15 Comments

1. TribecaMom

   July 16, 2012 • 6:29 pm

   These are just the new developments,how many new units in the building at Broadway and Worth and the other conversions. I can’t believe these developers are again adding new units to the neighborhood without addressing the lack of school space. Has anyone been able to identify any school space in North Tribeca since the majority of the development seems to be located in that direction. This just seems like adding insult to injury and the people who are allowing it to happen should be ashamed of themselves. Hopefully this column will be an eye opener.
2. Anna

   July 16, 2012 • 8:28 pm

   The richer it gets, the more boring the neighborhood gets. This was once such an interesting place.
3. Rohin

   July 16, 2012 • 8:33 pm

   Although I empathize with your sentiments, it really is the city’s job to provide adequate schooling, not the developers.

   TriBeCa is rapidly going from good schools (let’s face it due in large part to a relatively small student body) to something quite different.

   Families are moving here for large spaces, and good schools, but project the trend outwards and one of two things could happen… Schools become overcrowded and standards fall, or more schools are built to handle the demand.

   I hope it will be the second road that is taken… Perhaps each new condo should have 5% allocated to school space? (kidding!)

   I’ll say it again.. Why not pier 40? Surely we need school space more than a cheesy NJ style mall?
4. Jim Smithers

   July 16, 2012 • 10:35 pm

   What about a Stroller Ownership District?! Where how much you would pay depends on the size of your stroller, the size of your nanny, and how many of your children are named Madison, Jackson, Kaitlin or Wolverine. Don’t worry, if you don’t have any of those you would still be subject to a Stroller Envy Special Assessment determined by your individual condo or co-op boards, and could only be assessed if said board can unanimously agree on what color to paint the lobby. All funds collected would go towards fighting any reasonable proposal that would reassign our precious angels from PS 234 to PS 1.
5. TribecaMom

   July 16, 2012 • 11:10 pm

   I want to elect Jim Smithers for Mayor, he has all the answers with nothing behind it. Sounds like the perfect politician. He is so lucky to have a sounding board here because his comments are truly for entertainment purposes only. One of these days he might actually have something relevant to say but by then it will be too late because no one will care! Waiting for the next nonsensical post because if nothing else, they are amusing and I truly do enjoy them.
6. TribecaMom

   July 16, 2012 • 11:24 pm

   Now to be serious, when they built the Gehry Building a school was part of the plan. If the developers are reaping the benefits and selling the neighborhood on the reputation of great schools, they should have to allot some space for amenities or work with the city to ensure that there are good schools to support all the new families. At this point, pretty sure new families are not coming below Canal. It is in everyone’s best interest to provide schools to support a neighborhood. But then again, how ironic if all those units remain empty because of the lack of good schools.
7. Jim Smithers

   July 16, 2012 • 11:31 pm

   to clarify, that including all spellings of Kaitlin = Caitlin, Kate Lynn, Catelyn, etc. and Wolverine includes the Wolf and Wolfy variations.
8. cami

   July 17, 2012 • 10:45 am

   I have never understood this process. Don’t community boards approve new developments in the neighborhood? Since space is finite, we need to ask developers to include schools, dog runs, community centers or whatever the community needs into their development plans. New residential buildings get built and then after the over crowding is already a problem, everyone scrambles for locations for new schools (surprise, there aren’t any) and then everyone sits around scratching their heads wondering how we got here. I understand the drive for new developments from an economic perspective but why can’t we have some strategic planning where the community is concerned?
9. Becnyny

   July 17, 2012 • 10:52 am

   Forget schools – where are we supposed to park our BMWs, Mercedes, Range Rovers and Lamborghinis???????
10. Erik Torkells

    July 17, 2012 • 12:41 pm

    @Cami: I’m not expert on this, but from what I understand, the community boards don’t approve new developments—that sort of thing is regulated by zoning (and when developers want variances on zoning, they often need CB approval). Landmarked districts are an exception, but even then, community boards are only advisory, and I think it’s unlikely that the purpose of a building is in their purview. Obviously people who know more should correct me if I’m wrong.
11. Diane

    July 17, 2012 • 2:29 pm

    For me the biggest issue with all of this development is the issue of contextual design. Many of the projects listed here fit into the neighborhood – the buildings match the height of the ones next to them, they look like they fit in, they’re not adding that many units to an overcrowded neighborhood…

    But those towers are just overstepping bounds.

    I get that development is a business, and the goal is to make money on the investment. But the zoning for this neighborhood is outdated and needs to be reconsidered. I know at one point the neighborhood was struggling and zoning allowances were very liberal to encourage people to develop here.

    I feel like the time for that is well past and the overall infrastructure of the neighborhood needs to be taken into consideration before more large projects are given the go-ahead.
12. Bruce Ehrmann

    July 22, 2012 • 10:29 pm

    @Erik: I am the Co-Chair of the Landmarks Committee of Community Board #1, Manhattan, which covers lower Manhattan, including TriBeCa. I’ve lived in TriBeCa for 24 years. You are exactly right. We are a recommending body, which the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the City Planning Commission take very seriously. But we cannot decide the USE of private property, and we do not write law. Most of TriBeCa is landmarked. And the Board does look into and make recommendations regarding general land use policy.
13. Jim Smithers

    July 23, 2012 • 10:57 am

    Either the City Planning Commission isn’t taking CB1’s recommendations very seriously or CB1 isn’t very seriously making recommendations about their community’s concern over the disorderly growth and over-development of TrIbeca.
14. MrUptight

    October 12, 2012 • 10:19 am

    19 Park Place. Ugh. Ismael Leyva is such a hack.
15. David G. Imber

    October 12, 2012 • 3:07 pm

    Mr. Ehrmann has been quoted calling the Herzog and de Meuron residential high-rise at 56 Leonard “a meteor that’s landing in absolutely the lowest-rise section of Tribeca.”

    There is the AT&T Long Lines building near enough to throw a rock from one to the other. There is a 50-something story residential tower adjacent to it to the southeast. Across both corners from the proposed high-rise are 20-something story buildings. What in the world is he talking about? There are low-rise areas of Tribeca, but that corner is not part of them. (Disclosure: I live diagonally across the street from 56 Leonard, and though it will likely play havoc with my life, I favor it).

    I have to take him at his word that he’s lived here more than two decades, and I don’t wish to attack him personally. But that quote left me perplexed and frustrated.

© 2024 Tribeca Citizen • Design by Jackie Blue • Additional development by Soren Technology Consulting