C 180063 Zsm-45 Broad Street
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Applicant Spreadsheet.Pdf
Contracting Company Company Representative Representative Phone # Representative Email Site Address Block Lot Borough Work Description Keywords Contract Amount Start Date Zip Code CB Electrical, plumbing, Commercial, retail, new windows, doors, elevatr, 31 Avenue Realty LLC Law Office of Thomas E. Berinato 718 575-3400 [email protected] 56-02 31 Avenue 1134 1 Queens 12,000,000 7/1/2017 11377 26 building foundation, superstructure steel, concrete, electrical, CBP 441 Ninth Avenue 433-447 Ninth Commercial, addition Marcus & Pollack LLP 212 490-2900 [email protected] 732 36 Manhattan plumbing, façade, roof, 185,000,000 6/1/2017 10001 3 Owner LLC Avenue to new space windows, HVAC, elevator foundation, concrete, work, superstructure, masonsry, roofing, Tuchman, Korngold, 251-277 South Fifth 19, 35, 13, Commercial, retail, new Havemeyer Owner LLC 212 687-3747 [email protected] 2447 Brooklyn facadew, curtain wall, 120,000,000 4/15/2017 11211 34 Weiss,Liebman & Gelles, LLP Street 135, 41, 36 building storefron, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, fire protection demolition, SOE, excavation, foundation, Commercial, retail, exterior wall, 545 Broadway BK LLC Seiden & Schein PC 212 857-0110 545 Broadway 3076 6 Brooklyn alteration, addition to superstructure, misc 17,070,465 4/1/2017 11206 34 existing building metals, roofing, waterproofing, drywall, [email protected] stone, tile, wood flooring concrete, steel, electrical, 2109 Borden Avenue Owner 21-09 Borden Marcus & Pollack, Esq. 212 490-2900 [email protected] 69 4 Queens Commercial, alteration carpentry, HVAC, 14,600,000 4/1/2017 11101 26 LLC Avenue plumbing electrical, plumbing, 331 Park Avenue 331 PAS Property Anthony Como Associates 718 273-3080 [email protected] 880 4 Manhattan Commercial, alteration concrete, carpentry, 11,000,000 3/15/2017 10010 2 South metals, etc. -
Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York Real Estate Finance Bureau ------X
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK REAL ESTATE FINANCE BUREAU --------------------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Investigation by ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York, of AOD No. 15-240 15 BROAD STREET, LLC; 15 BROAD STREET MANAGERS, LLC; 20 PINE STREET, LLC; 20 PINE STREET MANAGERS, LLC; 85 ADAMS STREET, LLC; AND 85 ADAMS STREET MANAGERS, LLC; AI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENTS (USA) CORP.; and AI HOLDINGS (USA) CORP., Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------X ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE Pursuant to the Martin Act, New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 352 et seq., and New York Executive Law (“Executive Law”) § 63(12), ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York (the “NYAG”) investigated the conduct of 15 Broad Street, LLC; 15 Broad Street Managers, LLC; 20 Pine Street, LLC; 20 Pine Street Managers, LLC; 85 Adams Street, LLC; and 85 Adams Street Managers, LLC; AI Properties and Developments (USA) Corp.; and AI Holdings (USA) Corp. (collectively “Respondents”), in connection with an offering of real estate securities in New York State. This Assurance of Discontinuance (“Assurance”) contains the findings of the NYAG’s investigation and the relief agreed to by the NYAG and Respondents. FINDINGS I. The Respondents 1. Respondent 15 Broad Street, LLC (“15 Broad”), a Delaware limited liability company, is the named sponsor of an offering of condominiums located at 15 Broad Street in Manhattan. 2. Respondent 15 Broad Managers, LLC (“15 Broad Managers”), a Delaware limited liability company, is the sole member of 15 Broad. 3. Respondent 20 Pine Street LLC (“20 Pine”), a Delaware limited liability company, is the named sponsor of an offering of condominiums located at 20 Pine Street in Manhattan. -
C 070245 ZMK – Wythe Avenue Rezoning and Text Amendment
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 2011 / Calendar No. 13 C 070245 ZMK IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by JBJ, LLC pursuant to Sections 197-c and 201 of the New York City Charter for an amendment of the Zoning Map, Section No. 12d: nd 1. changing from an M3-1 District to an M1-4/R6A District property bounded by South 2 rd Street, Wythe Avenue, South 3 Street, and a line 210 feet northwesterly of Wythe Avenue; and nd 2. establishing a Special Mixed Use District (MX-8) bounded by South 2 Street, Wythe rd Avenue, South 3 Street, and a line 210 feet northwesterly of Wythe Avenue; as shown on a diagram (for illustrative purposes only) dated September 13, 2010 and subject to the conditions of CEQR Declaration E-261, in the Borough of Brooklyn, Community District 1. The application for an amendment to the Zoning Map was filed by JBJ, LLC on December 19, 2006 to change an M3-1 district to an MX8: M1-4/R6A mixed use district to facilitate the construction of a 6-story, 104,000-square-foot mixed use development with 79 dwelling units and ground floor retail located on the eastern half of Block 2415, between South Second and South Third Streets and Kent and Wythe Avenues, in Community District 1, Brooklyn. RELATED ACTIONS In addition to the Zoning Map amendment that is the subject of this report, implementation of the proposed development also requires action by the City Planning Commission on the following application, which is being considered concurrently with this application: N 070246 ZRK Zoning Text amendment relating to the Inclusionary Housing Program. -
Notice of Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING CITY OF NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW DIVISION Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Director Department of City Planning May 28, 2010 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Domino Sugar Rezoning Project Identification Lead Agency CEQR No. 07DCP094K City Planning Commission ULURP Nos. C 100185 ZMK, N 100186 ZRK 22 Reade Street, Room1W C 100187 ZSK, C 100188 ZSK New York, New York 10007 C 100189 ZSK, N 100190 ZAK N 100191 ZCK, N 100192 ZCK SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact Person Robert Dobruskin, AICP, Director (212) 720-3423 Environmental Assessment and Review Division New York City Department of City Planning Pursuant to City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), Mayoral Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, CEQR Rules of Procedure of 1991 and the regulations of Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) as found in 6 NYCRR Part 617, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared for the action described below. Copies of the FEIS are available for public inspection at the office of the undersigned. The proposal involves actions by the City Planning Commission and Council of the City of New York pursuant to Uniform Land Use Review Procedures (ULURP). A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was held on Wednesday, April 28, 2010. Comments were requested on the DEIS and were received and considered by the Lead Agency until Monday, May 10, 2010. This FEIS incorporates responses to the public comments received on the DEIS and additional analysis conducted subsequent to the completion of the DEIS. -
1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233
DOT/RSPA/DPB/-50/81/19 Planning and JANUA RY 1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233 Public Transportation Conference Proceedings Terminals Pre pa red for: Office of University Research Washingt on, D.C. 20590 U.S. Deportment of Transportation S.G.,t.I.u. LtdttARV Research and Special Programs Administration tiJ J :) 3 T,:'1 :I;:))'.''; f ... f\l?;)' NOTICE This document is disseminated tmder the sponsorship of the Department of Trans portation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Technical Report Documentation Page I , Roporr No. 2. GoYe Mt,\~f"'lt At~e!s1on No. J. Rec1p1enf s Cotalog No, DOT/RSPA/DPB-50/81/19 4 . T itle end Subr1de 5. Report D ote Planning and Development of Public Transportation January 1981 Terminals 6. Pe,fo,m,ng 0,9,on, zotion Code 8. Pe,fo,m1ng O,gon110t1on Report ,....,o . I 7. Atori sJ ester A. Hoel, Larry G . Richards UVA/529036/CEBl/107 /i:-nitnr~'l 9. P e ,lorm 1n9Or9on1 1ot 1on Nome ond Address 10. 'Nork Un,t No. (TRAISJ Department of Civil Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Science 11. Controct or G,ont No, Univer sity of Virginia, Thornton Hall DOT-OS-50233 Charlottesville, VA 22901 13. Type of Repo, r ond Period Cove red 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond A ddre ss Office of University Research Final Report Research and Special Programs Administration u . S . Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D. -
05, 11, 14 LM Charts Se FINAL REVISED.Indd
LOWER M A N H A T T A N RESIDENTIAL M A R K E T Top residentia lsales in FiDi, 2009 Property Month sold Price 75 Wall Street: duplex condo June $2,920,000 20 Pine Street: penthouse condo April $2,860,000 15 William Street: penthouse condo September $2,677,470 15 Broad Street: 2BR condo February $2,625,000 15 William Street: penthouse condo September $2,622,350 15 William Street: penthouse condo September $2,500,000 75 Wall Street: penthouse condo September $2,400,000 75 Wall Street: 2BR condo September $2,355,000 Top unsold listings in the Financia lDistrict ,December 2009 Property Date listed Price 15 Broad Street: 8BR condo January 2009 $22,500,000 103 Washington Street: townhouse January 2008 $15,000,000 75 Wall Street: penthouse condo July 2009 $8,400,000 75 Wall Street: penthouse condo September 2007 $7,750,000 75 Wall Street: penthouse condo May 2008 $5,700,000 15 Broad Street: 6BR condo October 2009 $4,995,000 15 Broad Street: penthouse condo November 2009 $4,950,000 15 Broad Street: 4BR condo December 2009 $4,950,000 Source: StreetEasy.com. Current listings are those not in contract as of 12/7/09. = All Manhattan FiDi vs. Manhattan overall: apartment rents = Financial District New residentia ldevelopment units $5,000 submitted per year, 2005-2009 $4,500 3,500 $4,000 3,000 $3,500 2,500 $3,000 2,000 $2,500 1,500 $2,000 1,000 $1,500 Studios 1 BR 2 BR Studios 1 BR 2 BR 500 Doorman Non-doorman 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average apt rent Source: NYS Attorney General’s Office. -
The Case of New York City's Financial District
INFORMATION TECHNOWGY AND WORLD CITY RESTRUCTURING: THE CASE OF NEW YORK CITY'S FINANCIAL DISTRICT by Travis R. Longcore A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Bachelor of Arts in Geography May 1993 Copyright 1993 Travis R. Longcore All Rights Reserved INFORMATION TECHNOWGY AND WORLD CITY RESTRUCTURING: THE CASE OF NEW YORK CITY'S FINANCIAL DISTRICT by Travis R. Longcore Approved: Peter W. Rees, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: Robert Warren, Ph.D. Committee Member from the College of Urban Affairs Approved: Francis X. Tannian, Ph.D. Committee Member from the University Honors Program Approved: Robert F. Brown, Ph.D. Director, University Honors Program "Staccato signals of constant information, A loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires and baby, These are the days of miracle and wonder. This is a long distance call. " Paul Simon, Graceland iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to recognize and thank Dr. Peter Rees for his guidance on this project. Without the patient hours of discussion, insightful editorial comments, and firm schedule, this thesis would have never reached completion. The author also thanks the University Honors Program, the Undergraduate Research Program and the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware for their financial support. Many thanks are due to the Water Resources Agency for New Castle County for the use of their automated mapping system. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OFTABLES .................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ix ABSTRACT ....................................... .. x Chapter 1 THE CITY IN A WORLD ECONOMY ................... -
Land Use Planning Qualifications and Experience
FIGURE 24 69-02 QUEENS BOULEVARD VIEW 5 - 69TH ST AND 48TH AVE LAND USE PLANNING QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE No-Action Condition (looking north at the intersection of 69th Street and 48th Avenue) Source: Street photograph taken on June 21, 2017 H U D S O N PM R I V E R AM W as G ra h in ss la gt n o ds n Hig h L in e Sun dec P 1 0 t h A V E N U E u k blic Park 1 4 t h S T R E E T With-Action Condition (looking north at the intersection of 69th Street and 48th Avenue) A Friendly Neighbor... Proposed Project 9-Story Residential Building (No-Build Project) Compared to a tower mass extruded vertically from the property line, the solar- carved tower yields a significant increase WOODSIDE,in yearly sunlight hours QUEENS, to two key NY areas on the High Line park: The Washington Grasslands to the east of the site, and the High Line Sundeck to the north. light blue dark green blue = = LIGHT! No Light VS. annual Solar Carve design As-of-right design sun hours (F.A.R. = 7.5) (F.A.R. = 5) ...and double the daylight! A daylight model demonstrates that compared to an as-of-right scheme, the proposed tower’s shape and position significantly increase the natural light and air to the High Line. In particular, the area directly to the east of the site will see DRAFT about twice the amount of possible sun hours! HIGHLINETechnical Excellence 14 Practical Experience Client Responsiveness Map Map Reference: ESRI Basemap; NYC DCP; and http; //windhistory.com/station.html?KNYC ATTACHMENT $: WIND DIRECTION MAP AVERAGE YEARLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Langan professionals design solutions that maintain the inherent connections between structures and their natural surroundings. -
The Financial District: a Neighborhood with Two Faces
The Financial District: A Neighborhood With Two Faces By: Joshua Barone August 5th, 2015 Sara Benda remembers when the Financial District didn’t feel like a neighborhood. That was eight years ago, when she moved there shortly before giving birth to twins. Ms. Benda, 38, and her now ex-husband had been looking for a relatively inexpensive rental. “My broker tricked me by sending photos of the apartment first,” she said, referring to a unit she ended up renting at 15 Broad Street. “The layout looked open and lofty, and the design was very modern.” It worked, and she has stayed in the building since; she bought a two-bedroom there for $3.3 million in July. In the years that Ms. Benda has lived in the Financial District at the southern tip of Manhattan, the neighborhood has gotten better, she said, with new restaurants and livelier weekends. When she moved there, construction was in the early stages at the World Trade Center site. On the East River, the South Street Seaport’s Pier 17 attracted plenty of tourists but was less successful in drawing local residents. The area was, however, relatively inexpensive. Apartments could be had then for less than $1,000 per square foot, said Tara King-Brown, an agent with Corcoran. Now, they go for about $1,400 per square foot, she said, and up to about $2,000. After Ms. Benda, a stay-at-home mother, moved into the neighborhood, it took a few years, but the Financial District finally felt like home, she said. Then Hurricane Sandy hit in 2012. -
Chapter 18: Transit and Pedestrians
Chapter 18: Transit and Pedestrians A. INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on transit and pedestrian facilities within the transportation study area. As described in Chapter 1, “Project Description,” the proposed project would result in the development of residential, retail/commercial, community facility uses, and open space along the East River waterfront. It should be noted that subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual has been updated. To reflect the updated methodologies in the CEQR Technical Manual, the transit analyses in the FEIS have been revised accordingly. Therefore, the detailed transit analyses presented in this chapter are conducted pursuant to the new 2010 CEQR methodologies, using the specific criteria and procedures developed as part of the update. Furthermore, subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority-New York City Transit (NYCT) has restructured the bus service in the study area, resulting in changes to the B61and Q59 bus routes. Specifically, the B61 bus route has been replaced by B62 bus route in the study area and the terminus for the Q59 bus route in Brooklyn has been extended to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza instead of the Broadway/Kent Avenue intersection as analyzed in the DEIS. Moreover, due to the reconfiguration of Kent Avenue into a one-way northbound roadway from a two-way north-south roadway (discussed in detail in Chapter 17, “Traffic and Parking”), the Q59 bus route in the study area has been modified by shifting the southbound bus operations from Kent Avenue to Wythe Avenue between Grand Street and Broadway. -
Use It Or Lose It
INSIDE A Sbarro trades Including The Downtown News, Carroll Gardens-Cobble Hill Paper and Fort Greene-Clinton Hill Paper BROOKLYN ’S WEEKLY pizza for steak NEWSPAPER Published weekly by Brooklyn Paper Publications Inc, 26 Court St., Brooklyn 11242 Phone 718-834-9350 AD fax 718-834-1713 • N EWS fax 718-834-9278 © 2002 Brooklyn Paper Publications • 14 pages CROOKED JUDGE including GO BROOKLYN • Vol.25, No. 43 BWN, DTG, PSG, MID YASSKY W • November 4, 2002 ARNS BROOKL • FREE GETS NO MERCY YN BRIDGE P Use it or lose ARKit By Patrick Gallahue The Brooklyn Papers Brooklyn Heights City Councilman David Yassky said this week that with the city facing its toughest fiscal crisis in decades the developers of the planned Brooklyn Bridge Park could lose some or all of $10.8 million set aside for the project that has not yet been allocated. “I’m very concerned that time is passing and the city has not yet figured out specifically which part of the park they want to move forward with first,” Yassky told The Brooklyn Papers. “We’re in danger of seeing the project slip behind sched- ule if the city doesn’t focus on this pretty soon.” The city allocated the $10.8 million for Fiscal Year 2003, which runs through June 2003, for the construction of greenspace north of the Pur- chase Building and the demolition or truncation of the building itself. The city’s office of Emergency Management Former judge Victor Barron (left) listens to his attorney Barry Kamins on Monday after being sen- (OEM), which had been housed in the World tenced to three to nine years for soliciting a bribe. -
Uses and Abuses of Value Capture for Transit
Uses and Abuses of Value Capture for Transit 7iili Eric Kober February 2018 for transportation policy & management Introduction With the New York State Fiscal Year 2019 Executive Budget proposal to include a “value capture” mechanism for financing transit, an obscure and highly technical subject suddenly has generated considerable attention. This report explores the purpose of, and issues created by value capture generally, and by the current proposal. What is “value capture?” What are its uses? Has it ever been used successfully before in New York City? Much of the favorable attention transit experts give to value capture stems from the Hong Kong model. In Hong Kong, the rail operator, MTR, builds rail lines financed through the profits from development above stations and depots along the route.1 Hong Kong has unique characteristics that facilitate this model, particularly its high density and scarcity of developable land, which make the rail right-of-way development particularly profitable. New York City used a similar strategy to finance the extension of the #7 subway to Hudson Yards in Manhattan. While value capture has in the past successfully provided new revenue for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s capital projects, the current proposal does not build successfully on past achievements. Rather, it diverts New York City’s largest and most stable tax source in a manner that could affect the City’s fiscal stability and limit the productive ways that the City has used value capture to funnel funding generated by private real estate development to the MTA. 1 Lincoln Leong,“The ‘Rail plus Property’ model: Hong Kong’s successful self-financing formula,” https://www.