Submitted by Michael D. D. White, Mar 7, 2008 17:22

It is hard not to feel sorry for a developer if public officials "shake down" the developer for permission to build a project that the developer could build as of right. But the proposed Solow project cannot be built as of right until there is a zoning change to accommodate its very significant density, a density it will bring to the area that is far greater than anything in the neighborhood. It is the City Council's job to decide whether it should approve a zoning change that will permit this. Before it approves the density, the City Council needs to consider how well the density will work. How well density will work depends in part on the streets and public space planning and their connections to the city grid. That is part of what the City Council is looking at.

Whatever City Planning has approved or not, the City Council needs to do its job. There is a serious question that the City Council should be examining: whether the City Planning Commission is approving densities throughout the city that are far too high. Since 2002 the City Planning Commission has effected some of the most extensive rezonings undertaken for two generations and it is not necessarily clear they fully appreciate what they have done. Amanda M. Burden, chairwoman of the Planning Commission, was recently quoted offering an "assurance" to the public that she had spent more time studying a proposal for the up-zoning of 125th Street "than she had on any other project, including Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and Columbia University's expansion in western Harlem." That assurance does not support the idea that City Council should rely upon City Planning when it comes to questions of density. Atlantic Yards is clearly far too dense and lacks the kind of good design that could help support high density. The Columbia plan is also suspect in a number of ways.

It is hard to feel sorry for Solow as the developer when it was noted at the City Planning Commission hearings that the Commission had adjusted its review timetable to favor timing for review of the developer-driven rezoning proposal rather than the community-sponsored 197-proposal for rezoning of the area that preceded it which was recommended by Manhattan's Community Board 6. In this Community Board 6 can compare notes and commiserate with Community Board 9 which submitted a community-based 197-a plan to accommodate Columbia's expansion into West Harlem. In that case the Commission also followed a review timetable that should be viewed as favoring the developer-driven plan. There are a lot of reasons for letting the public drive the process. At this point the City Council should still be listening to what the public has to say.

How well the Solow project's density can possibly work has a lot to do with whether a community board_sponsored plan for rerouting of the FDR Drive with easements from the developer to build a deck from Solow's site across the highway to the water. This is all toward a widely supported resulting public park and promenade that would also substantially increase the value of what Solow proposes to build. If publicly paid for, it is currently estimated that creation of this badly needed public space would cost $80_$100 million. And the FDR in this area needs to be rebuilt and upgraded anyway so it is essential to consider the question at this time. In terms of creation of public space it is a moment in time that must be seized; the beneficial effect will be enjoyed for centuries.

There is a separate question as to how much of the burden of creating this public space and these connections should be placed on Solow as a private developer. It may well be that the density Solow wants will not work adequately without the park, promenade and good street design integration. That needn't mean that the developer should pay for it. Arguably the public should pay for the public improvements and treat approval of an appropriate density for Solow separately. The public doesn't need easements from Solow if condemnation is used. Condemnation can appropriately be used in this case since the park, promenade and street connections are clearly for public use when publicly owned. Still there are those that may be looking to give Solow a higher than otherwise appropriate density at this site in hopes of negotiating these public benefits.

It could be better and simpler for the public to pay for public benefits and approve a lesser density for the developer's project. In terms of that cost, the aforementioned $80_$100 million would be a fraction of the aggregate public subsidy dollars we are expending on Atlantic Yards. The subsidy for the arena alone exceeds $1 billion: The total subsidy amount for the Yards project is harder to calculate but it is probably well in excess of $2 billion. In terms of the appropriate density for the Solow project, the picture on the front page of the 3/6/2008 Sun shows how its overall density is substantially greater than surrounding Manhattan.

It is not so much a question as to the height of the particular buildings to be built as the overall increase in density they collectively represent. Sure the Empire State building is tall but we do not have the equivalent of the Empire State Building on every block. In fact, the public reaction to some New York City skyscrapers and overbuilding has been to scale back what is permitted thereafter. The neighborhood of the Empire State Building is not uniformly built up to that skyscraper's density nor would it need to be to have a dense city far denser than Los Angeles.

The public and the City Council ought to have legitimate concerns about the overall densities that will be permitted through these areas. The proposed Solow project on the East River is just across town from the proposed development of Hudson Yards. Concerns have been expressed about government's efforts to cram density onto the Hudson Yards site as well. In that case, the extra density is being pursued as a way of generating more proceeds from the sale of the site for the MTA. In reference to the concerns about "unprecedented density" see the January 8, 2008 open letter to the MTA from the Hudson Yards Community Advisory Committee signed by politicians including City Council Speaker Quinn, Senator Duane, Borough President Stringer and others. Though they express concerns about unprecedented density, the density planned for the Hudson Yards is only slightly more than the overall significant increase in density planned for an area widely surrounding it which can be viewed as more or less merging into the neighborhood of the Solow project even though it is on the other side of town.

The effect of virtually none of this density has yet been felt since, relatively speaking, practically nothing has been built. If it were all built the cumulative effect would be an astonishingly different Manhattan. It may be that the City Planning Commission envisions that much will not be built because who could think that it would be tolerable, but there are no plans for scaling back the permitted densities. Still, perhaps it is envisioned that for the time being, the new permitted densities will be taken advantage of on a first-come, first-served basis and that not everything will eventually be built. If that is the case, it is harder to fell sorry for Solow as developer.

I usually rely on the Municipal Art Society to represent my point of view about good design. In the Sun's companion article, MAS's Jasper Goldman is quoted as saying "The consensus is that the design is very good, but who will control the space?" Maybe I have to do some more studying of the design but I am not so sure it is good. I am getting rather tired of enormous walls of glass and I think the towers-in-a-park design is turning into too much of a standard retro-argument to try and get away with densities that are overbearing. Maybe people can sell that argument because it has been so long since we built towers in a park. The Municipal Art Society is doing a capital job of championing creation of the very essential park and promenade space. To that end they are looking to compromise with Solow. Maybe they are being too kind.

I am in favor of seeing Hudson Yards built and a version of the Solow project built. I can hope for better though. Both these areas can accommodate density though I might want less than what is proposed. Each project has good potential integration with public transportation which can connect them with the other major Manhattan destinations, via walking, buses, new subway lines and water ferry. Also, if density is built where it can be more readily accommodated, we are less likely to have to suffer truly inexcusable density being stuffed in wrong places like the brownstone neighborhood of Atlantic Yards which does not have such readily expandable transportation options.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.