NEW WEBSITE DETAILS CONTROVERSIAL 8-STORY WEST END AVENUE ADDITION

711 wea3

Newly released renderings show the eight-story luxury addition that developers want to build on top of an existing six-story rental building at 711 West End Avenue at 95th street. Politicians are currently trying to stop the project by extending the West End Avenue historic district.

The renderings, which were posted on a website about the project at 711westend.com, appear to have been released by the building owners, one resident told us. But it’s not completely clear — the website is written as if a tenants group has created the site, and even includes a tenants’ rights section. That said, it offers a particularly sunny description of the building and appears designed to assuage any concerns that residents might have.

A poster about the site and an image of one of the renderings was posted in the lobby and elevators at the building (image below). The poster says the project “will result in significant improvements to our shared spaces and the quality of our lives.” The managing agent for the building, who works for Kaled Management, has not yet responded to our inquiries.

Update: one of the tenants in the building says he created the site after meeting with the developer. he asked not to be named. “I set up the site mainly to provide a portal for information and updates from the developer, and have no intention of being involved in any way beyond that.”

The site has lots of details about the proposed building.

  1. The project is being led by “noted New York landmark architectural firm PBDW Architects and Kaled Management, working with the developer P2B Ventures.”
  2. The site says the new building will be supported by “a separate structure of steel columns and beams placed around the exterior of 711 West End Avenue,” and not rest on top of the current building.
  3. There is no set starting date for the project but “The estimated time frame for the project, from start to completion, is approximately 18 to 24 months.”
  4. The site goes out of its way to say there will not be a “poor door,” but notes there will be a new entrance on West 95th street and separate elevators. There will also be separate amenities. It says “Most developers seek to create value for themselves by seeking to evict tenants and creating completely separate entrances, a luxurious one for the tenants of the new building and a so-called ‘poor door’ for the residents of the existing one. This will not be the case in the new 711 West End Avenue. The developers believe that the project’s ultimate success depends on integrating all tenants, new and veteran, into one vibrant community, and have chosen to invest considerable resources in creating shared spaces for all to enjoy.  The building will have one primary entrance and shared improvements. While the new building will have its own separate and exclusive amenities, there are major improvements. These include:
    – An elegant new entrance and new lobby replacing the existing one.
    – A landscaped garden with water features and benches instead of the existing tar roof above the garage.
    – A renovated garage, featuring a “porte-corchere” and a landscaped driveway.
    – An additional doorman entrance on 95th Street, with all-new lighting and landscaping, which should increase the security and quality of life on 95th street.
    – Renovated planters, and additional landscaping in front of the building.”
  5. The elevators will be separate, and it’s not entirely clear why there’s a new entrance at all, if the building is going to be designed for all tenants to use on entrance: “Again, in an effort to create a cohesive community, many public spaces will be accessible by tenants of the existing and the new building alike. All tenants will use the existing lobby entrance on West End Avenue, which will be thoroughly renovated, and a new garage connection to the lobby will be developed from the new entrance on West 95th Street. Tenants of the new building will have a dedicated elevator taking them directly to the upper floors, while tenants of 711 West End Avenue will have exclusive use of our current elevators, which will feature newly refurbished interiors.”
  6. It’s not clear whether this will affect the rent of current residents: “All of the capital improvements will be funded by the development joint venture.  We have contacted Kaled Management and asked for clarification on the question of rent. We’ll provide updates as soon as they are available.”
  7. The developer has already apparently met with tenants: “The developer has taken the time to have two tenant meetings so far. In the coming months, we expect to be holding regular meetings with the developer to ask questions and receive updates.” It’s still not clear who ‘we’ is in this context.

Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal’s office tells us the Landmarks Preservation Commission has not yet responded to their efforts to hold a hearing on the historic district that would include this building.

We’ve posted more renderings and the poster from the lobby below. If you live in the building, let us know what happened at those meetings where the developer met with tenants.

711 wea5
View of building from West End.

711 wea6
Click to enlarge.

711 wea4

 

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 51 comments | permalink
    1. Nathan says:

      Is the existing building historic in any way? And, if not, why would extending the historic district to include this one property be appropriate? It would be based on politics rather than actual historic preservation.

      The size of the building appears to be similar to existing buildings along West End Ave. The plan to support the upper structure independently of the existing building is interesting, though I wonder how that will look? Will they need to put any columns down the interior of the building as well?

      • Nathan says:

        A quick look on Google street view shows the existing building is very plain and certainly not some architectural gem. It was built in 1951.

      • Neighbor says:

        The scale of the building is dependent on the view the developer is showing. On some shots the addition to 711 towers over 710 west end.

    2. Dave T says:

      I’m sure I’m in the minority, but at first glance I like it.

      One point: The rendering sure does make W. 95th Street look like a very wide open, sunny street. Where did the school go?
      #conspiracytheory

    3. meech says:

      You had me at “supported by ‘a separate structure of steel columns and beams placed around the exterior of 711 West End Avenue,’ and not rest on top of the current building.” I want to see how this actually happens.

      I seem to remember a number of units in this building are rent-stabilized. It will be interesting to see how the realtor deals with the long-term tenants and if they house them in other properties while the work is going on.

      The current structure is a nice deco throwback, but I think the addition does a nice job of complementing the original in scale and materials.

    4. Resident says:

      I was at one of the meetings. There do seem to be benefits for those of us who live in the building, not just the new apartment tenants, as it was explained by the developer. No one wants construction in their building (or above their building I guess), but given that (they say) they aren’t displacing anyone and the building will be spruced up (which it needs), I can live with it. The plans for the building look nice.

      • Neighbor says:

        The developer said he’s fixing up the lobby (because its the entrance fr his million dollar condos) He specifically said he is not doing anything else to spiff up the building as he claims it’s a different entity.

    5. Paul RL says:

      Pretty cool, albeit a bit schizophrenic, but there isn’t much you can do to tie in both buildings unless they make the new one as mundane as the old one. Most importantly, it is a well-needed breath of fresh air for the area.

    6. 95 in the Shade says:

      I was told years ago that this building was favored by musicians because of the thick walls (although it doesn’t look like the kind of building with thick walls!). I knew of several concert artists who lived there — don’t know if they still do — but it’s cruel in any case to think of the noise the residents will have to contend with. (Sure, the website says the construction will “sound more like it was taking place in a neighboring building, rather than directly within our structure.”)

    7. Tenant in the Building says:

      Many aspects of the developers plan (as detailed in this article) are disingenuous to say the least:

      1 – The claim that there have been several tenant meetings is disingenuous. I live in the building and I have not even heard of a single meeting. There are a large number of people living in the building connected to the ownership of the building. I’m sure the developer “met” with them and use that as the claim that there have been tenant meetings. No general tenant meeting where all have been invited has occurred.

      2 – The shared amenities line is a joke. Landscaping? A garden? Water features? The building is a single block from Riverside park. It is less than a ten minute walk to Central Park. A new lobby? How does a new lobby improve my life whatsoever? The current lobby is very serviceable with no issues at all. A new garage? Ummm…tenants have to PAY to use the garage. How is improving something that we have to pay for an amenity? To say this is propaganda is an insult to propaganda.

      You want to make my life better? There is talk of some sort of fitness/health center. Give ALL tenants access to that. Now that’s an amenity that would improve my life.

      3 – Just in case it wasn’t clear in the article, the tenants group did NOT develop the website.

      4 – To claim the construction will have little to no impact on our lives (noise, vibration, etc…) is an utter lie. How do you build a new structure above an existing one (the fact that it isn’t “resting” on top of it is meaningless) without it being a huge nuisance to the existing building. Debris/dust and noise are unavoidable and to deal with that for two years (assuming the project is completed on time and when does that ever happen) is horrendous to think about. Their rosy spin is that it’ll sound like the construction is occurring next door. They built a new building down the block from us and I can tell you that the noise was unbearable some days. To think that their spin on it would be worse than that is not reassuring in the least.

      5 – Lighting and landscaping improving the quality of life on 95th street? Did they actually write that with a straight face? 95th street has always been a disaster with narrow sidewalks and crazy amounts of traffic coming off 9A. Ever since the shelters opened, there’s been an increase in criminal events (car break-ins on Riverside, several incidents of knifings, slashed tires recently, and even several shootings), and the sidewalks always have trash strewn about. How are a few lights and some trees (by the way, there are trees there now) going to increase the security and quality of life?

      6 – Current tenants will have exclusive use of the elevators that we already have exclusive use of? WHEW! Thank god for that! They’ll have new interiors? Each time I’m in that elevator for a minute I always think to myself how much better my life would be if it had a new interior.

      I love the part where they are unsure of how it will impact rents. Let’s see, you are going to make my life miserable for two years, give me stuff that doesn’t impact my life whatsoever, bar me from using the amenities that actually would improve my life, and on top of that, you won’t guarantee anything about my rent? Just the fact that they aren’t ready to either lower rent or GUARANTEE that it won’t be raised for at least the term of the development says everything that needs to be said about the owners.

      • Rick says:

        5.

        Because the new DOORMAN entrance on 95th Street will certainly provide an added security measure. You don’t agree?

        I live in the building and love the proposed new changes. I also heard there was a meeting last week.

        You are one of our more outspoken residents it appears, but your comments are mostly irrational diatribes by someone who probably pays substantially lower than market rate rent but wants the moon. It’s people like you who ruin nice things for the rest of us with your bitterness and anger.

        • Tenant in the Building says:

          Having a doorman entrance on 95th street does not add anything to the security of the block. There are already regular security guards on the street and security guards in the entrance of the homeless shelters on the block. The block continues to be unsafe and strewn with trash. How is having an extra doorman going to improve that situation?

          How are my arguments irrational diatribes? Give me one specific example of an irrational thought and I’ll prove the rationality of it.

          You could not be more wrong. My wife and I have been here 4 years and barely pay below market rent.

          Instead of attacking me personally, which I don’t understand as I did nothing but point out the fallacies in the article and said nothing about anyone personally, why don’t you counter my arguments and show how this plan actually improves the lives of the renters. And don’t just say, “This is going to be good for everyone”. Give specific examples of how it’ll be good. Tell me how the rents in the building won’t be impacted. Tell me what amenities that will actually be useful to rents will be brought into the building.

          • Resident says:

            A garden is great, especially if you face the courtyard. Would you rather face a tar roof? New windows will block street noise and keep in heat. Air conditioners will help keep things cool in the summer. Okay you are happy with a serviceable lobby and you like the eke elevators, but they will be fixed up. You don’t agree because you want a gym, fine. But think of your neighbors. Lots of us in the building are looking forward to this and are annoyed by the vocal minority which sees problems everywhere. Replacing a brick wall facing 95th street with a well-lit and manned entrance not only looks great (see the drawing) but should definitely improve these gritty situation on the street. You mentioned the “guards” employed by the shelter–have you ever seen them?! They’re usually on their phones or just hanging around–professionals they are not!! Doing all this without displacing tenants is great, I’m holding my complete endorsement until the rent issue is addressed but from the looks of this it’s fantastic. I guess some people just don’t like change

        • Neighbor says:

          The new doorman wil help secure 95 St? What, the doorman is going to remove the sros? Ha. Besides because of the location of the sros and the location of the new entrance, 99% of the people will use the west end entrance. Think of it, slowly and rationally, most traffic to the building will come from Broadway and west end. So, which entrance is closer to those streets? Not the 95 st entrance.

      • resident says:

        thank you for that comment.

    8. WEA Neighbor says:

      The existing residents ARE very cultural in the building indeed. Authors, Musicians, Composers, Agents, Architects, etc. The building design is creative like the group of interesting people who live in it. The facade is a pleasant surprise, pretty sophisticated–not a bad presence for the cool community that it will represent…

    9. Resident in the building says:

      Buddy I’m also a resident of the building, and unlike the “Tenant in the Building” above I actually WANT WANT WANT to have a garden and a new lobby. We don’t need a green space for our families because it’s a ten minute walk to Central Park?? Uh, pretty sure there are gyms a lot closer than that along Broadway. Is that a bad thing to make our building nicer? Does your apartment face the courtyard? Would you rather look at the ugly tar garage roof we have now than a landscaped garden? C’mon there’s a lot of us in the building and plenty of us want it to be nicer than it is–I love it here but it is the ugly duckling of the avenue. And by the way I agree that 95th street is super dodgy and I don’t feel safe with my family on that street lately–yeah maybe a few trees won’t solve the situation but you know what would? An additional doorman on the block to keep an eye on things (I don’t think there are other buildings on 95th with doormen although I could be mistaken with the one on Riverside). I’m with you on the rents, though. We are a creative bunch and it’s a good community in the building, there’s hardly a dog that anybody DOESN’T know here. It should stay that way.

    10. Chuck says:

      That block is a nightmare of drug addicts and the recently released criminals and PS 75 is back to being a terrible school. Good luck getting people to buy luxury apartments there! Ask the people who build the luxury condos on 96th between amsterdam and broadway how easy it was to get buyers. Half that building is empty.

      • lis says:

        The block was a nightmare before the shelters came in too, it’s always been a bad block. Part of the reason is because 711 is such an ugly hulk of an eyesore building with no street connection at all on either 95th or 94th. Just a blank wall of ugly brick. With a new entrance and doorman on 95th, it will make a world of difference.

        Some people have such short memories. This area has always had higher crime than other parts of the UWS. Most parts of Brooklyn in fact have lower crime rates than the area in the West 90’s.

        And don’t get me started about the abhorrent retail scene on Broadway in the 90’s. There are blocks in Queens and the Bronx which are more vibrant and lively than 90th to 100th on Broadway. The amount of people pandhandling on broadway and 96th rivals that of Times Square. Any improvements to the West 90’s are welcome because it certainly isn’t that nice the way it is now given how outlandish the rents are. Time to move to Brooklyn folks! You can get twice the space for half the price and actually live in a NICE neighborhood with places to eat other than McDonalds, Subway and Starbucks!

      • neighbor says:

        P.S. 75 is an excellent school and a vibrant school community. Your comment is rude and, clearly, not based on any real knowledge. The school community is opposed to this construction for all of the noise, air and other pollution it will cause as well as the added traffic congestion. The streets around here are unsafe already and don’t need the extra construction and other vehicles.

    11. RSDresident says:

      I like it. Hope it happens. Since many of you mentioned the shelters on 95th, I wish they would do something similar there…they are beautiful bldgs the owner(s)do not maintain. Keep the rent stabilized tenants, kick out the shelters, and build condos above. I won’t hold my breath, of course.

      • Paul RL says:

        @RSDresident, CM Helen Rosenthal actually supports closing the shelter altogether, and has responded positively to me and others when contacted directly. And Neighborhood In The 90s is still suing to remove the remaining residents. It’s not enough to hold our breath and hope. It’s imperative for us to keep real pressure on our elected officials and let them know our stand – that this dangerous shelter, dumped in the middle of our neighborhood right across from an elementary school, has blighted our area and has no place here.

        • Lis says:

          Shame on your for speaking about the people in shelters as if they are the gum on the bottom of your shoe. Nearly every neighborhood in New York city houses shelters and the UWS should be no different. Nothing so special about the 90’s to make this area immune from housing some of our most neglected citizens. I’d argue that the West 90’s is the perfect spot in fact.

          As a resident of 711, I think the comments you have made are horrible and I support the homeless shelters 100%. They have just as might to be here as anyone else. Money does not make you more important than anyone else.

          • webot says:

            Shame on you Lis for attempting to shame people who seek to a better living environment.

            First, anyone has the right to live wherever they want- provided they don’t ask others to pay for it. We the taxpayers pay $3k a month per person to be housed in the shelter.

            We ask for quiet, respect of your neighbors on the street (and yes that means the right for me to not be panhandled or intimidated, or worse).
            This reverse snobbism of the far left is what is destroying our community.
            Please do not forget – the extremist judges ruled that NYC must house everyone person who asks for it – unlike anywhere else in the United States- so they come here. we ar a magnet. Rosenthal and Brewer created a law outlawing SRO hotels from being transient hotels (think tourists on a budget). The City will not allow the owners of the 95th street buildings to be converted to normal apartments.
            So this is the result.

            I think the new addition is okay. I would prefer a faux pre-war look that included the older portion – but thats not me, I don’t own it.

            • lis says:

              I hope you’re paying at least $3500 a month rent for your 1 bedroom apartment (the average in these parts). If you aren’t, I’m subsidizing your rent out of my tax dollars. Do you not even realize how hypocritical it is to denounce taxpayer funded subsidies for homeless shelters while comparing it to a run down rent-stabilized building filled with mostly under market rate rents? It’s truly laughable.

          • Paul RL says:

            @Lis, you’re entitled to your opinion. But when yours supports a dangerous shelter that has proven itself as menace to your neighbors, and continues to contribute to a decline in the quality of life in our neighborhood, then the shame is on YOU.

            This shelter was never intended to be permanent, and furthermore it displaced many residents that lived in the building when it was a SRO. Our neighborhood has always done its share and was already oversaturated with supportive services and housing like this. Enough is enough and it’s time for this shelter to go.

            • lis says:

              If you live in 711 West End, you are a renter. You don’t own anything. 711 is notorious for a lot of rent stable apartments and anyone living there is ALSO being compensated by tax payers for their under market rate apartments.

              My god, you have to really be a shameful person to say, “no I don’t want these homeless people to have shelter because I have to pay for it with my taxes” (written from the confines of their $1000 taxpayer subsidized 1 bedroom).

    12. resident says:

      Let the games begin! Unleash the dragons! Everybody has an opinion. If you don’t live in the building you cannot know the fear that goes along with the proposal of structural change, including anything that might fall under the rubric of complete and utter vulnerability: environmental toxins, foundational shifts, crime, vermin. If you do live in the building and have not considered those very real “quality of life” issues, than you probably don’t respect the air you breathe or how you treat yourselves or for that matter, your neighbors.

      At the end of the day this is business—big city style. Add to it a healthy soupcon of abject greed and voila, here we are.

    13. 711 says:

      The building in its current form is one of the most ugly and ill-cared for buildings on the Upper West Side. Many of the shelters on 94th look nicer than 711 West End Avenue. The lobby is ugly, the hallways are atrocious and the building smells like garbage. The crime on 95th is up a tremendous amount.

      All of the proposed changes will be a benefit to this eyesore. It will take some compromise, some change (it is NYC afterall!) and some patience, but I have to believe that those opposed are for one reason and one reason only: they fear their rent will go up.

      A fair thing to worry about, but to make this all about you and to deny the benefits that this project will bring is to be truly selfish. The city needs housing, this building is the shortest of any on WEA and it is truly in horrible shape.

      To the person trying to extend the historic district to include this 1951 monstrosity, you are what give landmarks a bad name. Absolutely nothing about this building needs to be preserved because of architectural significance. Nothing.

      • Neighbor says:

        This city needs housing, middle class and working class housing. This not that and to confuse this issue is to suggest that you have a vested interest in the new building.
        Full disclosure, I/my family have no business. social, or familial relationship with the owners of 711 or the developers. How may posters can say that? Nor have we been given a larger apartment or an apartment for less than market rate or allowed to combine 2 apartments into one.

        • Jeremy says:

          This city needs housing for everyone. Everyone just tends to be selfish enough to declare that their group is the only one that “deserves” it.

          In any event, million-dollar condos are decidedly mid-market these days, and I bet that’s what we’re going to see here.

    14. Priscilla says:

      Adding an active driveway to 95th St. isn’t raising any concerns?

    15. Jeremy says:

      My car lives in that building. Hopefully they enlarge the garage.

    16. Erika says:

      May I make a correction to the first paragraph of the article and a clarification of a few other points? Our elected officials are not trying to push designation to “stop” the project. That is incorrect. They are trying to complete designation of the section (not one building — a section that has been calendared since 2011) so that this project, and ANY project, must undergo public review and comment. The developers of this building seem to be sensitive to the neighborhood, but they are in no way bound to listen to the community under the present circumstances. For LPC to allow this to go forward with no public comment is to set a most dangerous precedent. Will all developers be so concerned? This section needs to be designated in order to ensure that the community has a voice in whatever is built, not just this project. And on another point: the danger to the tenants is not in whether there is a new lobby or not; it has to do with the Major Capital Improvement (MCI) costs that can be passed on to the tenants. Will the improvements be so major and so many that rents are raised above the Luxury De-Control limit? It would behoove tenants who are rent regulated to be a bit more savvy about the possibilities that lie ahead, something that being in a Historic District would help everyone to be. I repeat, “stopping” the project is not the goal of Historic Districting, nor of our wonderfully supportive Elected officials – giving the neighborhood a voice in what is built is.

    17. Lisa says:

      Seems like construction would result in a lengthy traffic nightmare for several blocks, particularly with cars exiting the West Side Highway….

      • Neighbor says:

        Since the entrance to the WD Highway @ 95 was closed the traffic on West end is a nightmare.The traffic is often backed up to 92 and 99 street along west end. THis will make it worse.

    18. I live in the neighborhood, though not in the building. I urge tenants to hire a good tenant attorney. There are several issues here. With “Major Capital Improvements” of this kind, the landlord can raise rents even on rent controlled/stabilized tenants so they become unaffordable. The work could very well proceed with a lot of noise, dirt, problems, danger (frankly). Unfortunately, since the building is not in the WEA Historic District, there will be no community involvement and given the type and scope of this project, which is unusual, it would be important to proceed with a great deal of thought and caution on the part of tenants, community and elected officials alike.

      • RESIDENT says:

        Oh great here come the lawyers! A big development comes along, and the $$$$ signs lights up in their eyes. I live in the building, never had an issue with management, like the doorman (the super is whatever) and the plan seems to promise us some good stuff. But yeah let’s all pay money our neighbors don’t have on a lawyers to act based on information about rents we haven’t received, that will help a lot. Lets save the lawyers for when we get hit by cars coming off of 95th or whipping around the corner on 97th

    19. resident says:

      It should be noted, that as of this afternoon, the sign in the lobby of 711 WEA was taken down. Gee, I wonder why? Now that the news is out the developer is realizing that they will have a long campaign ahead of them? This is PR people. This is marketing.

      Who is writing these pro-construction comments? Developer? Construction company? Paid-marketers? Owners? Trolls?

      If you are our neighbors: WAKE UP! If you think residents of 711 WEA will be the only ones who will suffer, think again. Noise pollution, loss of sunlight and sky, potential crime or accidents, exposing displaced and agitated rodents—Mmmmmm, it’s your neighborhood in the 90’s too. Fasten your seatbelts.

      • 711 says:

        Crime and rats are already a huge problem in the West 90’s. I fail to see how improving what is a derelict eyesore of a building in the center of a crime ridden area could make things worse. You make it sound like 95th and West End is an idyllic spot. It’s a loud, dirty, ugly few blocks filled with garbage. The retail right up the street with cell phone stores, Salvation army and Mcdonalds tells you what kind of area this is. 72nd and Columbus this is not!

        • resident says:

          You are very angry “711”. Did someone in this building hurt your feelings or break your heart?

          Do you know that 711 WEA also has market rate apartments? There are many hardworking honest, intelligent, professional taxpaying people who contribute to this city among our neighbors.

          Maybe it is you who needs to move? Take a chill pill and toss those bitter ones you’ve been chewing on right into the bin.

          • 711 says:

            Uh…I live IN the building. What I don’t understand is the vitriol against the proposed changes. What I’m saying is BRING ON the new addition and new changes because as the building and area is currently, it’s nothing special that’s for sure. This can only be a positive for 711 and environs.

      • Resident in the building says:

        We get a garden instead of a tar roof, new windows that will make our apartments warmer and quieter, and air conditioners. You don’t think that’s an improvement? Guess there’s no winning with some people. Some of us–your fellow neighbors–would like to live in a nicer building. And what’s with the issue with crime? Are you implying that construction workers are criminals?

        • Neighbor says:

          The developer admitted in a meeting that he is spending a big $1000.00 on the “garden” and there will be no maintenance. What does that tell you? That it’s all smoke & mirrors. That “garden” is there so it looks good for the sale of $5million dollar condos, nothing else.

          • WEA Neighbor says:

            Neighbor, I see a real attempt in communication and clarity being made by fellow residents here on a project that is very attractive but also very complex. Your commentary attempts to confuse and enflame rather than clarify. The landscape shown in the plans attached on the first floor alone is extensive and will be expensive. The roof in the rear on google is a huge tar roof. If there is a developer’s intent to landscape it, that will be very, very costly. It is clearly not $1,000 as you try to represent as factual. My building, close by had to repair a single tree well and a small piece of sidewalk and hire an arborist to tend to the tree and it cost $7,500. New York needs more green, it is a benefit to all. Get real with your “facts”, you loose more and more credibility every time you type anything.

            • Neighbor says:

              WEA Neighbor, the developer said when asked about maintaining this “garden” and I quote, “maintenance, what maintenance, I’m spending a $1000,00 on the garden, not more”.. let’s not get bogged down in subjective issues (is it pretty, it it good looking) the issue is, is it right and do people pay rent to knowingly live in a construction zone?

    20. Bruce Bernstein says:

      the developer is obviously spedning a lot of money to make sure his plan goes through.

      it is simply common sense for the existing tenants in the building to organize themselves and also hire legal counsel to make sure they get the best deal possible, or perhaps, if that is what they feel is best, stop the new development. there are many down sides for tenants, including, as someone noted, possible MCI rent increases, which can be very large.

      when my building (230 Riverside) went condo back in 2006-2007, we organized and hired legal counsel. We were able to get a 10 year moratorium on MCIs.

    21. Independent says:

      When discussing any matter involving real estate in Manhattan, a few points must be considered.

      1.) Special Factors That Characterize the Manhattan Real-Estate Market

      People who live and work here must compete over an extremely limited space with the wealthiest and most powerful people from all over the world. And many, if not most of these elites, hardly, if at all, actually live in the properties that they buy here. (From what I understand, a staggeringly high percentage of residential units in Manhattan are purchased as investment property. Many others may be used no more than a few days a year, if even that.)

      Can such a situation be considered a natural market?

      Aren’t local residents and employees absolutely essential to maintaining both the local as well as global infrastructure and economy (to say nothing of the character)? Can we afford to allow such people to be priced-out by elite investors and playboys, many, if not most, of whom are not even U.S. citizens?

      2.) Market Economics has its Limitations and Problems.

      “Hip-hop” thugs are paid lucrative sums of money for glorifying violence, hatred and use of women as sex slaves. Cops and firefighters who risk their lives every day to keep us safe are paid only modest salaries (that in many parts of the city are not even enough to get-by on, at least not with a family to support). Countless other individuals with real talents and abilities find themselves either unable to find work at all or having to settle for jobs that don’t even pay a basic, living-wage. (And many, including families with children, find themselves without even so much as a roof over their heads.)

      Whether in literature, film, music, or any other genre, lowbrow content, much of it created only to incite, titillate and indulge our basest instincts, almost invariably generates many times the revenue of wholesome content that benefits society or the human experience.

      Wall street gamblers are rewarded with billions for their predatory, reckless, destructive behavior.

      These are all examples of market economics at work, aren’t they? Of value as determined by market economics, no?

      Is this what we really want to be our ultimate arbiter and authority? Market economics?

      In an area as essential to human survival and welfare as housing and development?

      3.) Where will it all end?

      Will there not come a point when Manhattan will have become so overdeveloped and overcrowded that property values will go into decline?
      At that point, will the developers not have overplayed their hand?

      Not long ago, one of the regular posters here who seems to consistently support continued luxury development, mentioned that he had an affinity toward children. I wanted to ask him whether he had ever considered the effects upon children of the nearly-unbridled development that he apparently supports. Don’t children require a considerable amount of open-space where they can safely run free and play? Fresh air? Aren’t both resources already relatively scarce in Manhattan?

      And what about the many children whose parents simply cannot afford anything even close to the market rates that any of these new apartments being built go for? Does he have any ideas or proposals on how to deal with all of these citizens?

      I realize that these are complex and difficult problems– generally far more so than is acknowledged by those on either side of the polarization that exists. I do not purport to have the solutions nor even to have studied the matters in any real depth or breadth. I have simply presented concerns that cannot be ignored when discussing matters of Manhattan real estate.

    22. Anonymous says:

      Regardless of the merits of this 10 story addition nobody has mentioned the 2 year displacement that will result from this project for over 130 long-time neighborhood and building tenant customers that park in 711′s basement garage. Nearby garages are either full or nearly full with monthly customers and we all know there is no additional street parking to be had on the UWS. Not only will these unfortunate garage customers face tremendous garage parking inconveniences but many will have no choice but to park on our already over congested UWS streets. Where is the EIS data that documents these likely negative environmental and quality-of-life neighborhood impacts from this project? What plans and cost contributions has the developer made to ameliorate these displacement impacts?

    23. PHUKOF says:

      Let them have it. Most of New York is already infested with colonies of wealthy Rat$ who have nothing to offer beyond renovated lobbies and Starbucks built for them (personally, I prefer the rats that eat my trash). It will hardly feel like ‘home’ to those who currently live in the rent controlled units once all is said and done. This neighborhood can no longer help the fact that its been infected with the virus that is a population of uppity snobs who feel that their bank accounts make them more human than the rest. New York was once a place where people who don’t live for JP Morgan and the rest of Wall Street could live and coexist with other human beings, share ideas, learn from each other; now its just a barren wasteland of high-rises for sale or lease and out of towers with their noses so far in the air, they can smell the helicopter fuel off the top of the freedom tower.