NEW YORK | 247 Cherry Street | 1008 FT | 79 FLOORS


#41

985’8’’ = 300.43m = supertall. Add the crown and we’ll get >1,000’ :beers:


#42

^^ indeed, this will be the case.

http://www.boweryboogie.com/2016/06/behemoth-backside-proposed-cherry-street-tower-reach-1000-feet/



#43

Sneaky Sneaky. This is when you know you what you are doing. 1st time I have ever seen a dev downplay the size of a building.


#44

nymbys shut up!!

not everyone gets to live in a rent controlled apartment
don’t like it move to the suburbs, but then you wouldn’t be paying $500 for an apartment


#45

Great news. Down with the NIMBYS!!!


#46

And that’s the thing. These spoiled, nagging prudes live in rent controlled apartments. You and I know that those are prime units, and very hard to come by nowadays.


#47

Nice!


#48

NIMBY tears are delicious! This is America! Let freedom ring!


#49

Oh wow, a supertall in this area? But this area area doesn’t have good subway connections. The only subway within a reasonable walking distance is the F line and maybe the B and D trains, but they bypass downtown entirely and is only useful if you’re going uptown or to Queens.


#50

Fairly safe to assume that most residents of this supertall will not be taking the subway.


#51

Lol. ,


#52

I would guess these will be easily the furthest very tall skyscrapers that do not have reasonable subways access


#53

True, I almost forgot waterfront development in Manhattan is on a whole different league than the one going up in Queens or Brooklyn.

But still, Yimby and MrVena had good ideas. I was only adding to their comments. And yeah, I would say that the full length 2nd ave subway should be built as planned.


#54

Proposed 1,000-foot-tall apartment tower in lower Manhattan put on hold

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160706/REAL_ESTATE/160709968/proposed-1000-foot-tall-apartment-tower-in-lower-manhattan-put-on


#55

they not planning on starting this for at least another year so hopefully the not too much time lost here.


#56

City Reviewing Two Plans to Curb Influx of High-Rises on LES Waterfront

The city is currently looking into two proposals aimed at addressing the rapid-fire development of the Two Bridges waterfront — one that would cap building heights and another that would make it more difficult for developers to build high-rises — as residents grow increasingly anxious over the influx of super-tall buildings in their neighborhood.

The Department of City Planning is reviewing a proposal from elected officials that calls for a set of planned waterfront high-rises to be viewed as “major modifications” that would go through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) — an extensive, seven-month approval process requiring review from the local community board, the Borough Board, City Council, and the mayor himself.

Under the current zoning, three prospective large-scale developments slated for the waterfront are just “minor modifications,” meaning they could be approved by DCP without undergoing the thorough review process of a ULURP. But local elected officials say that given the significant impact the developments would have on the surrounding community, the categorization needs to change.

“We firmly believe that there are strong technical and legal arguments in favor of treating these applications as a new ULURP, but equally important, these new projects will represent the most significant development in the Two Bridges neighborhood in over a generation,” reads the letter to DCP officials, which was first reported by The Lo-Down. “The community at large, through the ULURP process, deserves a role in shaping its future.”

The letter is signed by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, State Assemblywoman Alice Cancel, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, State Senator Daniel Squadron, and Councilwomen Margaret Chin and Rosie Mendez.

A 77-story residence from JDS Development — going in next to Extell’s 80-story One Manhattan Square, which is allowed under the parcel’s current zoning without approval from DCP — has already drawn the ire of the surrounding community, who say it will bring a host of quality of life issues to the densely-populated area.


#57

Lower East Side Skyline Could Look Like This

Developer pre-proposals obtained by a local blog depict a potential future skyline.



#58

what neighborhood are they referring to in that link?

any neighborhood that might have been was destroyed in the 60’s by those commie blocks


#59

Commie blocks opposing as-of-right progress…


#61

Developers move to block builder of 1,000-foot tall tower in lower Manhattan

A Manhattan-based development firm is trying to stop a 1,000-foot tall luxury apartment tower from going up along the Manhattan waterfront, between the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges.

Little Cherry, run by Gary Spindler and Roy Schoenberg, filed a lawsuit Friday in Manhattan state Supreme Court against the project’s developer Michael Stern, head of JDS Development. Spindler and Schoenberg claim that they are entitled to the development rights that Stern is using for his project—an 80-story, luxury condo tower at 80 Rutgers Slip, on the corner of Cherry Street.

A spokeswoman for JDS Development said that the firm has not received the lawsuit so it could not comment.

The dispute dates back to 2012, when Little Cherry signed a contract to buy the development rights and 235 Cherry St., adjacent to Stern’s site, from nonprofits Settlement Housing Fund and Two Bridges Neighborhood Council. Little Cherry planned a project that they said would have included affordable and market-rate apartments. But in 2014, Settlement Housing Fund and Two Bridges Neighborhood Council terminated its contract with Little Cherry and later agreed to sell unused development rights to Stern.

Little Cherry has already sued the nonprofits, alleging that they improperly terminated their contract and instead agreed to sell its development rights to Stern instead.

Friday’s lawsuit accuses Stern of helping the nonprofits undermine their contract. In addition, because Little Cherry holds a ground lease on 235 Cherry St., it argues that it has to approve the sale of development rights to Stern and since Little Cherry does not plan on giving its consent, the firm argues that the deal is not valid.

“Little Cherry is claiming that, as a tenant, it has veto power, and that JDS is unlawfully interfering with its rights,” said Raymond Hannigan, a partner at law firm Herrick, Feinstein representing the plaintiffs.

The developers are asking a judge for a monetary award and to prevent Stern from proceeding or pitching his project to the city or community. Last month, Crain’s reported that the Department of City Planning was putting Stern’s project on hold until the first lawsuit is resolved.