CITYJULY 2012 center forLAND new york city law VOLUME 9, NUMBER 5 Highlights CITY COUNCIL UWS storefront limits OK’d . ... 67 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NYU plan reduced. 70 LANDMARKS FPO East Village/LES HD created. 72 Tribeca bldg. decalendared. 73 Fort Greene rehab OK’d . 74 Curb Exchange designated . .... 75 Addition near Plaza Hotel OK’d . 75 New York State Supreme Court rejected a community group’s challenge of a rezoning that would Midtown hotels landmarked . .. 77 facilitate a 61-unit mixed-use development in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. See story on page 81. Canal Street project criticized . 78 Rendering: Courtesy of Joseph Vance Architects. Bowery Mission designated. 79 of new and expanding ground floor CITY COUNCIL retail stores, banks, and residential ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. lobbies along portions of the neigh- Rezoning/Text Amendment Industrial Sites RFP . .......... 79 borhood’s main commercial thor- Upper West Side, Manhattan Rooftop farm opportunity . 80 oughfares: Broadway, Amsterdam Council Approves Proposal Avenue, and Columbus Avenue. One special district would cover the COURT DECISIONS to Limit Size of Banks and majority of Amsterdam Avenue be- Hospital expansion challenge . 80 Other Storefronts in the Upper West Side tween 73rd and 110th Streets and BK project challenge rejected . .. 81 Columbus Avenue between 72nd [posted to CityLandNYC.org 6.28.2012] and 87th Streets. The other special GUEST COMMENTARY Banking group claimed proposed district would cover Broadway be- limitations on widths of new ground Howard Goldman & tween 72nd and 110th Streets. The Eugene Travers . .76 floor storefronts along Broadway, proposal would also apply a C1-5 Amsterdam Avenue, and Colum- commercial overlay to a portion of CHARTS bus Avenue unfairly discriminate one block on Columbus Avenue in against banks. On June 21, 2012, the order to reflect existing uses. DCP Pipeline . ............... .C-1 City Council’s Land Use Committee City Planning created the pro- ULURP Pipeline. .C-1 approved the Department of City posal in response to community BSA Pipeline . .C-2 Planning’s Upper West Side Neigh- Landmarks Pipeline . .C-3 concerns about the proliferation of borhood Retail Streets proposal. The banks with large storefronts, new CityAdmin.org New Decisions. C-5 proposal would establish two Spe- retail tenants combining multiple cial Enhanced Commercial Districts small storefronts, and new develop- in Manhattan’s Upper West Side ments providing only single-tenant, and establish limits on the widths ground floor (cont’d on page 69) www.CityLandNYC.org 67 COM M E NTARY The City Council Should Approve NYU’s Core Expansion Plan If one were to draw a circle a mile in radius with the hub being Washington Square, and time-traveled back 50 years to 1962, included within the circle would be a low-rent failing commercial district along Lower Broadway; a darkened, empty loft factory area south of Houston Street; a bleak Hudson River waterfront in the shadow of a dete- riorating West Side Highway; an industrial meatpacking district dead in the daytime and a slaughterhouse at night; an empty High Line sprouting weeds above and blighting the streets below; and a Union Square so dangerous and empty that it was one of the City’s most notorious needle parks. New York University chose at that moment to move its Bronx campus to Washington Square, an oasis benefitting from the adjacent Italian community and the glorious housing of the West Village. NYU now calls the area closest to Washington Square its core, and wants to expand by building on land within the superblocks immediately south of the Park. The City should approve that plan. Controversy surrounds NYU’s plan. This land, after all, is part of the battlefield on which Jane Jacobs fought and defeated Robert Moses, who nonetheless succeeded in creating the two superblocks over which the current battle clashes. The controversy has been played out in the City’s land use process which has molded and compelled altera- tions in the plan. The plan is not perfect and will greatly change the two superblocks that were themselves created out of misguided planning concepts following World War II that no one would adopt today. The changes will be losses, but the gains will be greater. NYU is a colossal economic and cultural engine with a historic focus at Washington Square. Its growth stimulates good things throughout New York City and the region. Of the constellation of enterprises that makes New York City great, it is a major element. The nature of a great university is to be concentrated geographically, not scattered about the City like Starbucks. Washington Square is the core of the campus even as it is interwoven within the City fabric. By approving the plan, New York City ensures the growth not only of NYU, but also reinforces the growth and vibrancy that has altered so profoundly and successfully the circle one mile in radius around Washington Square. Ross Sandler CITYLAND Ross Sandler Luna Droubi ’11 Jesse Denno Professor of Law and Director, Fellow Staff Writer, Production Asst. The Center expresses appreciation to the Center for New York City Law Lebasi Lashley Sarah Knowles Frank Berlen ’07 Art Director Administrative Coordinator individuals and foundations supporting the Associate Director Petting Zoo Design Andrew Thompson ’13 Center and its work: The Steven and Sheila Aresty Managing Editor Julian Maxwell ’13 Foundation, Fund for the City of New York, Peter Schikler ’08 Legal Interns CityLand Editor The Durst Foundation, The Charina Endowment Fund, The Murray Goodgold Foundation, CITYLAND ADVISORY BOARD Jerry Gottesman, The Marc Haas Foundation and Kent Barwick Howard Goldman Frank Munger The Prospect Hill Foundation. Andrew Berman Jerry Gottesman Carol E. Rosenthal Molly Brennan David Karnovsky Michael T. Sillerman (ISSN 1551-711X) is published by the Albert K. Butzel Ross Moskowitz ’84 Paul D. Selver CITYLAND Center for New York City Law at New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, New York City, New CENTER FOR NEW YORK CITY LAW ADVISORY COUNCIL York 10013, tel. (212) 431-2115, fax (212) 941-4735, Stanley S. Shuman, Michael D. Hess Ernst H. Rosenberger ’58 e-mail: [email protected], website: www.citylaw. Chair Lawrence S. Huntington ’64 Rose Luttan Rubin org © Center for New York City Law, 2012. All Arthur N. Abbey ’59 William F. Kuntz II Frederick P. Schaffer rights reserved. Printed on recycled paper. Maps Sheila Aresty ’94 presented in CITYLAND are from Map-PLUTO Eric Lane Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr. Harold Baer, Jr. copyrighted by the New York City Department of Randy M. Mastro O. Peter Sherwood David R. Baker City Planning. City Landmarks and Historic Dis- Robert J. McGuire Michael A. Cardozo Edward Wallace tricts printed with permission of New York City Francis McArdle Anthony Coles Richard M. Weinberg Landmarks Preservation Commission. Paul A. Crotty John D. McMahon ’76 Peter L. Zimroth Richard J. Davis Thomas L. McMahon ’83 James D. Zirin POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Michael B. Gerrard Gary P. Naftalis CITYLAND, 185 West Broadway, New York, New Judah Gribetz Steven M. Polan York 10013-2921. Periodicals postage paid at New York, New York. Kathleen Grimm ’80 Gail S. Port ’76 Eric Hatzimemos ’92 Joseph B. Rose CITYLAND Volume 9 • July 2012 www.CityLandNYC.org 68 space. According to City Planning, tions for landmarked buildings. width under certain conditions. Ac- the proposal would reinforce the Manhattan Community Board cording to the Planning Commis- neighborhood’s diverse, multi-store 7 and Borough President Scott M. sion, rules will be promulgated for character, and encourage an active Stringer supported the proposal, the new certification process. Bank streetscape on the three commer- with both recommending several tenants would still need to follow the cial corridors. modifications. Opponents of the proposal’s authorization process As proposed by City Planning, proposal include the New York in order to exceed frontage limita- enlargements of existing banks and Bankers Association, the Real Estate tions. Other modifications included new bank tenants within both dis- Board of New York, the Council of referring proposed authorizations tricts would be limited to no more New York Cooperatives & Condo- and certifications to the community than 25 feet of ground floor frontage. miniums, and the Columbus Ave- board for a 30-day review period, The proposal would not limit the nue Business Improvement District. and increasing the maximum width total number of banks in the neigh- The City Planning Commission of new residential lobbies along Co- borhood or restrict the configura- modified the proposal during its lumbus and Amsterdam Avenues tion of bank space above the ground review. The Planning Commission from 15 to 25 feet. floor. New residential lobbies along expanded the grandfathering provi- At the City Council’s Zoning & Broadway would be limited to a sion by allowing existing large store- Franchises Subcommittee hearing width of 25 feet, while lobbies along fronts to remain even if they were on June 19, 2012, City Planning’s Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues vacant for more than two years. Laura Smith testified that there was would be limited to 15 feet. The pro- However, vacant storefronts would a clear “zoning and land use-based posal would require that glass or need to be subdivided if the space rationale” for the limitations, and other transparent materials cover at was occupied by a new bank un- that the proposal was specifically least 50 percent of a new building’s less the prior tenant had also been a tailored to the Upper West Side’s facade between a height of two and bank. It also modified the proposal unique conditions. Smith explained 12 feet. to give owners or tenants with valid that the area’s residential density The district encompassing Co- building permits to alter or expand was “largely unparalleled,” and that lumbus and Amsterdam Avenues their storefronts six months from commercial square footage was would include additional limita- the proposal’s adoption to complete constrained to just three commer- tions on ground floor store frontage.