site, as he was with his prior developments. Real estate professionals regard him as one of the more difficult landlords to work with in the city, as he is known to be extraordinarily litigious, investing hoards of attorneys and years in court battles over unpaid rent, among a long list of other issues. He also is known to not be in the same rush as many in the industry, exhibited by the Con Ed project’s slow pace to date, and seems as though he could wait until a more forgiving City Council comes along if he fails to reach any agreements.
Thus far he has granted some concessions to the community, first dropping the heights of his buildings before the approval process began, and in November, he agreed to leave space for a public school and set aside as many as 600 of the apartments as affordable units.
A spokesman for Mr. Solow’s firm, Michael Gross, seemed to suggest in a statement that the door was open for still more compromise: “We continue to be responsive to community and citywide needs and look forward to the remaining public review process. Our common goal is to create an open and inviting development that will be a valuable addition to the neighborhood and significantly enhance the city’s waterfront.”
The plan has galvanized the community along the East Side, as Mr. Garodnick and other local elected officials, including State Senator Liz Krueger and Borough President Scott Stringer, have made repeated public appeals for changes to the proposal, and Manhattan’s Community Board 6 went so far as to make a complete rezoning proposal of their own for the site, normally a very costly and time-consuming venture.
Their criticisms are numerous, but mostly center around the treatment of open space, and the heights and mix of buildings. As currently planned, five of the seven buildings are taller than the 505-foot U.N. Secretariat building three blocks to the north, a point considered unacceptable by the community, as is the existence of a 1.37 million-square-foot commercial building at the northern end of the land.
Later this month, the City Planning Commission is likely to impose changes of its own to the project; the Department of City Planning recommended lowering the height of the tallest residential building from 721 feet to 600, and decreasing the density of the commercial tower by about 27 percent, among other modifications.
Mr. Gross, the spokesman, said in his statement that Mr. Solow’s firm, East River Realty Company, is reviewing the impact of the changes on the project’s feasibility. Next Page >
Go Danny-Boy!! A commercial tower in our neighborhood is completely inappropriate.
Go Danny-Boy!! A commercial tower in our neighborhood is completely inappropriate.
Garodnick is a socialist bozo. That neighborhood (including his beloved Stuyvestant Village) is an eyesore. The retirees who came out in force at the Community Board meeting are hardly representative of the community -- they simply have the time to care and are the most opposed to change of any sort. Their arguments centered on three kvetchy points: Tall buildings bring shadows, tall buildings bring traffic, tall buildings are tall. You live in MIDTOWN! Banning tall buildings in Midtown is not only absurd for the obvious reasons, but you already have shadows and traffic is a separate, ugly problem best addressed via congestion pricing and better public transportation. As for the argument that "I've lived here since 1964 and the neighborhood never had buildings that tall" -- there was never a building as tall as the UN right on its plot before it came about, nor was there one as tall as Tudor City on its plot before it was built. Neighborhoods change, and the hideous, already-tall Midtown East River area is a neighborhood more needing change than most. But if you hate capitalism, you hate capitalism, right Garodnick?
To the particularly uninformed nasty emailer who sounds like a Solo plant, those who attend the meetings include retirees who care about the neighborhood. May you be fortunate enough to become one of them and have respect for those whose views differ from yours.
But the majority of us who attend the meetings are neither old, nor anti-capitalist, nor opposed to tall buildings. Unfortunately, the completely out of proportion, environmentally unsound, and poorly conceived plan (if you chose to call it that) is neither in the economic best interests of the community, considerate of community needs, the importance of the UN, or mindful of the foolishness of creating a bank of exposed highly populated tall buildings with no shelter or interference on the East Side. Nor will scaling back the size of the buildings, requiring a school for the new inhabitants to attend, park space and providing access for traffic both vehicular and pedestrian be inconsistent with a large project of attractive, reasonably tall and extremely profitable new buildings. In fact, it would provide just the opposite -- enhanced value to all the buildings and businesses in the community.
PS Maybe you ought to take the time out from your important schedule to contribute constructive thoughts to the process rather than being yet another arrogant arm-chair pundit.