Majority of City Council Wants City to Stop ‘Gerrymandered’ Zoning Lots That Allow Big Buildings Like One On West 69th

Construction workers have been preparing to build a tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, but how high will it rise? Photo by Stephen Harmon.

By Carol Tannenhauser

For the second time, the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) has postponed deciding whether or not to revoke the building permit for 200 Amsterdam Avenue, the proposed 668-foot residential tower at 69th Street. After a lengthy hearing on Tuesday, the matter did not even come to a vote. Instead, more papers will be filed before a decision is reached on July 17th — unless the case is “reopened,” a representative of the BSA added.

The first two hours of the hearing, held in Spector Hall, at 22 Reade Street, were a barrage of legalese, peppered with recurring, recognizable words, like “tax lots,” “gerrymandering,” “zoning lots,” “lots of record,” and “open space.” There was much explanation, discussion and disagreement about the meaning of these terms and how they apply — or are misapplied — in the case of 200 Amsterdam.

Olive Freud, president of the nonprofit Committee for Environmentally Sound Development, a group opposing the current plans.

Council Member Helen Rosenthal — who hasn’t missed a meeting on this issue — came armed with a letter written by her and signed by 27 Council Members, from all five boroughs.

“The stakes are greater than one neighborhood or one building,” Rosenthal testified. “The use of gerrymandered zoning lots has the potential to negatively impact the land-use process for the entire city. It is with that citywide lens that I present this letter, signed by a majority of my colleagues.”

Rosenthal was followed by many eloquent and ardent opponents of the building: community-board members, Upper West Side residents, representatives of block associations and nonprofit organizations. The best line of the day goes to Page Cowely, co-chair of Community Board 7’s Land-Use Committee, who said, “Two wrongs don’t make as of right.”

On the opposing side were union members, touting the construction and retail jobs the building would create, and architects. John Cetra of CetraRuddy, which designed the interiors of 200 Amsterdam, said “the zoning was based on four decades of interpretation by the Department of Buildings, and to retroactively change the rules after construction has begun would be a huge detriment to architects and other professionals who depend on the consistency of the zoning laws that have existed for so long.”

SJP Properties, the developer, issued the following statement:

“As we’ve previously stated, we purchased the 200 Amsterdam site as of right in 2015 with the approved zoning already in place. This building was meticulously designed according to the NYC zoning code, with an aesthetic that is contextual to its Lincoln Square neighborhood. Our application for 200 Amsterdam went through an exhaustive review and subsequent audit by the Department of Buildings (DOB), a process that lasted approximately one year, which reaffirmed that the zoning and building design are in compliance. DOB’s decision was based on its recognition that, for close to 40 years, it had consistently interpreted the Zoning Resolution in a way that permitted the kind of zoning lot on which 200 Amsterdam is based.

“Upon receipt of all building permits, we commenced construction on 200 Amsterdam in September 2017. We have the utmost confidence that the DOB’s carefully rendered decision to grant the building permit for 200 Amsterdam will be upheld.”

We’ll find out on July 17th — maybe.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 53 comments | permalink
    1. Sherman says:

      All these opponents of this building – whatever their reasons – can split hairs over “gerrymandering” and “zoning lots” all they want.

      Unfortunately for them this building has already been approved by the DOB. If these opponents succeed in blocking the construction of the building I would imagine SJP Properties would initiate a massive lawsuit against the city to be reimbursed for the costs they have already sunk into this project.

      Furthermore, there will likely be a huge fenced-in whole at this site remaining for years to come while the legalities get sorted out.

      Is this all really in the neighborhood’s best interest?

      Incidentally, I would love to see the financial records and tax returns for The Committee for Environmentally Sound Development.

    2. Josh P. says:

      The previous update on this story had a comment that said if we don’t stop buildings like this, “in 10 years we are going to look like Tokyo or Dubai.”
      New York invented the sky scraper and we continue to be defined by it. What’s more New York than the Flatiron Building, the Woolworth Building, 40 Wall St, the Empire State Building, The Chrysler Building, Lever House, the UN, and all three World Trade Center towers? When you do a google image search for “New York City” it’s filled with our iconic skyline. The Wikipedia page is topped by pictures of our skyscrapers. Skyscrapers don’t make Nee York more like some other city, they make New York more like itsself. If you think skyscrapers are going to ruin New York, you’re about 140 years too late.

      • Mark says:

        What they build today are not skyscrapers, what they build today are ugly condos with no architectural value or design. Beyond the early 1900’s and the Art Deco periods, there are no grand buildings that have been built in New York that I would call skyscrapers besides the old twin towers.

        • Josh P. says:

          I disagree. Not every building is a masterpiece, but when we allow growth in our neighborhood we create the possibility of adding future architectural gems. When we are open to change, we can keep the good and let the bad be built over with something new. When we make development as difficult as we have, we become stuck with new designs forever.
          I hear what you are saying though, and it’s not a coincidence that all the buildings you mention were built before the layers of community review and local government approval that every building has to go through now. You think the Chrysler Building could get built today? Talk about out of context! When we leave art, which I believe great architecture is, in the hands of self appointed local bureaucrats well… there’s not a whole lot of great art made by committee.

        • Robynr says:

          Thank you for your comment!!

      • French Toast says:

        Mercy Boh-Coup, Monsueyer Josh!

        You are SO ON TARGET! Thank you!

        B/T/W: here’s the latest argument from the NIMBY-crowd:
        Besides 200 Amsterdam’s casting permanent shadows…even after dark…AND stealing our air (gasp!)…it will, ta-daaaa!, CREATE A WIND TUNNEL 😱

        O.M.G.: can we expect all the retirees schlepping home from Fairway and/or Trader Joe’s to have their shopping bags ripped from their fragile hands….perhaps even THE RETIREES will be blown along Amsterdam Ave like nine-pins.

        Arrrghhh….TEOWAWKI! (The End Of The World As We Know It) !!! 💀

        • Robyne says:

          Great point. For residents of the Lincoln
          Tower Complex it is already so windy that it’s very hard to open the doors to the front of the building.
          I believe it will also worsen the effects caused by rain storms, snow, hurricanes, etc.

        • Beverly says:

          Just wait until you get to be that age, French Toast – shame on you!!!

        • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

          i agree with Beverly.

          French toast’s comment reflected crass ageism. I guess he or she doesn’t like living in a neighborhood with retirees.

          Just another form of elitism.

      • Christina says:

        All what you said is fine. But the upper west side is more of a residential area NOT midtown! Another thing when all the buildings you mentioned were built, a lot of the Upper West Side was farm land and Central Park was a Shanty town. So what you said really doesn’t apply to the upper west side.

    3. dannyboy says:

      “The use of gerrymandered zoning lots has the potential to negatively impact the land-use process for the entire city. It is with that citywide lens that I present this letter, signed by a majority of my colleagues.”

      So now the UWS is notable for both “gerrymandered zoning lots” and segregated public schools.

      Things have really changed around here.

    4. 69th Street Dude says:

      The developer says the building was meticulously designed “with an aesthetic that is contextual to its Lincoln Square neighborhood.“

      How is building a building taller than all surrounding buildings keeping it in the context of the neighborhood?

      • sam says:

        not just taller. two to three times as tall as the surrounding buildings. The neighborhood is no stranger to tall buildings, and even a 20-30 story building (by no means “small”) wouldn’t be entirely out of place. But a 70-story building would be a literal and metaphorical middle finger to the entire neighborhood.

        And this really needs to get resolved before they start planning for the ABC building site, because you just know they want to build some sort of russian-oligarch-money-laundering complex there as well.

      • F.P. says:

        Your comment is fatuous: at one point ANY building taller than a single story home in this neighborhood was “out of context.” But stand at 71st and Amsterdam and look South. There are NUMEROUS very tall buildings on the east side of the street. This slightly taller building on the west side of the street will NOT be out of context, particularly as it was designed to taper towards the top.

        • Jay says:

          You’re exactly right, FP. Unfortunately, facts do not matter to the NIMBY crowd.

        • Spiderman says:

          “Taper towards the top” on the east face. On the west face it’s a sheer 684 foot wall. And who knows what that wall will look like? The design is never displayed to show that.

    5. F.L. Olmsted says:

      This behemoth of a building is “contextual to its Lincoln Square neighborhood,” as the developer claims, in the same way as an aircraft carrier would be contextual if set down in the Central Park Lake.

      • Josh P. says:

        145 West 67th Street 495 ft
        171 West 65th Street 594 ft
        220 Riverside Boulevard 541 ft
        101 West 67th Street 545 ft
        200 Amsterdam Avenue 684 ft
        200 Riverside Boulevard 492 ft
        150 Amsterdam Avenue 470 ft
        180 Riverside Boulevard 422 ft
        201 West 70th Street 377 ft

        And it’s funny that “context” only ever goes one way – nobody ever complains that we need to redevelop the low rises that no longer fit in with the rest of a growing neighborhood. People are against change.

    6. yourneighbor says:

      Against gerrymandering for zoning lots but not for election districts? Hypocrites all of them.

      This building will look great in our neighborhood. Much better than many of the downright ugly buildings that are all over the uws (and I live in one of those)

    7. Roger Wolfe says:

      200 Amsterdam Avenue is completely out of scale regarding the rest of the neighborhood. As an UWS who has lived here since1072 I have watched us lose our sky and light to the benefit of the builders who get tax breaks for changing the character of the neighborhood. In my opinion, the UWS has lost its sense of charm.
      Additionally, transportation services are negatively impacted as well as is population density.

      • Josh P. says:

        I don’t mean this simply to be mean and pick a fight online, but I am genuinely curious why you still live here if you hate tall buildings so much? It sounds like you might be happier living… literally anywhere that’s not Manhattan? I am interested to know.

      • Sherman says:

        You don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Developers only get “tax breaks” when they build rental apartments and provide a number of “affordable” below market units.

        (This is a wildly expensive and inefficient method of providing “affordable” housing but I don’t mean to digress).

        As 200 Amsterdam is a condo the developer won’t get a penny in “tax breaks”.

        As far as “losing light” to all these tall buildings maybe you have a great point. I often have to carry a lantern when I walk around the UWS during the day because it’s so dark.

      • Pru Freeder says:

        Re: “As an UWS who has lived here since1072”

        WOW! Sure, the UWS has many, many senior citizens.

        But you are probably our first Super-Centenarian !

        • Amy - UWS resident 60+ and still running says:

          Shame on you! Taking an obvious typo and mocking ( as others have) the “elder” residents of the UWS. Be careful…if you live here long enough, that will be you, too!
          As for “context”….opposition to ever-taller buildings does not make one a Luddite or one who refuses to adapt to change. There is value in aesthetics, preserving openness and light and – God forbid – housing that is affordable for older people who may have resided in the neighborhood for a long time, or people who want to continue to work in Manhattan without having to commute to an outer borough (or then some) because they have been totally priced out of the market. Part of what distinguishes the UWS from the east, for me, has been that diversity was preserved with the preservation of more “traditional” housing stock.
          Yes, NY is a city of skyscrapers and yes, we pioneered the . That does not mean that we have to turn every inch of the city into an ever-higher skyscraper designed for people who largely park their money here and maybe show up for a few weeks a year. People think Paris is beautiful because long ago, Paris opted to zone its center city and impose height limits. Just because NY did not do that at one point does not mean that it is not time to say, “enough.” are these buildings meeting an unmet demand for people who really want to,live in our city?
          Final comment – someone used to get exhorting ant tax breaks for building – which were passed on to buyers. I believe the program has been discontinued…but when I see a flyer for an $11 m apartment, the taxes for which are $800/ year – when I pay $30,000 for a condo worth half that, it makes my blood boil.

          • Sherman says:

            My father still lives in the suburban house I grew up in. He constantly complains his real estate taxes are exhorbitant and it doesn’t make sense for him to stay in such a big house and he wants to move somewhere cheaper.

            However, he’s not crying that he deserves a tax break because he’s been in the house so long or because he’s elderly.

            That’s life. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to live on the UWS. If you can’t afford to live here – or choose not to pay the price to live here – then move to The Bronx.

            • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

              Sherman said:

              “However, [my father] is not crying that he deserves a tax break because he’s been in the house so long or because he’s elderly…. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to live on the UWS. If you can’t afford to live here – or choose not to pay the price to live here – then move to The Bronx.”

              This seems to be a not-so-veiled attack on SCRIE, the Senior Citizens Rent Increase Exemption, which freezes rent increases for seniors in rent stabilized or rent controlled apartments. the family income of the senior must be lower than $50K.

              Sherman has previously made accusations against ALL people in rent-regulated apartments, calling them “freeloaders.”

              While Sherman is the most vociferous and loudest voice on WSR against rent-regulated tenants, he is hardly the only one. There are many who express prejudices and misconceptions.

              Two points:

              1) Of course, i know nothing about Sherman’s father. However, the AVERAGE senior homeowner in the suburbs has received lots of government assistance over the years. Start with the mortgage interest tax deduction, which added quite a bit to the average senior’s income over the years. Add the fact that the vast majority of seniors are on Medicare, which is a cross generational transfer program. And, of course, Social Security. Social Security and Medicare were the greatest anti-poverty programs in US history, and have helped many seniors keep roofs over their heads.

              And then, of course, there are all the federal and state tax benefits for pensions and retirement accounts, whether you get an old-fashioned defined benefit pension or a 401K.

              Oh, there are more government benefits… i’ve just scratched the surface.

              2) There are many myths about rent-stabilized tenants. In fact, they are older than market rate tenants, on average, and have lower incomes. As the years go by, a higher and higher percentage will be seniors. They are struggling on fixed incomes to keep roofs over their heads.

              The recent article by Carol Tannenhauser, portraying two African-American West Siders who had been racially profiled, seems to have been very effective. I’ve noticed a sharp drop off in racially pejorative comments since it ran.

              Isn’t it time to portray and interview some seniors who live in rent stabilized apartments? Class and living situation seem to be the next biggest bugaboo for some of the more angry commenters.

              Maybe an article like that would make some of the angry commenters think twice before telling the seniors to “move to the Bronx.”

          • Jay says:

            Most of the UWS is landmarked. It will never change. If you want to landmark the entire city, then just say it. At least that would make sense rather than, “I’m open to change, just not that” stuff that you and the rest of the NIMBYs espouse.

            This particular building was zoned and planned because its neighbors sold their air rights away. The developers are just using the tools given to them by the people we elected. If you and others have a problem with that, petition the government to change the laws.

          • Economics says:

            More housing = lower housing prices…rejecting bigger buildings can only raise rents.

            • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

              “Economics” says:

              “More housing = lower housing prices…rejecting bigger buildings can only raise rents.”

              this is context-free garbage “economics”, not even a 9th grade version of real estate economics and supply/demand.

              According to this, all those huge billionaire towers on 57th Street (“Billionaire’s Row”) should have lowered prices on other buildings in the are.

              or all the building in the lower part of the UWS should be lowering prices throughout the area.

              none of this is happening.

          • Exhortation to Proofread says:

            “and yes, we pioneered the .”
            ? We pioneered the period?

            “someone used to get exhorting ant tax breaks for building – which were passed on to buyers.”

            “exhorting ant” tax breaks? What are those?

            Tax breaks for those who exhort ants to religious conversion?

      • B.B. says:

        You’ve lived on the UWS for 946 years (since 1072)? *LOL*

        First of all shame on you for not buying up all the land. I mean surely when you saw Henry Hudson’s ships sailing up river something big was going to happen.

        But more to the point please share your secrets of longevity. Are you a vampire? Or perhaps related to Mrs. Samantha Stephens or her mother Endora?


        • Fed up says:

          B.B..Usually I find your comments smart and informative. But your comment about an obvious typo was neither. And it wasn’t even clever.

    8. Susan says:

      Anyone ready to start the fight for the building on 66th Street between CPW and Columbus? This one is going to be taller than the one on Amsterdam.

      • F.P. says:

        Yes!! I am ready to fight against everyone who will wail and moan and gnash their teeth promulgating the same hackneyed tropes against 50 W. 66th as are being fatuously trotted out against this beautiful development. You will NOT stop this vibrant city from evolving. We do NOT live in a neighborhood of relics suspended in time. I look forward with alacrity for that building to begin construction.

    9. Edie says:

      It’s true that 200 Amsterdam has tall buildings south of it and MUCH shorter ones north and east, including on the block it will stand. I stand with those fighting for the context north and east. The tall buildings between Broadway and Amsterdam ARE the mistakes of the last 40 years. Time to correct course. I pray I will never have to live in a part of the city that looks like 10th Ave in the high 20s, low 30s – glass canyons, UNlivable. NYC invented high rise, but Hong Kong is truly a lousy model for Manhattan. No building should be 3 times a neighbor that is otherwise “large” for its block. Modify the plan! Money and jobs will still be had. And to people who like to mock our neighbors as they do groceries – feel free to go live in a cell with a screen. What kind of city do you want to live in?

      • Jay says:

        I’d like to city in a city that’s not a museum, but still has a sense of it’s past. I’d like to live in a city that is welcoming to new people and new ideas.

        The small minority of NIMBYs that oppose building anything because they are afraid of new things and new people. It’s a pretty sad thing.

    10. Bb says:

      With all due respect this is cronyism not gerrymandering…

    11. Kate says:

      As someone who lives around the corner from this lot, I am beyond sick of this so-called activism. Just build it. It’s a building. You’ll live. I am tired of seeing that massive hole in the ground for years on end. Get a life and let them build it.

    12. Saynice says:

      Does anyone recall when 200 West End Avenue was being built they had to scale back part of the building? And that building is on a footprint twice the size, and the height is about half that of 200 Amsterdam. It is now a lovely addition to the neighborhood. Scale this monstrosity back. Or maybe build it on Seventh Avenue South? 🙂

    13. Patrick Tucker says:

      I don’t mean to be insensitive but I don’t understand this line of thinking: since i’ve lived here i should always be able to live here.

      Is it against social norms to move to a more affordable place?

      All of the articles about how unafforable NYC is. Seems to me that your dollar will go much further else. So just move.

      If I couldn’t afford NYC I’d for sure move. NYC isn’t the only place to live.

    14. Mary says:

      Why are people fighting for a 70 story building many New Yorkers can’t afford to live in? Please try to persuade me why this is good for our neighborhood. And don’t give me the city must evolve in order to stay vibrant argument. That is not what this proposed building is about.

      • Josh P. says:

        New Yorkers will live in this building. I don’t understand this bizarro Lake Wobegone argument where everyone has to be below the average income or they don’t count. New York is home to a lot of rich people. If they don’t live in new buildings like this, they’re going to buy up the old buildings that would otherwise be affordable. Blocking the building doesn’t make the people disappear.

    15. A.C. says:

      A few things

      1. It may not be the nicest design, but it’s definitely an improvement compared the buildings currently below 70th street. That part of the Upper West Side has been pretty architecturally stale the past several decades. (Now 50 West 66th Street is actually a beautiful rendering.)

      2. The “seep of midtown” into the Upper West Side, as alluded to by Helen Rosenthal in an interview with the New York Times, that’s inevitable. Frankly, it’s begun already, and I’m actually surprised it hasn’t been faster. New York’s population is growing, and we’ve been fortunate that the buildings, at least down here, that are being replaced are religious institutions (While not great, at least they’ve been able to relocate, or have been promised new amenities upon completion.). New York is going through a housing shortage right now, and sometimes, we got to pick and choose our battles. We are definitely going to have to start building faster and taller because New York isn’t one of those cities that can expand outwards, it can only go upwards. Midtown and Downtown frankly have already started seeping outwards, Midtown into Long Island City, Clinton, and the Upper East Side, and Downtown has begun seeping into Jersey City, Tribeca, and Downtown Brooklyn, it was only a matter of time before the Upper West Side was next, did you really think they were going to just put up a “No construction zone”? New York City has to expand, and we got to except it.

      3. No one is being pushed out. Not only is this going to be built on the grounds of what was an underused synagogue, you’re putting a luxury tower in a neighborhood where, in 2016, according to Forbes, the average housing price was $4.8 million dollars (and 10024 was over $5 million.), and that’s including the projects and affordable housing west of Lincoln Center. So this isn’t gentrification on any level. In fact, this makes this building economically and aesthetically in context than it is physically out of context.

      4. While 670 feet is pretty tall (and 775 respectively.), it’s not gonna stick out like a sore thumb when you look at it from other angles. From the West, Riverside South is going to cover it up. From the South, (and southeast.), Broadway’s towers, and 3 Lincoln Center are going to cover it up. From the East, it’s pretty far from Central Park, so it isn’t exactly going to pop. It’ll only be noticeable maybe from the North, but that’s really it. If you want to look at a sore thumb, look at 2628 Broadway. That building is physically and architecturally out of context. At least the neighboring buildings in that neighborhood are a little newer, that is just a sore thumb, and is almost identical, architecturally (Not exactly height-wise though.) to 200 Amsterdam Avenue.

      5. The Subways are going to have to adjust. That’s it. Just because the subways are already crowded doesn’t mean a new building shouldn’t go up. By that same train of thought, 2230 Broadway, 250 West 81st Street, 207 West 79th Street, 555 West End Avenue, and 269 West 87th Street, 210/221 West 77th Street and 1865 Broadway all should never have been built for that exact reason. They are all around the same exact Subway line that 200 Amsterdam Avenue (and 50 West 66th Street) have recently open, and are being built by same subway line, and are going to also contribute to overcrowding on the subways, but it’s the MTA’s job to better equip the subways for an influx of customers.

      6. The whole purpose of a city is for it to stick out. Tall buildings are what makes New York City iconic. When you search up New York, you either get a glistening shot of Downtown or Midtown, from Rockefeller Plaza or the Observation decks from the Empire State building or the Freedom Tower. You will get Lincoln Center and Carnegie hall too, but you will almost never get pictures of specifically the Upper West Side because that’s not what makes New York City great. It’s the architecture. The Buildings sticking into the sky, pushing the limits of engineering. And as I had said before, tall buildings are going to have to start seeping their way into neighborhoods that previously had a shortage in such buildings, and it’s happening in neighborhoods all across Manhattan, and Brooklyn and Queens as well. The Upper West Side is not only next to Midtown but next to Clinton, another area which is seeing a huge revamp in development. Silver Towers, Sky Apartments, Hudson Yards, they weren’t there 10 years ago, but because of an influx of population, and an urge to develop, they were built that’s not corruption, that’s growth.

      7. Let’s say that this building permit does get revoked. What then? What kind of structure do you want in its place? A lot of you have been so aggressive, fighting this structure with all your heart, all the while, you’re not thinking of an alternative plan. All my time reading and discussing this issue, no one has provided an alternative solution. If someone would provide an alternative to what should go here, I would be all for listening, but one of the reasons that I’ve been turned off by this argument is that they just want the construction to stop and the permit to be revoked, and that’s been happening pretty often. That’s why stuff like this happens, people lose, not just because the argument doesn’t have the adequate footing, but this is the kind of issue that would grant an alternative, and no one is providing any alternatives. More people would be open to your argument if it wasn’t just “stop building this, and make it shorter” What do you want?

      Side note, unless you’re a child or teacher at PS 199, or someone who lives in the towers nearby who bought their apartment exclusively for light purposes, you don’t really have any real reason to complain about shadows, unless you stop in that area, and take random photos of the sun. Also, what’s bad about shadows. It’s more cool air in the summertime, isn’t it.

    16. Rob G. says:

      Oh Olive, sit down and evolve already! I really tire of those who want to keep the neighborhood stuck in some sort of time capsule. This building rocks compared to so much of the other crap that has been built on the Upper West Side.

      • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

        … and Rob G wins the award for the most obnoxious comment of the week.

        Olive Freud has the commitment to and conviction of her beliefs mecessary to express them effectively in a public forum. A little more dignified and effective, and “evolved”, than anonymously giving her a Bronx Cheer in the comments section of a Blog.

        Of course, you are always welcome to get up and testify at a public hearing. But that takes cojones. Which Olive has. Maybe some others don’t.

        • Rob G. says:

          Yes Bruce it is true that those of us that disagree with Olive Freud could go to the meeting and state our displeasure with her there. Or, we could do it here on this blog, as is our right to do. And you have the right to disagree with us with your responses here as well. The system works! Everyone wins!

          • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

            you can express your disagreement with her but telling a dignified and vibrant senior to “evolve” is pretty darn obnoxious.

            or,i guess, you are more “evolved”, at least from your point of view.

            I would respect the YIMBYs more if they publicly expressed their viewpoints instead of throwing anonymous potshots.

            • Rob G. says:

              Olive Freud may be dignified and vibrant but it is this anonymous commenter’s opinion that stopping the construction of this building and keeping the neighborhood in a time warp is not in our best interest.

              By the way, do you honestly think that any commenter here cares whether you respect them or not?

            • Jay says:

              There’s the pot calling the kettle black, again.

    17. D KASSIR says:

      The taller the buildings, the more humans are ‘packed-in’ to NYC. The sidewalks and streets are already so clogged, but the greedy developers just want more more more for them selves.
      AND look at all the empty stores. Last night as I walked pasted all the ghostly shells which recently held Rite Aid, Banana Republic, Club Monaco, ….I looked up and made a plea, “Please save our NYC from this ongoing greed!”

    18. B.B. says:

      Am going to say this again, and hopefully for last time.

      All this new development, construction and rising real estate values along with associated activity has pumped *billions* into NYC’s economy and coffers.

      BdeB and city council have had so much money coming in the past several years they don’t know what to do with it all. Well they do in that large sums are going to every bleeding heart liberal/democrat cause.

      Every thing from free “ladies days” products and diapers to now discounted Metro Cards for the *poor*. That and city has vastly ramped up all kinds of spending including a huge expansion of workforce, benefits and pay.

      City currently has *ONE BILLION* USD surplus that BdeB and city council are squabbling over how to spend. And *NO* that money is not all coming from Wall Street.

      New York City has not increased property taxes recently, but assessed values are climbing, and that is where large sums of revenue are being generated.

      All of this real estate activity and or spending by “the wealthy” is behind keeping other people’s butter stuck to their bread.

      • dannyboy says:

        “Every thing from free “ladies days” products and diapers to now discounted Metro Cards for the *poor*.” – B.B.

        Resent your neighbors much?

    19. chase says:

      please block this building