June 18, 2003 Advisory Board Calendar
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
New York State Department of State
February 11, 2015 DEPARTMENT OF STATE Vol. XXXVII Division of Administrative Rules Issue 6 NEW YORK STATE REGISTER INSIDE THIS ISSUE: D Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) D Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, Various Retailers of Sparkling Devices D Telepsychiatry Services in OMH-Licensed Clinics Executive Orders State agencies must specify in each notice which proposes a rule the last date on which they will accept public comment. Agencies must always accept public comment: for a minimum of 45 days following publication in the Register of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making or a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making for which full text was included in the Notice or posted on a state web site, or which is a consensus rule or a rule defined in SAPA § 102(2)(a)(ii); or for a minimum of 60 days following publication in the Register of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making or a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making for which a summary of the text of the rule was included in the Notice and the full text of which was not published on a state web site; and for 30 days after publication of a Notice of Revised Rule Making in the Register. When a public hearing is required by statute, the hearing cannot be held until 45 days after publication of the notice, and comments must be accepted for at least 5 days after the last required hearing. When the public comment period ends on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, agencies must accept comment through the close of business on the next succeeding workday. -
Assessment Actions
Assessment Actions Borough Code Block Number Lot Number Tax Year Remission Code 1 1883 57 2018 1 385 56 2018 2 2690 1001 2017 3 1156 62 2018 4 72614 11 2018 2 5560 1 2018 4 1342 9 2017 1 1390 56 2018 2 5643 188 2018 1 386 36 2018 1 787 65 2018 4 9578 3 2018 4 3829 44 2018 3 3495 40 2018 1 2122 100 2018 3 1383 64 2017 2 2938 14 2018 Page 1 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions Owner Name Property Address Granted Reduction Amount Tax Class Code THE TRUSTEES OF 540 WEST 112 STREET 105850 2 COLUM 226-8 EAST 2ND STREET 228 EAST 2 STREET 240500 2 PROSPECT TRIANGLE 890 PROSPECT AVENUE 76750 4 COM CRESPA, LLC 597 PROSPECT PLACE 23500 2 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP 6935500 4 d/ CIMINELLO PROPERTY 775 BRUSH AVENUE 329300 4 AS 4305 65 REALTY LLC 43-05 65 STREET 118900 2 PHOENIX MADISON 962 MADISON AVENUE 584850 4 AVENU CELILY C. SWETT 277 FORDHAM PLACE 3132 1 300 EAST 4TH STREET H 300 EAST 4 STREET 316200 2 242 WEST 38TH STREET 242 WEST 38 STREET 483950 4 124-469 LIBERTY LLC 124-04 LIBERTY AVENUE 70850 4 JOHN GAUDINO 79-27 MYRTLE AVENUE 35100 4 PITKIN BLUE LLC 1575 PITKIN AVENUE 49200 4 GVS PROPERTIES LLC 559 WEST 164 STREET 233748 2 EP78 LLC 1231 LINCOLN PLACE 24500 2 CROTONA PARK 1432 CROTONA PARK EAS 68500 2 Page 2 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions 1 1231 59 2018 3 7435 38 2018 3 1034 39 2018 3 7947 17 2018 4 370 1 2018 4 397 7 2017 1 389 22 2018 4 3239 1001 2018 3 140 1103 2018 3 1412 50 2017 1 1543 1001 2018 4 659 79 2018 1 822 1301 2018 1 2091 22 2018 3 7949 223 2018 1 471 25 2018 3 1429 17 2018 Page 3 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions DEVELOPM 268 WEST 84TH STREET 268 WEST 84 STREET 85350 2 BANK OF AMERICA 1415 AVENUE Z 291950 4 4710 REALTY CORP. -
TM 3.1 Inventory of Affected Businesses
N E W Y O R K M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O U N C I L D E M O G R A P H I C A N D S O C I O E C O N O M I C F O R E C A S T I N G POST SEPTEMBER 11TH IMPACTS T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO. 3.1 INVENTORY OF AFFECTED BUSINESSES: THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND AFTERMATH This study is funded by a matching grant from the Federal Highway Administration, under NYSDOT PIN PT 1949911. PRIME CONSULTANT: URBANOMICS 115 5TH AVENUE 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003 The preparation of this report was financed in part through funds from the Federal Highway Administration and FTA. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do no necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, FTA, nor of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO. -
Assessment Actions
Assessment Actions Borough Code Block Number Lot Number Tax Year Remission Code 1 1883 57 2018 1 385 56 2018 2 2690 1001 2017 3 1156 62 2018 4 72614 11 2018 2 5560 1 2018 4 1342 9 2017 1 1390 56 2018 2 5643 188 2018 1 386 36 2018 1 787 65 2018 4 9578 3 2018 4 3829 44 2018 3 3495 40 2018 1 2122 100 2018 3 1383 64 2017 2 2938 14 2018 Page 1 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions Owner Name Property Address Granted Reduction Amount Tax Class Code THE TRUSTEES OF 540 WEST 112 STREET 105850 2 COLUM 226-8 EAST 2ND STREET 228 EAST 2 STREET 240500 2 PROSPECT TRIANGLE 890 PROSPECT AVENUE 76750 4 COM CRESPA, LLC 597 PROSPECT PLACE 23500 2 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP 6935500 4 d/ CIMINELLO PROPERTY 775 BRUSH AVENUE 329300 4 AS 4305 65 REALTY LLC 43-05 65 STREET 118900 2 PHOENIX MADISON 962 MADISON AVENUE 584850 4 AVENU CELILY C. SWETT 277 FORDHAM PLACE 3132 1 300 EAST 4TH STREET H 300 EAST 4 STREET 316200 2 242 WEST 38TH STREET 242 WEST 38 STREET 483950 4 124-469 LIBERTY LLC 124-04 LIBERTY AVENUE 70850 4 JOHN GAUDINO 79-27 MYRTLE AVENUE 35100 4 PITKIN BLUE LLC 1575 PITKIN AVENUE 49200 4 GVS PROPERTIES LLC 559 WEST 164 STREET 233748 2 EP78 LLC 1231 LINCOLN PLACE 24500 2 CROTONA PARK 1432 CROTONA PARK EAS 68500 2 Page 2 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions 1 1231 59 2018 3 7435 38 2018 3 1034 39 2018 3 7947 17 2018 4 370 1 2018 4 397 7 2017 1 389 22 2018 4 3239 1001 2018 3 140 1103 2018 3 1412 50 2017 1 1543 1001 2018 4 659 79 2018 1 822 1301 2018 1 2091 22 2018 3 7949 223 2018 1 471 25 2018 3 1429 17 2018 Page 3 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions DEVELOPM 268 WEST 84TH STREET 268 WEST 84 STREET 85350 2 BANK OF AMERICA 1415 AVENUE Z 291950 4 4710 REALTY CORP. -
Pepsi-Cola Buildnig
Landmarks Preservation Commission June 20, 1995 ; Designation List 265 LP-1920 (Former) PEPSI-COLA BUILDING (now ABN-Amro Bank Building), 500 Park Avenue, a/k/a 62 East 59th Street, Manhattan. Built 1958-60. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, architects; Gordon Bunshaft, design partner; Natalie de Blois, senior designer for project. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1294, Lot 37. On June 15, 1993, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of the (former) Pepsi-Cola Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 16). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Three witnesses, including a representative of the Municipal Art Society, spoke in favor of designation and no witnesses spoke in opposition to designation. A representative of the owner expressed uncertainty about the proposed designation, but subsequently communicated support for it. The Commission subsequently received two written submissions in favor of designation. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS Summary Located on a prominent comer site along Park Avenue , a thoroughfare associated since the 1950s with sleek, understated modem monuments to corporate America, the Pepsi-Cola Building is one of New York's seminal International Style landmarks. Its superb design, innovative technology, and production as a collaborative effort are all qualities for which the firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill was already famous: design partner Gordon Bunshaft guided the firm's New York office, and Natalie de Blois, among the very few women architects at that time, was the senior designer for the project. Throughout its existence, the building has been praised by architectural critics for its clever siting and gemlike treatment, and especially for its sophisticated curtain wall, a nearly smooth skin of gray-green glass and aluminum spandrels. -
The Cityrealty 100 Report 2020
THE CITYREALTY 100 REPORT 2020 DECEMBER 2020 THE CityRealty is the website for NYC real estate, providing high-quality listings and tailored agent matching for pro- spective apartment buyers, as well as in-depth analysis of the New York real estate market. 1100 THE CITYREALTY 100 REPORT 2020 About The CityRealty 100 The CityRealty 100 is an index comprising the top 100 condominium buildings in Manhattan. Several factors—including a building’s sales history, prominence, and CityRealty’s rating for the property—are used to determine which buildings are included in the index. This report tracks the performance of those buildings for the one-year period ending September 30, 2020. CityRealty releases regular reports on the CityRealty 100 to track the change in prices of the top 100 Manhattan condo buildings. After falling in 2018 from all-time highs achieved in 2016 and 2017, the index’s average price / foot and total sales volumes were roughly flat in 2020 as compared to 2019, with the average price per square foot increasing 2% to $2,649. For the 12 months ending Sep 30, there were 846 sales which accounted for $4.94B in sales volume. Manhattan real estate, as viewed through the lens of this report, focuses on the city's top tier of buildings, which are seen as a relatively stable and good investment. The stagnation in prices and volume, especially in buildings not new to the market, reflects a market that has been saturated with high-end product, and prices in the 3rd quarter of 2020 reflect an overall downward trend. -
![The American Legion 29Th National Convention: Official Program [1947]](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/6697/the-american-legion-29th-national-convention-official-program-1947-2886697.webp)
The American Legion 29Th National Convention: Official Program [1947]
£T/ie 'j4nteucan zAfew 28-34, 4947 NATIONAL CONVENTION — . "Brewers’ Best beer is among the finest”, says Sherman Billingsley, host of New York's famous Stork Club. Yes, remember the name Brewers’ Best Premium Beer. Once you try it, you’ll ask for it again and again. For Brewers’ Best is truly a high quality, distinctive beer— with light, clean appetizing flavor. Brewers’ Best Premium Beer, represents a great stride forward in American brewing because it is brewed and bottled by a country-wide group of carefully selected prominent brewers whose combined experience and resources have produced a superior premium beer. Remember the name Brewers’ Best. You’ll be asking for it . and saying, after the very first sip, "Now this is it — a great glass of beer!” BREWERS' BEST ASSOCIATES, INC., 620 FIFTH AYE., NEW YORK Twenty -Ninth National Convention The American Legion August 28-31 1947 New York City Twenty-seventh Twenty-eighth Twenty-sixth Annual National Annual Promenade Annual Marche Convention Nationale Nationale American Legion La Sociele des La Boutique des Huit Auxiliary Quarante Chapeaux et Hommes et Huit Quarante Femmes Chevaux 7 Legionnaire HARRY S. TRUMAN President of the United States SPEAKER — THE AMERICAN LEGION C O N V E N T I O N — 1 9 4 2 * * * * * * * * PAUL H. GRIFFITH National Commander The American Legion Since it was last privileged in 1937 to meet in National Convention in New York City, The Amer- ican Legion has become a vigorous and mighty two-war organization. Ten years ago, millions thrilled to the brilliant pageantry of beautiful colors, inspiring martial music and marching units as The American Legion parade moved up Fifth Avenue, in a brilliant spec- tacle never matched in this great metropolis. -
North Brooklyn Industry & Innovation Plan
North Brooklyn INDUSTRY & INNOVATION PLAN North Brooklyn INDUSTRY & INNOVATION PLAN The City of New York Bill de Blasio, Mayor Department of City Planning Marisa Lago, Director November 2018 www.nyc.gov/northbrooklyn ACKNOWLEDGMENTS NYC DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Marisa Lago, Director Anita Laremont, Executive Director PROJECT TEAM Jennifer Gravel, Director of Housing, Economic, and Infrastructure Planning Winston Von Engel, Director, Brooklyn Office Alex Sommer, Deputy Director, Brooklyn Office Sulin Carling, Project Manager Kerensa Wood, Project Planner REVIEWERS & CONTRIBUTORS Howard Slatkin, Deputy Executive Director of Strategic Planning Eric Kober, Senior Advisor Conor Clarke Sagi Golan Sam Levy Amritha Mahesh Jesse Mintz-Roth Nicholas Moore Alexandra Paty-Diaz Sarit Platkin Jacqueline Sunwoo NYC AGENCIES Office of the Deputy Mayor for Housing & Economic Development Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development NYC Department of Transportation NYC Department of Small Business Services LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS Stephen Levin, New York City Council, 33rd District Antonio Reynoso, New York City Council, 34th District Brooklyn Community Board 1 Brooklyn Community Board 4 Evergreen St. Nick’s Alliance CONSULTANTS BuroHappold WXY architecture + urban design Sam Schwartz Transportation BJH Advisors Public Works Partners CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................. i Citywide Context .................................................................................................... -
Four Strategies for Additions to Historic Settings “DIFFERENTIATED” and “COMPATIBLE”: FOUR STRATEGIES for ADDITIONS to HISTORIC SETTINGS by Steven W
Excerpt taken from “Sense of Place: Design Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts” a publication of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia and supported by a grant from the William Penn Foundation Part One: Differientated and Compatiable: Four Strategies for Additions to Historic Settings “DIFFERENTIATED” AND “COMPATIBLE”: FOUR STRATEGIES FOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC SETTINGS By Steven W. Semes In the postwar period, an important issue for preservation has been defining how new construction might appropriately support and enhance, rather than detract from, historic buildings and districts under regulatory protection. So long as new additions or infill buildings were likely to be designed in the same styles as their historic neighbors, “fitting in” was rarely an issue. But since the ascendancy of modernist architecture in the United States in the 1950s—a style which defined itself in terms of opposition to traditional styles and assumptions about design— an important part of the preservationist’s mission has been to tame the ambitions of modernist architects and their penchant for setting off historic structures with contrasting new ones. At the same time, many preservationists either acquiesced in or actively embraced modernist aesthetics for new buildings, especially as a means of distinguishing new and old construction, which has been a preservation goal since John Ruskin called for it in the nineteenth century. Not surprisingly, much attention has been focused on the question of how we ought to manage the relationships -
Housing Polish Greenpoint: Property and Power in a Gentrifying Brooklyn Neighborhood
Housing Polish Greenpoint: Property and Power in a Gentrifying Brooklyn Neighborhood By Filip Akira Stabrowski A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Richard Walker, Chair Professor Michael Johns Professor Alexei Yurchak Fall 2011 Abstract Housing Polish Greenpoint: Property and Power in a Gentrifying Brooklyn Neighborhood By Filip Akira Stabrowski Doctor of Philosophy in Geography University of California, Berkeley Professor Richard Walker, Chair This dissertation will examine the rise and fall of the Polish immigrant enclave of Greenpoint over the past 30 years (1980 to 2010), focusing on the changing social relations of housing within the Polish immigrant community during this time. Greenpoint today stands at the cusp of disintegration as classic immigrant enclave, with property values and residential and commercial rent levels that prohibit new immigrants from settling, while forcing out many of the old immigrants who did so years ago. The political economy of immigrant housing in Greenpoint, I will argue, was both creator and destroyer of the Polish enclave – engine of its growth and barrier to its further expansion. A central argument of this dissertation is that the housing market is a social construct, embedded within and conditioned by social relations specific to a particular place and time. Though socially-embedded, however, the immigrant housing market is never fully divorced from the wider urban housing market; it is in fact structured by this impersonal market and its imperative to realize profit. There is an ongoing tension or dialectic between two forms of housing relations –one subordinated to the social utility of housing, another driven by the profit motive – that is manifest within any socio-spatial formation. -
Atlantis New York Group
Statement of Qualifications Atlantis New York Group Mixed Use & Residential Experience Table of Contents Section 1 – Introduction Section 2 – Contracting Methods Section 3 – National Mixed Use Project Experience Section 4 – National Residential Project Experience Prepared by: Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. Princeton Office 821 Alexander Road, Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone +1 (609) 951 0500 Facsimile +1 (609) 951 0038 www.bovislendlease.com Firm Overview “At A Glance” Bovis Lend Lease The Bovis Lend Lease companies, formed through the merger of Bovis Group plc and Bovis Lend Lease Lend Lease Projects, have created an internationally established construction services Incorporated: August 8, 1925 specialist with true global capability and scale. The firm spanning in 40 countries and 8,700 employees employing over 8,000 employees, is owned by Lend Lease Corporation Limited, a publicly 36 countries traded company, one of the largest real estate investors in the world as well as a major funds manager and leading project management, construction and development company. Bovis Lend Lease Americas Bovis Lend Lease utilizes the latest technology to provide construction services for projects Over 2,500 employees, 21 Offices in numerous market sectors including residential. In the Americas, the firm operates locally $17 billion under management through its 21 principal and branch offices and countless project sites throughout North and South America. These are located in: $2 billion bonding capacity Project experience in 47 states Atlanta, Georgia Boston, MA Charlotte, NC 75% Repeat Client Business Chicago, IL Columbus, OH Dallas, TX Denver, CO Ithaca, NY Los, Angles, CA Las Vegas, NV Miami, FL Nashville, TN New York, NY Orlando, FL Princeton, NJ Raleigh, NC Richmond, VA San Francisco, CA Washington, D.C. -
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (1962-1999): Paradigm for Changing Attitudes Towards Historic Preservation
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (1962-1999): Paradigm for Changing Attitudes Towards Historic Preservation By Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D. Samuel H. K ress Mid-Career G rant Study Funded by The James Marston Fitch Charitable Foundation 2010 Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Landmark Beginnings: The Advisory Commission (1962-1965) 5 Chapter 2 The Commission Established (1965-1973) 28 Chapter 3 Expanding a Mission and a Mandate (1974-1983) 55 Chapter 4 The Commission Under Siege (1983-1990) 91 Chapter 5 The Commission Comes of Age: Growth and Maturity (1990-1990) 110 Epilogue 129 Acknowledgments 135 IN T R O DU C T I O N Historic preservation as an officially mandated government program has been existence for almost fifty years in New York City, but the history of the movement, both before and after the ratification and implementation of the Landmarks law, has been largely undocumented until relatively recently. Giving Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States and Preserving New York: Winning the Right to Protect a City’s Landmarks are part of an effort to rectify that situation.1 This work, told partly from my personal perspective, covers part of the story told by Anthony C. Wood and carries it forward to the end of the twentieth century. It describes and analyzes the history of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission while setting it within a larger national context. New York had been preceded by several other American cities, including Charleston, South Carolina, New Orleans, and Boston, in the establishment of a local preservation law and an accompanying oversight body, but still it had few models to emulate.