|
|
Letters to the editor Seminary’s red herring It seems odd at best, and possibly deceptive or worse, that the General Theological Seminary is now, after having already submitted their development plans and begun the public approval process, ready to say, “We are also going to build some affordable housing if you approve our plan.” The Seminary currently has no legal way of doing this, and could only create the affordable housing after a separate, later approval that most observers say they would likely never receive. As someone who advocates for affordable housing in Chelsea, I find it troubling that the Seminary would not have included a concrete affordable housing plan as part of their full application from the beginning if, in fact, they truly intend to provide this amenity. Under these circumstances, it seems more like a red herring intended to distract or divide the public, given that we will never know if it will materialize until their luxury high-rise project is approved. However, even if it were a sure thing, I am not certain that 50,000 square feet of affordable housing as part of a package that includes about 150,000 square feet of luxury housing is really such a benefit to the Chelsea community. The much greater amount of luxury market-rate housing will inevitably have the effect of squeezing out existing affordable housing even more quickly than it is being squeezed out now. This proposal raises two other important questions. First, the Seminary has always said that their development plan is the absolute minimum they need in order to generate sufficient revenue to stay put and take care of their buildings. But even with assistance from government programs, 50,000 square feet of affordable housing costs money to build and maintain. So, what does this mean in terms of the Seminary’s supposed bottom line? Is the massive proposed Ninth Ave. building really the minimum they must build to generate the revenue they need, if suddenly it also generates enough revenue to build affordable housing? And second, as Ed Kirkland is quoted as saying in the article, if by some unlikely chance there is a way that the Seminary can transfer its development rights to another spot in Chelsea to create affordable housing, then they should also be looking for ways to transfer their development rights so they do not have to build their huge building on Ninth Ave. in violation of the zoning, as their current plan involves. It’s a shame that the Seminary did not raise any of these issues as little as two years ago, when the nearby West Chelsea rezoning was going on and they could have quite likely found a way to solve their development problems and created affordable housing if they had wished. As with the maintenance of their buildings, this was deferred, and now the public is being asked to essentially pay for it. Regarding your editorial on the South Village historic district: I stand with Chelea Now in support of the creation of this district — indeed, at present, few preservation initiatives could be more urgent. The South Village and Soho exist as living, breathing testaments to what has made this city the vibrant intellectual, creative and cultural hub that it has been for most of its history. Walk the streets of this proposed district and you will see the tenements, apartment buildings, storefronts and cafes that attracted, hosted and nourished many of America’s greatest thinkers and artists — and what you see will look a good deal as it did when those men and women of past years saw it. You will also see how the less heralded lived, and how the mix — then, as it does now — invigorated the neighborhood and the city. In essence, you will see what makes New York New York. Alas, at this writing, all of this history and vibrancy is in peril. Developers have set their sights on many blocks of the South Village with gigantic dollar signs flashing in their eyes. In an effort to cash in on the overwhelming demand for a Village or Soho address, history is being bulldozed at a breakneck rate. As you noted, many beloved buildings have already been razed. As one of many in the community who struggled in vain to save the beautiful and functional Tunnel Garage (a profitable business thriving in a space worthy of landmarking), I can only imagine with a sense of melancholy how differently our fight might have ended if we had been granted the rights and protections that come with a historic district. Instead, where once stood a 1922 paean to the nascent automobile culture, there now stands a fenced-off field of rubble threatening to be an outsized eyesore of nine stories of luxury housing. Residents need look no further than across Thompson St. — at 60 Thompson — to see what overdevelopment, greed and mediocre architecture can do to the scale of a block and the feel of a neighborhood. But we have more to fear from unchecked development than the curse of ugly high-rises. The flavor and flow of the South Village owes so much to the age, scale and history of its buildings. Without protection, this area will likely fall prey to the same market forces that have divided or destroyed many other parts of the city. And while some wealthy developers may profit, many more people who actually live in the South Village, as well as those who live elsewhere in the city and who visit the city for its history and culture, will lose. We are at a crossroads. The next century in the South Village can continue to showcase what has made New York unique and essential to our country and to world culture, or it can be a sad reminder of what happens when a city forgets what made it great and gives in to the pressures of a shortsighted market. Let’s designate the South Village as a historic district so that we may look forward with hopeful anticipation, rather than look back with longing and regret. In response to whether the Assembly’s New York City delegation is solidly in favor of gay marriage, I cautioned against being overly optimistic, as one can never underestimate the influence of religious and other organizations that may be opposed to gay marriage. Successful planning requires honest assessments about one’s strengths and weaknesses so that we do not miscalculate the work ahead and, in this instance, possibly misdirect or limit our efforts in the city to our own detriment. Such an assessment is not pessimistic; it is realistic. With realistic planning and well-directed efforts, marriage equality is certainly within reach.
|
View our previous issues >our latest family addition:
|
|
Chelsea Now is published by |
Written permission of the publisher must be obtainedbefore any of the contents |
