DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council on Housing Development in Downtown Manhattan September 19, 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council on Housing Development in Downtown Manhattan September 19, 2002 Report of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council on Housing Development in Downtown Manhattan September 19, 2002 CHPC/Downtown Housing The Ad Hoc Committee on Downtown Housing Frank Anelante Robert Berne Shirley Bresler Howard Chin Bob Cook Sylvia Deutsch Mark Ginsberg Gale Kaufman Henry Lanier Sander Lehrer James Lipscomb Kenneth Lowenstein Marvin Markus John McCarthy Gerry Vasisko Mark Willis Barry Zelikson CHPC Staff Frank Braconi Martha Galvez Kimberly Miller Elaine Toribio Maps and Technical Assistance Terrace GIS Associates 1 CHPC/Downtown Housing Executive Summary The Citizens Housing and Planning Council of New York believes that the policy goal of encouraging a mixed-use, commercial/residential/cultural district in Lower Manhattan is even more imperative as the area seeks to recover and rebuild from the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. This report explores the role of residential development in that recovery process and offers our recommendations regarding residential development in downtown’s mixed-use environment. Our principal findings and recommendations are: Lower Manhattan remains a critical generator of wealth and jobs for the region and housing development should not preempt that role. Of the approximately 100 million square feet of commercial space downtown, approximately 25 million square feet built before the Second World War is suitable for conversion to residential use. Given plausible forecasts of future office demand and construction in Lower Manhattan, about 3 million square feet of this older office space could be converted to residential use without impinging on job-creating commercial uses. The balance between commercial and residential reuse of older office buildings is effectively regulated by market mechanisms. Any intervention by public agencies should focus on facilitating the conversion of appropriate buildings in existing residential areas. The potential for further residential development downtown, including new construction and conversions, is between 4,000 and 8,000 dwelling units. Public agencies should create a commercial consolidation program aimed at helping companies relocate from buildings slated for conversion to other space downtown. New, unassisted housing development downtown remains economically viable given prevailing development costs and rents in Manhattan, but that housing will be accessible only to households earning $100,000 or more. The use of tax-exempt Liberty Bonds can reduce feasible rents by about 6 percent. Liberty Bonds should be used to fashion a more flexible model of mixed-income housing than that allowed through the use of conventional private activity bond financing. Public agencies should not impose restrictions on the use of Liberty Bonds that mimic existing restrictions on private activity bond financing. 2 CHPC/Downtown Housing Approximately $128 million of federal appropriations for downtown recovery, in conjunction with Liberty Bonds, should be used to create 1,500 apartments for middle-income households earning, on average, 150 percent of the area median income. Liberty Bonds, in conjunction with an amended 421-g tax incentive program, should be used to encourage mixed-use conversions where appropriate. Public agencies should encourage future conversions in specific areas where residential clusters already exist. If dispersed throughout downtown, the potential for additional housing development is not substantial enough to change the office district tempo of lower Manhattan. The neighborhoods identified in this study represent better opportunities for new housing than the former World Trade Center site. Although mixed-use redevelopment, including some residential, may be appropriate, new structures at the site should be primarily for commercial use. 3 CHPC/Downtown Housing I. Introduction: Downtown Development After 9/11 It has been the policy of several successive Mayoral administrations to encourage residential development in Lower Manhattan and to promote the evolution of the area into a diverse, mixed-use district that offers residential and commercial options, sight- seeing and recreation, dining and entertainment, and other activities that will contribute to the prosperity and appeal of the city. The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 may have temporarily impeded the redevelopment of downtown Manhattan, but CHPC sees no reason why the fundamental goals of the city’s redevelopment policy should be altered or why they should be considered less feasible in the wake of the attacks. Indeed, the World Trade Center tragedy may have made a mixed-use development pattern even more imperative, insofar as the physical and economic damage to Lower Manhattan’s commercial base was severe and possibly long-lasting. Consequently, CHPC endorses the principles for action articulated in the LMDC’s Principles and Preliminary Blueprint for the Future of Lower Manhattan, which included among its goals to “Develop Lower Manhattan as a diverse, mixed-use magnet for the arts, culture, tourism, education, and recreation, complemented with residential, commercial, retail and neighborhood amenities.” From an urban development perspective, September 11 changed many things dramatically while leaving other realities undisturbed. It did alter the commercial market equilibrium between Lower Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan, and secondary centers like Long Island City and Jersey City. It remains to be seen what new equilibrium is established, but it is likely that Lower Manhattan’s commercial base has been permanently diminished relative to those alternative locations. A smaller office sector will mean higher vacancies and lower rental prices, especially in older buildings, making some of them more attractive conversion candidates than they were previously. Other 4 CHPC/Downtown Housing factors have not changed since September 2001. With the exception of the World Trade Center site itself, there remains very little vacant land on which to construct new residential or commercial buildings in Lower Manhattan. At the same time, the market’s voracious appetite for housing in Manhattan should not be quelled, and once the environmental conditions and transportation networks of downtown are restored, so should be the market demand for apartments there. This combination of new circumstances and old considerations will probably make the climate for residential conversions more favorable than it was during the period of peak office demand during the late 1990s. Another new factor is the availability of additional federal resources that have been provided to assist the city in its recovery from the attack. These resources include $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bond authority, of which $1.6 billion can be used for housing finance, and nearly $3.5 billion in additional Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. These resources are free of many of the restrictions that they usually carry, and can be utilized to accelerate the re-use of obsolete commercial buildings. While CHPC believes that there are persuasive planning reasons for encouraging as much affordable housing as is possible downtown, we do not believe that city agencies should impose on the use of those resources restrictions that mimic the usual federal requirements. The nature of downtown development promoted by government agencies should be determined according to what will facilitate the most attractive and sustainable development pattern there, not by the city’s overall needs for affordable housing or other facilities. In the long run we believe that a healthy and prosperous downtown district will best serve the city’s economic and social needs. 5 CHPC/Downtown Housing II: Downtown Office Needs and Residential Development The traditional clustering of financial services firms on and around Wall Street in Lower Manhattan represents one of New York’s most valuable economic resources. By mid- 2001, some 368,000 people worked in Lower Manhattan below Chambers Street, nearly half of whom worked directly in the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector and many others in service occupations supporting that sector. The FIRE sector, plus legal services which are often associated with it, account for 19 percent of the city’s private jobs and it has been estimated that they generate over one-quarter of the city’s entire economic output. In normal economic times, when the commercial and residential markets are in rough balance, residential developers cannot typically out-bid commercial developers for prime sites in midtown or downtown Manhattan. Moreover, as a matter of policy, CHPC does not believe that government programs should artificially tip that balance in favor of housing at the expense of jobs. Consequently, the potential for downtown residential development must be gauged against the space demands of commercial tenants and against the probable needs of financial and related industries that are concentrated in Lower Manhattan. With the city’s geographic expansion from its colonial nucleus, Lower Manhattan has had a continuously diminishing share of the city’s employment. That share fell particularly rapidly after the Second World War, when mid-town Manhattan emerged as a rival, and eventually, the larger locus of office development. By the 1990s, Manhattan’s “financial district” contained about 9 percent of the city’s private-sector jobs and, because of the many government agencies headquartered there, of a slightly larger share of the city’s overall employment. 6 CHPC/Downtown Housing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Socioeconomic Conditions
    One Police Plaza Security Plan EIS CHAPTER 4: SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS A. INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the potential effects of the action on socioeconomic conditions in the study area, including population and housing characteristics, economic activity, and the real estate market. As described in Chapter 1, ‘Project Description’, the action is the maintenance of the security plan implemented at One Police Plaza and surrounding roadways following the events of September 11, 2001. The security plan resulted in the installation of attended security checkpoint booths, planters, bollards and hydraulically operated delta barriers to restrict the access of unauthorized vehicles from the roadways situated adjacent to the civic facilities located near One Police Plaza. The barriers were installed by the NYPD, with the exception of the barriers located at Park Row at Foley Square and at Pearl Street on the west side of Park Row, which were installed by the USMS. In accordance with the guidelines presented in the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, this chapter evaluates five specific factors that could create significant socioeconomic impacts in an area, including: (1) direct displacement of residential population; (2) direct displacement of existing businesses; (3) indirect displacement of residential population; (4) indirect displacement of businesses; and (5) adverse effects on specific industries not necessarily tied to a project site or area. This analysis begins with a preliminary assessment for each specific issue of concern. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the goal of a preliminary assessment is to discern the effects of a proposed project or action for the purposes of either eliminating the potential for significant impacts or determining that a more detailed analysis is necessary to answer the question regarding potential impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Architectural Evolution of Lower Manhattan from About 1880
    The Architectural Evolution of Lower Manhattan From About 1880 Streets Completely or Partially Demapped Douglas R. McKibben . Barley Street. Circa 1797, the name of what was later Duane Street between Greenwich Street and Rose Street. By 1803, the part east of Centre Street was called Colden Street. Both Barley and Colden Streets were merged into Duane Street in 1809. Batavia (New Batavia) Street ran east from Roosevelt Street to James Street. Originally known as Batavia Lane, it was renamed Batavia Street in 1817. Closed in 1948 for the Alfred E. Smith Houses Bishop’s Lane An alley running from between 174 and 176 Chambers 102-106 Warren Street (S.S. Long & Brothers) Street south to between 102-100 NE corner (273-277) Washington Street Warren Street between Washington and Greenwich and Bishops Lane (right side of building) Streets. Eliminated about 1970 for urban renewal. circa 1906 See Tour 11 Section 1 S Photo by: Byron Company, collection of the Museum of the City of New York Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal Map Division, The New York Public Library. "Plate 5 " The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1916. http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e208f3-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99 Burling Slip was named Van Clyff's Slip in the 1690s and by the 1730s was also called Lyons Slip and Rodman's Slip. By 1757 it was Burling Slip Though filled in 1833, the resulting street from Pearl Street to the East River continued to be called Burling Slip until 1931, when it was made part of John Street and renumbered. Cedar Street which was named Little Queen Street until 1794.
    [Show full text]
  • The City Record
    VISIT THE NEW CITY RECORD ONLINE (CROL) AT WWW.NYC.GOV/CITYRECORD FOR A SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF ALL NOTICES PUBLISHED IN THE CITY RECORD. VOLUME CXLII NUMBER 172 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 Price: $4.00 Contracts. 3429 District Attorney - New York County � � � 3429 THE CITY RECORD TABLE OF CONTENTS Purchasing . 3429 Environmental Protection � � � � � � � � � � � � 3430 BILL DE BLASIO Agency Chief Contracting Office . 3430 Mayor PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS Health and Hospitals Corporation � � � � � 3430 City Council � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3421 Health and Mental Hygiene � � � � � � � � � � 3430 STACEY CUMBERBATCH City Planning Commission � � � � � � � � � � � 3422 Agency Chief Contracting Office . 3430 Commissioner, Department of Citywide Community Boards � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3422 Housing Authority � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3430 Administrative Services Board of Correction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3423 Human Resources Administration � � � � � 3430 Employees’ Retirement System � � � � � � � � 3423 Law Department � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3431 ELI BLACHMAN Finance � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3423 Editor, The City Record Housing Preservation and Development � 3423 Procurement Services . 3431 Information Technology and Parks and Recreation � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3431 Telecommunications� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3424 Transportation � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3431 Published Monday through Friday except legal Landmarks Preservation
    [Show full text]
  • Seniors' Guide for Lower Manhattan
    The Seniors’ Guide of Manhattan Community Board I 2012 SENIORS’ GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY BOARD I PREPARED BY MANHATTAN COMMUNITY BOARD I Original Publication 2010 Revised July 2012 The City of New York The City of New York Manhattan Community Board I Catherine McVay Hughes CHAIRPERSON | Noah Pfefferblit DISTRICT MANAGER With increases in lifespan and quality of living, many have chosen to remain or come to New York City for their senior years. The New York City Department for the Aging estimates that seniors will outnumber school-aged children in New York City by 2030. Is our own community welcoming such a shift? What does our community already provide for seniors? What follows is our guide for seniors living in Manhattan Community Board I, which covers Lower Manhattan south of Canal Street. Tom Goodkind, Chair of the Community Board I Housing Committee, initiated this guide in 2009 along with his Co-Chair Ruth Ohman of Battery Park City seniors. They were assisted by Yume Kitasei, who was the Community Liaison at Community Board I, and a team of other Community Board I members and district residents who volunteered their time to the development of this guide while Julie Menin was Community Board I Chair. In early 2012, the Housing Committee revised the entire guide, updating information and adding new resources. Editing of this revised guide was done primarily by Diana Switaj and Ruth Ohman based on input from members of the Housing Committee. We are grateful for the advice and knowledge given by Anita Altman, UJA-Federation; Mashi Blech, Visiting Nurses; Edith Chevat, Battery Park City Seniors; Carolyn Grable, The Caring Community; Tom Lin, NYC Office of Public Advocate; Joseph Morrone, Southbridge Senior Center; and Molly Perrone, Southbridge Senior Center.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2013 Alicia Glen, Formerly at Goldman Sachs, HPD Seeks to Change to Head Housing & Development Efforts M-L Succession Rules
    MITCHELL-LAMA RESIDENTS COALITION Vol. 18, Issue 4 WEBSITE: www.mitchell-lama.org December 2013 Alicia Glen, formerly at Goldman Sachs, HPD seeks to change to head housing & development efforts M-L succession rules an a former banker, especially one He also wants to use one billion dollars roposed changes to succession rights in who worked at Goldman Sachs, from the city’s pension funds to preserve Mitchell-Lama buildings would alter the Chelp generate affordable housing 11,000 units, and to raise taxes on vacant Pability of various categories of relatives for New York City? property. to assume the apartments of the current resi- Mayor Bill de Blasio thinks so, In her work at the bank, Ms. Glen dents, regardless of how long the relatives have which is why he appointed Alicia Glen, directed more than $2.8 billion to projects lived there in most cases. who for over a decade -lead the giant in low-income areas. She has been praised Among other changes, the new rules, if bank’s Urban Investment Group--and by both tenant advocates and housing adopted, would eliminate “succession rights for who also served as assistant commis- developers. nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles,” and suc- sioner for housing finance at HPD--as cession in other cases will only be authorized deputy mayor for housing and urban “where the tenant/cooperator of record has development. Nearly 1,000 affordable units either died or been relocated to a long term In a press release, Ms. Glen said slated for Melrose section in care facility.” the new administration’s goals included Further, regarding spouses and children building “a new generation of afford- Bronx who are at least 18 years old, succession will able housing and help[ing] New Yorkers ive new buildings containing 985 units only be allowed if the spouse’s or children’s secure good-paying jobs that can support Fof affordable housing are on the draw- names “appeared on the applicant’s initial a family.
    [Show full text]
  • Gillibrand, Schumer Still Hoping for 'Christmas Miracle' Vote on Zadroga
    Faye Lane (be)dazzles in downtown “Beauty Shop Stories,” p. 27 ® express VOLUME 20, NUMBER 40 THE NEWSPAPER OF LOWER MANHATTAN DECEMBER 22 - 28, 2010 Bathroom ban, security provoke angst at Murry Bergtraum BY ALINE REYNOLDS students could only use the Students and faculty bathrooms with a special at Murry Bergtraum High pass granted to them by the School may not be leaving in school’s dean, according to great spirits for the holiday students. season. A group of teens planned The school was in a state of the outbreak through a chaos on Thursday, December series of text messages ear- 9 when hundreds of students lier that day, according to rioted on the fourth fl oor, Gotham Schools, which fi rst shortly after fi rst-year princi- reported the riot. pal Andrea Lewis denied stu- “The students were dents access to the facilities, aggravated, so they started according to students and to run around and scream,” various news reports. said junior Randy Zabala, The bathroom ban was who witnessed it from the enforced after an alterca- sidelines. tion broke out that morning The incidents that day between two male students, resulted in several suspen- landing one of them in the sions of students, according hospital. In an attempt to to Margie Feinberg, a spokes- prevent loitering that could person for the D.O.E. lead to another fi ght, Lewis A tenth grader at the Downtown Express photo by Terese Loeb Kreuzer enforced a day-long rule that school who requested ano- Lower Manhattan resident and Community Board 1 member Marc Ameruso speaking at a press conference in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F: Displacement and Relocation
    Appendix F: Displacement and Relocation A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This appendix provides additional information on the areas in which short-term (up to 6 months) and long-term (more than 6 months) access limitations or property acquisitions could occur as a result of the Second Avenue Subway project. The focus of the appendix is the project’s effects on businesses and residents who might be displaced, and on owners and tenants of private property, since displacement of businesses and residents and use of private property generally would require compensation. Compensation and relocation assistance for private property acquisitions would be provided by MTA and NYCT in accordance with the procedures defined at the end of this appendix. For each area where the project could involve acquisition of private property, the full area where property could be needed is described and mapped. The specific properties that would be affected by the project will be determined during Preliminary Engineering and Final Design. The discussion thus describes the general characteristics of the property interests that may be acquired for the project by describing the qualities of the larger area. The protection that property owners and tenants are afforded under federal and state law, including compensation and relocation assistance, are discussed at the end of this appendix. On the federal level, the Second Avenue Subway is subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 4601 et seq., and the applicable implementing regulations set forth in Title 49, Part 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (together, the “Uniform Act”).
    [Show full text]
  • MONTHLY MEETING DATE: Thursday, December 19, 2019 TIME
    MONTHLY MEETING DATE: Thursday, December 19, 2019 TIME: 6:00 PM PLACE: Pace University 1 Pace Plaza, Student Union A G E N D A Welcome from PACE University President - Spoke to the economic impact report - Thanked CB1 for partnering with students on traffic reports via Transportation committee - Honorary degree recipient Assembly Member, Deborah Glick I. Public Session A) Assembly member Deborah Glick - Update on legislative agenda: Speed cameras for schools, Fake women’s health clinic crackdown, Lead ammunition ban, Higher Ed, Fed budget shortfall: health and Medicaid B) Jessica Mates, Borough President office- CB1 applications due Jan 1, SWAB applications, New Rob Schneider – new borough historian, Capital funding applications open in January, Census funding update $400K for census funding, 45- day extension for public comment for 250 water street (Jan 16th deadline), Borough based jail update – passive house / environmentally sound C) State Senator Brian Kavanaugh – extending rental rights for renters, more resources for the homeless, public housing funding increase, congestion pricing implementation (feedback required before end of year), 250 water street environmental review / remediation D) Peter Nyugen, Assembly member Niou – 45-day extension for 250 water street, NYCHA heating upgrades, E) Luke Wolf, Office of Comptroller Scott Stringer – City’s economy is robust according to new study, audit MTA for new subway cars, push for more accountability for corporations, F) Hannah Weinerman, Office of Congressman Jerry Nadler – President
    [Show full text]
  • Partial Action Plan Final Amended As of September 25 20021–
    APPROVED (BY HUD AS OF 6/7/02, AS AMENDED 9/25/02) LOWER MANHATTAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN COOPERATION WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK PARTIAL ACTION PLAN The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) has prepared the following Partial Action Plan with respect to the $2 billion federal appropriation to LMDC through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This plan details the proposed expenditure of $306 million for the following items: 1. Residential Grant Program totaling up to $280.5 million. 2. Employment Training Assistance Program totaling up to $10 million. 3. Design and installation of the interim memorial for victims of the September 11th World Trade Center tragedy and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing totaling up to $350,000. 4. Planning, administration, and overhead costs totaling up to $15.1 million. Any change greater than 5% in the funding committed to a particular activity (a.k.a. program) identified in this Partial Action Plan, the addition or deletion of any activity, or change in the planned beneficiaries of an activity will constitute a substantial amendment and such amendment will be made available for public comment and approval by HUD. Future partial action plans will detail the projected expenditure of the remainder of funds available from the $2 billion appropriation and will be subject to a public comment period with later submission to HUD. Action Plan Categories Allocation from $2 billion Residential Grant Program $280,500,000 Employment Training Assistance Program $10,000,000 Design and Installation of Interim Memorial $350,000 Administration and Planning $15,042,500 Total $305,892,500 National Objective The activities contained in this Partial Action Plan have been designed to meet the needs of individuals affected by the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center disaster, as well as community and development needs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Equity: Private Motivations and Public Implications of Dissolving Affordable Housing Cooperatives
    The Power of Equity: Private Motivations and Public Implications of Dissolving Affordable Housing Cooperatives By Jonathan Tarleton B.A. in Latin American Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina (2011) Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2018 © 2018 Jonathan Tarleton. All Rights Reserved The author hereby grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Author _______________________________________________________________________ Department of Urban Studies and Planning May 21, 2018 Certified by ____________________________________________________________________ Professor Justin Steil Department of Urban Studies and Planning Thesis Supervisor Accepted by ___________________________________________________________________ Professor of the Practice, Ceasar McDowell Chair, MCP Committee Department of Urban Studies and Planning The Power of Equity: Private Motivations and Public Implications of Dissolving Affordable Housing Cooperatives By Jonathan Tarleton Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 21, 2018 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning Abstract From 1955 to 1978, New York City and state subsidized the construction of over 67,000 middle- income, limited-equity cooperatives in the city through Mitchell-Lama—a program often considered one of the most successful efforts to produce affordable housing in American history. By restricting the resale of shares and removing the housing from the open market, limited-equity co-ops allow for the long-term maintenance of housing affordability and make the benefits of homeownership accessible to lower-income individuals than those served by stereotypical homeownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Shop. Eat. Drink. Play
    Tickets available at ONEWORLDOBSERVATORY.COM SHOP. HOW DO YOU GET TO THE TOP OF THE CITY’S TALLEST BUILDING? EAT. IN A SKYPOD, OF COURSE. DRINK. PLAY. ALL UNDER ONE Guide Manhattan Shop Dine Lower MAGNIFICENT ROOF. At the corner of Church St. and Dey St. LOWER MANHATTAN SHOP DINE GUIDE 2018 | 2018 DOWN IS WHAT’S UP!TM @ONEWORLDNYC BANANA REPUBLIC | EATALY | FOREVER 21 #ONEWORLDVIEW SEPHORA | UGG | VICTORIA’S SECRET Where the Palm Trees Grow. Fashion. Food. Art Vesey & West St When it comes to fashion and beauty, we are now poised to become one of the pre-eminent shopping destinations in the region. A year after the Oculus and Westfield World Trade Center opened, Saks Men (following on the heels of Saks Women), Marshalls, Dior Cosmetics, and Allen Edmonds joined T.J. Maxx, Century 21, and the shops at Brookfield Place. What will next year bring? Looking ahead, restaurateurs Jean-Georges Vongerichten, Danny Meyer, and the duo of Will Guidara and Daniel Humm plan to open new restaurants in Lower Manhattan. And when Alamo Drafthouse opens its doors to moviegoers at 28 Liberty, it will join the Seaport’s iPic Theater in making the neighborhood a destination for those SHOPPING who want to mix great food and drink with catching a flick. Just like you can’t tell the players in a baseball game without a scorecard, sometimes it can be hard to keep track of all the & DINING new options in the neighborhood. With that in mind, we present you with the Downtown Alliance’s 2018 Lower Manhattan IN LOWER MANHATTAN Shop Dine Guide -- your best source for shops, eateries, bars, From the Statue of Liberty to the observation deck at One museums, community resources, attractions and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Resolution Date: November 21, 2019 Committee
    COMMUNITY BOARD 1 – MANHATTAN RESOLUTION DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2019 COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: LAND USE, ZONING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE VOTE: 9 In Favor 0 Opposed 0 Abstained 0 Recused PUBLIC VOTE: 0 In Favor 0 Opposed 0 Abstained 0 Recused BOARD VOTE: 30 In Favor 0 Opposed 0 Abstained 0 Recused RE: Board of Standards and Appeals Application 2019-273-BZ, application for a special permit for the operation of a physical culture establishment at 140 West Street WHEREAS: An application has been submitted to the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) with the permission of Magnum Real Estate Group (the owner of the premises), and on behalf of the tenant, Rumble Fitness LLC (the applicant) for a special permit for the operation of a Physical Culture Establishment (PCE) to be located in a portion of the cellar and first floor of 140 West Street; and WHEREAS: The premises is bounded by West Street to the west, Barclay Street to the north, Washington Street to the east and Vesey Street to the south. There is an existing 32-story building at 140 West Street with commercial and residential uses. The entrance to the PCE would be on West Street; and WHEREAS: The applicant would operate the PCE under the trade name of Rumble Fitness. Rumble is a combination of high intensity training and boxing using a specially designed aqua training bag; and WHEREAS: The PCE would occupy a portion of the first floor (795 square feet) and cellar floor (7,955 square feet) for a total of 8,750 square feet.
    [Show full text]