Left rectangle ads redesigned
Robert Ripps book
History of Tribeca Buildings
Update: The tower planned for Independence Plaza
After a flurry of announcements, things got kind of quiet regarding the proposed tower for Independence Plaza. You can see the full details in this post here, but in short: the two owners of Independence Plaza, Vornado Realty Trust and Stellar Management, intend to build a 940-foot tower on their complex at Greenwich and Jay, the southern half of IP called 3C. (There will be a community meeting next week; stay tuned on that.)
The developers do not have to seek a zoning change — building there is as-of-right — but they do have to go through an 18-month review process that includes a environmental impact study, which requires community input. Last year at this time, they intended to start that clock this summer, but that clearly did not happen. Their press rep told me plans are currently on hold due to the mayor’s City of Yes policies, among other things.
“As I’m sure you know, since Stellar presented some options for additional development at Independence Plaza in December, there have been significant changes to city and state housing policy,” he said. “The Stellar team is assessing how these changes might affect its options.”
From what I understood about the City of Yes Housing Opportunity, it would allow for modest up-zones in under-developed neighborhoods or low-density parcels: “City of Yes would make it easier to add new contextual, height-limited buildings to campuses.” But this seemed like it would not fit into that scenario, since development is already allowed. So I turned to James Bogardus, who rewarded me with this answer — albeit with a caveat: “I would anticipate two categories of possible opportunities here. That said, I have not considered this question very deeply.”
From James, on this specific question: How would the City of Yes affect the proposal for the new 900-foot tower at Independence Plaza?
1. Add more (free market) FAR to an as-of-right project.
- Campus Infill – Use relaxed restrictions on adding housing buildings in open space on the same lot, whether height limits, lot coverage rules, shorter minimum distances required between buildings on the same lot.
- Small and Shared Housing – Potentially increase the number of units by reducing the minimum size required of each dwelling unit. May have more impact depending on whether existing minimum size rules in Tribeca are more strict than elsewhere.
- Reduced Parking Mandates – Build more units per parking space required by zoning.
- Convert Non-Residential Buildings to Housing – What can they do with the former PS 150 space at IPN? Also, do they use that to add/shift required or elective affordable housing out of the proposed high-rise tower and into less attractive / less costly low-rise housing? (See below.)
- Easier Acquisition of Air Rights in nearby Tribeca Historic District – What new opportunities would be created to receive unused air rights from nearby landmark district buildings, where existing zoning and landmarks rules typically inhibited / disincentivized their use?
2. Reduce or eliminate the cost of quelling local political opposition that could stall development.
Use Universal Affordability Preference to add 20% more housing than otherwise allowed, provided it is more affordable housing than even Mandatory Inclusionary Housing [the existing zoning policy that requires developers to include a certain percentage of affordable housing units within new residential developments]. Pay for it using 485x [a New York State tax abatement program that encourages the construction of affordable housing] or other tax incentives. Make it difficult for CM Marte to organize opposition, at not much loss of profit.
So…clearly more TK.
6 Comments
Comment:
Medium rectangle #1 (top)
Right column rectangle ads
Mega rectangle
Restaurant guide icon
Sorry, but I am having trouble navigating the implications of the above. Could someone recap it?
Martine – City of Yes would:
1) loosen restrictions for more and taller residential structures, possibly including at the current BMCC site, which is fairly unrestricted and underused as is (waterfront property in a wildly popular area that has none left – a developer’s dream)
2) Allow them to add more units to the projects by making the units smaller (more “flex” studios/1 bedrooms rather than 2/3 bedrooms; smaller 2 bedrooms e.g. the way IPN is currently being refigured so that former 2 bd/1 bath units are now 3 bd/2 bath). Reducing parking mandates also lets them have more units because there is no longer a requirement to offer X parking spots per X units. In previous developments, this limits how many units can be put in a project because where’s all that parking going to go? It’s an outdated rule from a Moses-era (Robert, not the Bible one) way of thinking about car ownership
3) Commercial space can be re-zoned for residential. IPN had to include a set amount of commercial space as planned, including. a school since the neighborhood did not have one in 1974. Now they can remove that requirement and use more sq. footage for residential dev.
4) Developers can buy unused air rights from other lots (you only built 10 stories, but were allowed 22 – we’ll purchase your air rights for our development at an adjacent lot). This one I’m fuzzier on because I don’t know what sort of air rights historic buildings would have to begin with?
And finally, for the last point: if Stellar/Related opts to include “affordable” units in their plan, they may not only have an easier time getting the project approved but they would also be able to build taller or wider or smaller sized units than in a fully market plan. The city incentivizes developers to add affordable housing this way. If you think 150% of the area median income qualifies as affordable………
Elizabeth , guess you must be a developer. No one that lives on that block or has a business on that block or kids go to school at PS 234 or are in the park are for this. Believe me, there will be very few affordable apartments. This is pure greed and will take years and destroy businesses and families that live there.
Native: what are you talking about? I didn’t say I agreed with the plan – in fact, I oppose it – I was simply answering the question that was asked. Re-read my comment: I never said there will be affordable housing here, only that they can build bigger and taller if they include it. This is city dev policy. Your comment is like someone getting mad at a dictionary for giving a definition.
Not only am I not a developer (I know this stuff because I work in landmark preservation, thanks) but I was born and raised in IPN and know it well. You might have even been my neighbor once. Be nicer.
Elizabeth, I am sorry I misread your comment. Maybe.
Tribeca will be destroyed. Greenwich Street will lose businesses and families that live there. construction will take years.