Related faces opposition to 92nd Street tower
June 18, 2009 04:30PM By James Kelly
Manhattan Beep Scott Stringer (left) and City Council member Daniel Garodnick oppose Related's development at 205 East 92nd Street.
A showing of over 100 Upper East Side residents yesterday and speeches made by politicians were a testament to the enormous community opposition the Related Companies faces over its residential tower proposal at 205 East 92nd Street.
Yesterday's meeting resulted in Community Board 8's vote to reject the developer's application for a 421-a tax abatement, which would give it a tax break on the project's market-rate condominium component, in return for inclusion of affordable rental units.
Residents hope Related will abandon its plans if it cannot get the tax exemption.
But when one resident asked Jesse Masyr, a land use attorney representing Related, at the meeting whether or not the building would be economically viable without the 421-a abatement, Masyr responded that it still would be.
Residents are also fighting to make Related, which aims to get rid of public space to make way for its new building, provide some kind of alternate space. They argued that the area's families have long relied on the open space, called Ruppert Playground, for recreation.
Related purchased the parcel from the city in 1983, and under the city's 1968 Ruppert Urban Renewal Project Plan, were required to maintain it as open space, available to the public, for a period of 25 years. This time commitment ended last June, and the developer has filed preliminary plans for a 40-story building in the park's footprint.
The developer filed for the abatement in the past month, racing for approval ahead of a July 1 deadline, after which the abatements will be subject to a new, more restrictive set of rules.
"We are seeking to file under the existing building code, and not have to contort ourselves to the new building code, which [Related, and] most developers still don't understand," Masyr said.
Borough President Scott Stringer spoke confidently to the crowd, saying, "I think there's some negotiating room here."
He pointed to Masyr's statement that the project does not yet have an official timeline for construction.
"The project is not slated for any kind of action today," he said. "I want you to know that we, and the people at Related, are ready to pull up our sleeves and work for a solution."
The project is expected to include 49 affordable rental units for families making 80 percent of the neighborhood's area median income, 127 market-rate rental apartments and 66 market-rate condos, as well as amenities for residents.
Community outrage to the project first erupted in late April, when more than 200 community members gathered at the park to protest the development.
After the meeting, City Council member Daniel Garodnick told The Real Deal that talks to reach an agreement with Related have been informal up until this point, but he believes the extent to which area residents oppose the project will hold weight in the city's bargaining power to be compensated for the loss of open space.
He said the legal counsel at his office was currently "looking at every legal, legislative policy hook we can to try to deal with this situation before it gets started."
The Real Deal reserves the right to delete any comment it finds to be rude, obscene, racist, sexist, bigoted, irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance. The Real Deal does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site nor does it verify the veracity of comments or the identity of posters.
Comments
Anonymous
I hope Related builds it to the MAX!!! How dare the neighborhood complain. Related signed an agreement 25 years ago and, in good faith, maintained this land as a playground as it was required. Now, the "community" wants to change the rules. Screw them! Related should forego the tax abatemetn entirely and just build as of right to the max and NOT INCLUDE ANY affordable housing. That'll teach the ridiculous opponents a lesson.
Comment #1 Posted By: Anonymous 06/18/09
Anonymous
Related lived up to its part of the deal - now the community should!
Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 06/18/09
Anonymous
People always complain that there aren't enough affordable housing units in the city and here is an attempt by a reputable developer to add more needed units to Manhattan. The addition of any new supply as well as jobs in this climate is a positive and I would hope that city officials as well as community board members will act rationally and work with the developers to get this property built.
Comment #3 Posted By: Anonymous 06/18/09
Anonymous
Amen to all three posts. So sick of where this city is clearly heading. Why would anyone ever get into bed w/ governement, you need to sleep with one eye open and they still manage to stab you in the back if you dare to blink. Pathetic. Same as the Mitchell-Lamma rule changing AFTER the 30 yr or so use restrictions run out. If the community is unhappy, lobby your reps to find an open space or to buy the land instead of taking it like a bunch of thugs.
Comment #4 Posted By: Anonymous 06/18/09
Anonymous
Sorry...Related does not need to make any more money...they already have enough. What you all do not seem to understand is that this deal was bad from day one...the city should never have made this land available for anything other than a park for the area residents. Once a park is gone, NOTHING can replace it. When one lives in a concrete jungle, one needs green spaces...or are all of you simply robots with no feelings? Having a neighborhood park is essential. Period. Obviously you are all developer types who think the world should kiss your butt...POWER TO THE PEOPLE...not to the pigs. Your type is ruining New York...gentrification has taken the character out of Yorkville...ugly towers cannot compete with trees and flowers and facilities for children. Sorry...your answers were all self-serving, and I suspect that you are very selfish, non-caring. ill-mannered people. Do ANY of you live in this area (I do...)? I suspect not...MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and keep out of ours!!!! BTW we HAVE lobbied our reps...we have very educated and capable people in our midst. You are sick where this city is heading? Why? Because greedy developers are being put to task? The city has already headed beyond reason with overpriced, ugly, cheaply build condos, and this means nothing to you? The rents are out of sync with the majority of people who work in Manhattan...I guess they all have to move to suit you and your developer friends? Better idea: YOU MOVE OUT...and take your greed and selfish attitude with you. I would love to see how you would react if you were a PARENT with children that use this park...go back to where you came from...I was born in NYC...you?
Comment #5 Posted By: Anonymous 06/18/09
Anonymous
#5 has to be satire. There cannot really be someone so stupid, can there?
Comment #6 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
LOL, #5!! "Power to the people, not to the pigs", "Your type is ruining New York", "go back where you came from" (!), and, best of all "mind your own business!!". Hilarious! Do you do bar mitzvahs?
Comment #7 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
#5 is either on welfare or government union employee which is the same thing. last time i checked this is america where we are supposed to live by the laws. so until Obama turns this into a totally socialist nation it is not #5's place to say how much is enough money. Related has the legal right. if #5 doesnt like the urban jungle then move, say to suburban Detroit, where housing is now very affordable
Comment #8 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
#7, you are awesome. As for #5, he or she should understand that if it wasn't for the savvy of developers since the formal foundation of NYC, Yorkville and many of the other neighborhoods would still be cesspools of crime and filth today. If you are not used to "the concrete jungle" (people still call it that?!) by now, move to the 'burbs. Related is one of the best in the business and have done their part to build up your once shitty neighborhood. Let them keep trying to do what they do best...BECAUSE IT WORKS!
Comment #9 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
What would Rupert do? The one time state representative for the area including Yorkville. 1. He bought the Astor Estate in the Bronx and built Yankee Stadium on it. A park, but also a home. He bought Babe Ruth for $100,000 from the RedSox and solidified the Yankees place in Baseball history; people say Ruth also built a house there. 2. The Related site is adjacent to the...Rupert Towers. I bet the open space was a set back for the original development to secure some kind of city incentive. Else it would have been developed to begin with. I agree that green space is important in a city plan...I guess that is why there's an 823 Acre park 4 blocks away. Yorkville can use a luxury tower not covered in white brick and full of blue hair. Look on the bright side community members...I'm sure the 40 floor tower will be Green.(Platinum LEED I hope) And boost the local economy by putting guys to work and feeding their families. Power to Industry.
Comment #10 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
god is related hiring pr people to post now. yikes how sad
Comment #11 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Harry Fung
Related is one of the best developers NYC has ever had; and building 49 affordable rent stabilized apts is much needed plus Related will be paying more real estate taxes. I have a friend who lives in their building on 96th and 3rd. She lives in one of the affordable subsidized apts and she raves kindly about the people who work for Related. Thats no BS either.
Comment #12 Posted By: Harry Fung 06/19/09
Anonymous
#5 has to be one of the stupidest people ever to post here. If she misses the old slum that Yorkville used to be, then by all means move to Detroit. She says that the deal was "bad from day one". That's is your OPINION. The reality is that the deal WAS MADE and Related lived up to its part of the bargain and I am sick and tired of these whiners crying about lack of parspace when one of the world's greatest outdoor spaces, Central Park is 4 blocks away. How many New Yorkers have that luxury. The icing is the very nice Carl Schurz Park on the East River. #5.....Get the hell out of our city. You ruin it for everyone else!
Comment #13 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
Hey # 5 .... I too am born and raised in New York and I support Related! I rented for most of my life and now I own my home. NO ONE is entitled to live anywhere unless they OWN! If you rent, you are a tenant and unless you are in subsidized government housing, which Related is willing to build, you either pay the market rent or move to where you can afford it. Plain and simple. I feel that the city is much better off without whiners like you!
Comment #14 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
#5 is an idiot and nut job - unfortunately most of our left wing democrats who run the city share the same beliefs - even while licking ass for money from real estate people - #5, if you like open skys and green, may I suggest Nebraska ? please move.
Comment #15 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
If we let them build it TALLER, the building will have to be THINNER and have a smaller footprint, so there will be MORE OPEN SPACE while preserving the number of low- and moderate-income housing units.
Comment #16 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
plenty of low and moderate income housing units 4 blocks north.......
Comment #17 Posted By: Anonymous 06/19/09
Anonymous
Could it be that both sides are right?
Comment #18 Posted By: Anonymous 06/20/09
Anonymous
I'm with you #11. These have to be Related employees. #5 is a real NYer. So am I. The rest of you (or the one of you with all of these posts), do you really think you'll sway people? We're not stupid. Everyone is sick of developers. There's no bright side to another building up here - unless of course you are going to put a school in it.
Comment #19 Posted By: Anonymous 06/21/09
Anonymous
Does anyone know when Related is looking to start construction?
Comment #20 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/09