By Joseph Epstein
Critics of a proposed ten-story addition of luxury condominiums on top of a seven-story rent stabilized building at 711 West End Avenue on the corner of 95th street are rejecting builders’ claims that the unusual project will be safe.
“The building is in poor condition and the project was set up by the developer hastily and does not include an adequate tenant protection plan,” said one resident, Stephanie Cooper, a member of the Tenant Action Group (TAG) executive committee.
The development is a joint project between the owner SJP Properties and P2B Ventures and will commence as early as late spring, according to a spokesperson for the project. It has been dubbed The Haswell, in honor of New York urban planner Andrew Haswell Green; a teaser site recently went live. A coalition of building residents are considering legal action to stop the project.
A rendering from the developer of some of the units and outdoor space at the new building.
TAG hired Richard Herschlag, a private civil engineer with experience in public advocacy to investigate tenant concerns. In his report, he found the project would have “catastrophic effects” on the lower building’s foundation due to the building’s moisture problem. Building developers are dismissive of Herschlag’s findings, questioning his motives.
“I would weigh it against the professionals that have stamped the plan,” said P2B Ventures project developer Paul Boardman.
“If the building was a hazard it would have been flagged as a hazard,” added Boardman. He said there had been extensive tests of the exterior and interior walls and that the building has been cared for “quite responsibly” by the owners.
Cooper argued that the building has in fact been “horrendously neglected,” claiming there have been incidences of mold, lack of insulation for some tenants and ceiling damage caused by moisture. But a representative for the building wrote that “there have been no reports of mold.”
The current building, via Google Streetview.
“The common areas under our routine maintenance all meet New York City’s most stringent standards and have experienced no issues we know of.”
The tenants group has also raised alarms over false statements in the permits. Boardman acknowledged that the developer had been fined for $4,800 for indicating that the building was unoccupied, he described this as a “clerical error” stemming from a misunderstanding over whether the question pertained to the preexisting building or the addition.
“What’s being construed by this tenant group is that there is a clerical error in the form and therefore there is some kind of seedy activity going on which is just categorically false,” Boardman said, “Obviously, this building is occupied, and no one has ever, ever tried to say otherwise.”
Boardman and the tenants disagree on important points such as whether the building will put additional pressure on the lower structure. According to Boardman, the addition is designed to be completely separate from the existing building, with independent structures and foundations. He said that the buildings are “seismically separate,” meaning that in the event of an earthquake, they would act independently.
“The project is very unusual, I’m not aware of this kind of thing ever being done in Manhattan,” said George Deodatis, Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering at Columbia University. “Technologically speaking, it can be done, but it will be wildly expensive.”
TAG disagrees with the notion that the addition is separate, pointing out that the buildings will have a shared lobby, the same address, and the elevator shaft for the new building will pass through the preexisting one. Cooper said the classification of the two buildings as separate is “inherently dishonest.”
“They [owners and developers] never thought anyone would look into it,” says Cooper, “They have disdain for us.”
When asked why he thinks tenants like Cooper are so opposed to the construction, Boardman said, “When you’re a resident in New York, development is often something that is aggressive towards you. We believe in not talking about things, but actually performing, we don’t want to get in a public debate. We are just demonstrating by our actions the quality of the project that we’re pursuing.”
Cooper herself put it more simply, “our objective goal is that we don’t want to die.”
“He said that the buildings are “seismically separate,” meaning that in the event of an earthquake, they would act independently.”
I guarantee that the upper building would fall down on top of the origional building. I don’t consider that ‘separate’ or independent’.
I’d check everything else Boardsman says.
Now I read: “We believe in not talking about things, but actually performing, we don’t want to get in a public debate.”
He doesn’t like discussion. I suspect there’s more than his side to this.
the rendering is pretty nice…actually is an improvement to the original
Residents of the UWS “raising worries”????
NO WAY!!!
Looks like a very attractive addition.
Classic NIMBY by the tenant(s). Yes, expect noise and a mess for a year or so, but that’s what happens when you live in the big city.
What a strange and expensive sounding project. Why are they even bothering with something so silly?
Building over Symphony Space turned out to be a financial disaster. And trying to save the church under the CitiCorp building led to a design flaw that forced emergency workarounds to keep it from falling in a hurricane.
Construction likely to cause major traffic jam in immediate area – including West End Avenue, 95th & 96th Streets, and West Side Highway – plus ripple impact.
This tenants group hired a civil engineer who claims that the building is not strong enough to support the expansion.
I’m not an engineer or an architect but I highly doubt that this civil engineer would be objective as he is being paid by people who don’t want the extra floors to be built.
If these tenants don’t like the inconvenience of an expansion to their building perhaps they should move out and pay a market rate rent elsewhere.
There’s a limit to how much rent stabilized tenants should be coddled and entitled.
I think the rendering looks much nicer than what is there now. We are adding housing without evicting tenants. Maybe the influx of money from new residents will help keep our local businesses going, I have had enough of the vacancies. Seems fair to have market rate development for every shelter that moves in. We have a lot of building to do in the West 90s!I say build it. I really detest NIMBYS.
Why do you repeatedly describe the building as being “on the corner of 95th Street”? It’s on the corner of 94th St. too. It occupies the entire block between 94th and 95th.
@ Sherman, #8:
And the developer and those representing them you do trust to be objective?
Is that what you would do if you were in their situation? Can you honestly claim that?
What if the tenants were all paying market-rate? Would you then support their right to oppose such a project?
I can’t imagine how any tenant could feel safe with a ten story building being built on top of their seven story one. Why is the engineer hired by the tenants considered biased, while those seeking to make enormous profit from this obviously dangerous project think they should be regarded as reasonable and objective? No wonder Boardman prefers not to get into a “public debate”!
This is a fantastic and long-needed development that will greatly enhance the neighborhood. People may debate the aesthetics (I love it) but it displaces no one, and will benefit the residents of the building below with improvements and new shared amenities. Local biz gets the benefit of an influx of new residents and their dollars. A win-win for everyone.
Baffled by comments recommending additional development in this area? I assume the posters are associated with the real estate industry….
The subway/96th Street station is already dangerously overpacked.
And as for vacant stores, that is a result of landlords seeking huge rent increases, essentially waiting for a big chain or bank tenant. Same situation on the East Side, East Village, Greenwich Village, Tribeca. BTW once long-time NYC businesses are pushed out, the turnover is unbelievable. Check out what has happened in the East Village 🙁
Lastly, what is the point of residential neighborhoods if they essentially replicate
the crowds and commercial aspects of midtown etc? It makes sense that neighborhoods are distinct, that let’s say Williamsburg is considerably different than Riverdale which is different than the Upper West Side, etc.
The article does not mention that it is a block away from an elementary school, PS 75. What is the plan in terms of dust, noise and traffic mitigation?
> Sherman:
The engineer is being paid to be objective! The assumption that people’s motives are nefarious is lazy and shameful.
The residents who paid for Herschlag’s report could just as easily disregard it, if they choose.
This article failed to mention several key issues that will not just impact residents of the building but the community at large.
This massive construction project will affect traffic at a corner where there have already been many accidents and fatalities due to heavy traffic entering and exiting the West side highway. It will also be situated directly across the street from a community elementary and middle school (PS75 and Westside Collaborative) which serve hundreds of neighborhood families. In addition to the noise, dirt, dust, and exposure to contaminants that could impact the students’ health and ability to learn — the use of cranes and other heavy construction equipment will impede access to the main entrance of the school and crucial outdoor play area, block traffic and create an even more dangerous intersection.
I have no problem with development in general or with the aesthetics of this particular project — my objections are with the specific location and the potential problems it will bring.
I looked into renting here about 16 years ago and found the apartment in a terrible state and was told that was how I would have to take it. I’ve never seen any major work being done here and I live a block away. The tenants are probably right. This has to be a very risky and dangerous project.
NIMBY, reslly? Maybe it’s NIMBY for the neighboring residents, but for a current residents on the lower floors it’s a valid protest of NOMBR — Not Over My Building’s Roof — against this ill-conceived project.
where, oh where, do such nasty people come from?
that last comment was referring to #8 Sherman but it could have been about others on this thread as well. why the hatred towards rent stabilized tenants?
I’m an owner at the other end of the block and i don’t want to see this built. thanks to TAG for challenging it.
I’m all for new construction and raising the property values in the hood. So many predicatble NIMBY posters here. The Poor!, The Children! The Parking! The Seniors! The Banks! The Drug Stores!
We oldsters who live in the Williams diagonally across the street from the project will also be adversely affected by the construction. Many of us are home during the day and will get the full impact of the noise and turmoil. We go for walks along West End because the hill up to Broadway is too steep for some of us, and some, like my 100 year-old friend, like to sit outside the building for fresh air.
It’s not a NIMBY issue for all of us. If it was an empty lot they could build whatever they want. But building on top of a building that was not designed for such a thing is just ridiculous. No one would want this over their head.
What about the West End Ave Historic District? It’s causing huge extra expense for some of us. Can’t it at least be used to protect from this type of construction? Has landmarks actually signed off on this?
one of the most notorious commenters above, who is cheering loudly for this development, actually went to far as to urge people to call Helen Rosenthal and other elected officials and support the Salvation Army’s eviction plan for Seniors in the Williams. which is going through… sadly.
these people are just nasty.
i don’t know why anyone thinks this monstrosity would “raise property values.” but even if it did… so what? is that all you’re concerned with? your apartment’s value hasn’t skyrocketed enough to please you?
greed can be so possessive of one’s brain.
It’s not a win-win for everyone. I’m a resident (of the UWS) too, and won’t see any improvements or new shared amenities. To the contrary, as someone who lives on the east side of West End, across from this building I’ll worry about construction noise, dirt, debris, crane accidents, and increased traffic during the build – for how many years? Not to mention the likely permanent loss of sunlight in my apartment due to the longer shadow cast by a taller building.
@ Bruce
Its actually the residents that have owned for 20+ years that have participated in the rise in property values. Those of us who have bought in the past 3-5 years should be concerned with their home as an investment. As more homeless shelters, SRO’s and subsidized housing show up, it would be nice to show some progress to offset them. Way to be objective and paint all those concerned with greedy brush.
If Bruce is against it, I am for it. Done.
Bruce: it’s a rental. The residents have no equity, they just want to continue to live there, under safe conditions and with the “peaceful enjoyment” that the law entitles them to.