Letters to the editor

Volume 1, Number 33 | The Weekly Newspaper of Chelsea | May 4 - 10, 2007

Let’s create a Chelsea community

To The Editor:
Re “Seminary back in good graces after scrapping Ninth Ave. tower plan” and “G.T.S. détente a welcome sign for Chelsea” (news article and editorial, April 6):

I disagree with Chelsea Now’s April 6 front-page headline and editorial saying that the crisis with the General Theological Seminary’s Ninth Avenue tower has been resolved and all are glad. The planned seven-story building, with many luxury condos, will bring no income to preserve the historic buildings. It may ruin Chelsea’s oldest house and others, may add cars and subtract trees, and will cut off breeze, sunlight and sky views for all neighbors and passers-by.

Dean Ewing and Maureen Burnley rejected all options suggested by Chelsea people in 2005–2006. I have some new ideas, updated since November 2006. First, set up a Local Development Corporation (or simply a nonprofit real-estate trust) to operate the campus. Then choose from five ways to use the buildings not needed by the Seminary or Tutu Center to generate enough income to maintain all the old buildings. I have other ideas for smaller sources of income—using existing assets. All this and jobs for local people, too.

Unless the 2005 GTS-Brodsky Organization contract permits cancellation, and unless the GTS Board of Trustees so votes at its May meeting, demolition and condo construction on the Ninth Avenue block probably will occur. In any case, we need all elected officials, Community Board 4 members and Chelsea residents who care to demand that the GTS boardmembers be responsible “stewards” of that square block of Chelsea. (What did they do at their September 2006 and January 2007 meetings?)

If GTS sells out to the Brodsky condos for 99 years, we who want to “keep” the remaining people who are and places that are Chelsea’s ever-evolving history must be ready to “save” that historic square block. Episcopal Church fissures could result in court battles this year over who owns the GTS campus. The best way to ensure that the square block will be a part of Chelsea that we want to keep is to form “one big community group” open to all residents (with or without real property, but with real integrity). Meanwhile, let’s all contribute to preserving St. Peter’s, which has been a valued part of Chelsea for decades.
Kathy Casey

N.Y.U. is so predictable

To The Editor:
Re “N.Y.U. support for new historic district goes south” (news article, April 13):
Is it any surprise that New York University is saying that they support the designation, while their actions say otherwise? I do not suppose that a South Village Historic District is in their best interest. How would they be able to continue tearing down buildings, putting up poorly designed structures and thereby altering our neighborhood if a landmark district existed?
Silvia Beam

Beam is a member, Van Dam Street Block Association and South Village Historic District Designation Advisory Board

Little Britain vs. Starbucks

To The Editor:

Re “Rule Britannia! English merchants push for new district” (news article, March 23) and “Little Britain? Balderdash!” (letter, by Miriam Sarzin, March 30):

Bully for Little Britain!

Miriam Sarzin recalls living above a block of family-owned shops, which is precisely what “Little Britain” conjures. It’s not “Little Barnes & Noble” or “Little Starbucks,” but a fascinating destination point that can only stimulate worldwide visits to the whole area. It is a good fit, and would look even better on a tourist map.

And how lovely that so many multiethnic neighbors have organized around the idea. How perceptive that city officials think it an idea that “should have happened by now.”

“Little Britain” seems to stave off the invasive doom of gentrification and chain stores, and give a nod to a vital independent presence in the Village.

While I agree that not much can lessen the eternal confusion between Greenwich Ave. and Greenwich St., one is bound to wander into Meyers of Keswick, Tea & Sympathy, Showroom 64 or Soho House to ask proper directions…. Cheers to the whole idea!
Daniel Neiden

Bring back the big boats

To The Editor:
I believe that the Hudson River Park Trust thus far has ignored Pier 40’s primary historic function: to dock ships. This pier is unique in New York Harbor. It allows ships to parallel park to the shoreline, a major advantage with this tidal river. In this fashion it can also accept ships that are too long for finger piers. I believe that Manhattan is much more desirable for ocean departure and arrival than Red Hook in Brooklyn. Manhattan provides reception in a more central location accessible to taxis, mass transit and a higher concentration of services, restaurants and residents, some of whom will be able to walk to the pier to depart or see others departing or arriving. Those debarking will be entering a welcoming community.

I personally experienced this great advantage arriving in Quebec City aboard the QE2 on its last trip there, where the ship pulled alongside a beautiful, popular park on the edge of that historic city. Please don’t lose sight of the use of the waterfront for waterfront-related activities, especially such basic ones as going to sea.
Barry Benepe