ossification has worked quite well for the neighborhoods that have clung to the concept -- from the west village to brooklyn heights. exactly what do we have to gain by adding ugly buildings with minimal use for the community?
Exactly what do we have to gain? Well let me enlighten you. Platinum scenario:
1st floor: an enormous combination pharmacy/99 cent store, a store so enormous that not even light could escape,
2nd & 3rd floor parking: SUV only, and none of those sissy crossovers. I'm talking Pilot or bigger for all the serious off-roaders who live around here,
4th floor community facilities: Western Queens STD clinic (required for extra 1.4 FAR)
5th floor: Breitbart News regional office,
6th floor: Mormon Missionary Training Center/Capital One Cold Calling Credit Card Call Center,
7th floor: The Mark David Chapman Museum of Music Appreciation,
8th floor: Residential penthouse for Melania where she can live when Trump comes to NYC.
I think it's pretty reasonable to have bulk development on Northern, especially if that helps make the HD expansion more viable. Small pockets of neighborhoods can ossify and look pretty. Having large swaths do it is a long term disaster.
Personally, the aspect I object to the most is the 219-space, above-ground parking garage. We should demand that any parking be located below grade. I also think we should push for a residential building with no more than one space per unit, instead of an office building designed to draw traffic from outside the community, which would really be out of place here.
That parking is required as per the zoning resolution for scenario 1. I'd prefer scenario 2, which sounds like the one the council member is advocating. If it goes c4-3, then it is as of right, so is there a mechanism to require the developer to build out scenario 2? Like a quid pro quo for the zoning change? While I can appreciate the planning leverage of rezoning in this manner, I'm not a fan of spot zoning. I'd like to see the C-8 rezoned to something more appropriate for the area.