Jackson Heights Life

would another 100 or so apartments full of people make a difference?

would another block with no sunlight make a difference?

would another ugly-a$$ structure like the monstrosity a block or so south (or the half-a$$ed fake blend buildings on 75th street) make a difference?

only if you actually give a damn about living here and not simply flipping your space when this becomes the new [fill in the blank]

Amen.  I'd really like to hear a response to this.  Does the 6-story building across 84th Street from this site somehow damage the neighborhood?

I'm certainly open to being convinced.  If there is any reason why a 6 story building on that site would "ruin our beloved Jackson Heights", I would like to hear it.  I'm not trying to flip anything and am deeply committed to Jackson Heights.

As I said in my prior post, my #1 concern is that it be an attractive building that is consistent with the neighborhood (on an avenue that is lined with 6 story buildings.)  The abortion that is 75th street should be avoided at all costs, but that has nothing to do with height; it could be horrible or wonderful at 1~6 floors.

There is not enough housing in New York City.  If we have the opportunity to add 100 new apartments this close to a major transportation hub, we should do it.  Jackson Heights is a welcoming place and giving more people a chance to live here will make us stronger.

I think we should put our energy into fighting to make sure that it's an attractive building, rather than demanding a 1 story building (for reasons that remain utterly unclear to me.)

Is this an example of a building that was designed to match landmark surroundings?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=jackson+heights,+ny&sll=41.310824,-95.712891&sspn=21.809109,61.435547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Jackson+Heights,+New+York&ll=40.74924,-73.880171&spn=0.003292,0.013078&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.749804,-73.883762&panoid=J8SHgn2UEUX8yYco3Qu0Tw&cbp=12,335.24,,0,-27.4

Because if so, I'm not convinced that demanding the building be made "contextual" will prevent another ugly structure from going up.

"There is not enough housing in New York City.  If we have the opportunity to add 100 new apartments this close to a major transportation hub, we should do it.  Jackson Heights is a welcoming place and giving more people a chance to live here will make us stronger."

There is more than enough housing in New York; there simply isn't enough affordable housing. And why would "giving more people a chance to live here" make us any "stronger" than building a rec center or that much needed expanded public library?

i find it interesting to hear folks raising the idea that we don't have *enough* housing in this area, when the site is also rife with posts discussing the need for green space because we have so much housing, and so many people packed into such a small area.

and, judging by the number of people who share the subway platform with me every time i take the train, i'd say we have a fair number of housing units already.

that said, i know the lot is an "as of right" situation and the best one can hope for is a slight nod to tasteful architecture. as for the owners making it affordable? if anyone thinks that's in the cards, i am putting LaGuardia Airport on the market and am taking offers.  :laugh:

Is this an example of a building that was designed to match landmark surroundings?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=jackson+heights,+ny&sll=41.310824,-95.712891&sspn=21.809109,61.435547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Jackson+Heights,+New+York&ll=40.74924,-73.880171&spn=0.003292,0.013078&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.749804,-73.883762&panoid=J8SHgn2UEUX8yYco3Qu0Tw&cbp=12,335.24,,0,-27.4

It is my understanding (and some one correct me if I'm wrong) that the building located at 82-11 37th Ave. was constructed before the landmark district was established. The developers apparently endeavored to emulate the design characteristics of the area but did a poor job and were not required to adhere to the specific design standards of the area.

A better example of a building that had to adhere to the standards established by the LPC would be the school building on 82nd St. between 35th and 34th Ave. It was designed to fit in with the other buildings around it, and I think it does a pretty good job of it.

It seems to me at times that our own special land mark status works against us as we clamor for more open space, more community space, a better retail mix, more affordable housing etc. We lost a one story building which is unfortunate, but out of that an opportunity has presented it self to create a new space that could serve our community better.

Rather than petitioning to keep things exactly as they were, threatening protests and vilifying the property owner before plans have even been presented, wouldn't our community be better served by talking with the owner and negotiating some sort of compromise that allows him to develop a building that serves our community while respecting his right to develop the property that he owns ?

Article in todays Daily News;

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2010/07/02/2010-07-02_merchants_locals_divided_over_new_apts_in_jackson_hts.html

Remember that whatever does ultimately get built there it's only 1/2 of the block. At best in time you'll get a second one of the same type on the other side. At worst God knows what. Not to mention that a precedent will be set for all the other one story commercial building sites.

Article in todays Daily News;

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2010/07/02/2010-07-02_merchants_locals_divided_over_new_apts_in_jackson_hts.html

The article states that:
"The first floor of the neo-Georgian structure would be used for businesses. The other five floors would have 45 apartments, he said. It would also house a community space and underground parking."

The community space is for a professional office and not what we were calling for as a community center.

My coop doing construction that required landmarking approval. They required a change in the plans that returned us to the orginal concrete retaining walls instead of brick with coping stones that matched the buildings. If Landmarking required this small change in an somewhat internal space, how could landmarking allow such a drastic change from taxpayers to 6 story building?