Jackson Heights Life

If the developer was seeking a zoning waiver in order to construct a 40 storey condominium tower (or even a 10 or 15 storey tower) then there would be a very good reason to be concerned about adverse impact on the neighborhood –

But a six storey building with a commercial ground floor and five floors of apartments is consistent with numerous other buildings along 37th Avenue (which is, after all, the main commercial street in Jackson Heights ) and would presumably be no higher than the 1930s apartment building just across the street, which I’ve always thought looked quite elegant and imposing (in a good way).   Assuming a half-way decent design for the new structure, the proposed building would seem to be a reasonably good use of this space and might prove to be an aesthetic enhancement over just another taxpayer (which to me always look kind of provisional and ordinary).   

The YMCA has specific requirements for a new building which includes space for a full size pool etc.  that parcel of land would not suit the Y's requirements. Also, that parcel of land is private property, beyond expecting it to conform to LPC standards there's not too much more say the community has in what it's owner chooses to do with it. So, again, it seems to me to you catch more flies with honey, someone should be talking to the owner and negotiating some sort of benefit to the community.

In my humble opinion it seems fishy that this 1-story landmark furniture store burned down right at a time when the owner had so much to gain from it burning down.
1. Get to write off furniture inventory that would never be sold in this economy.
2. Get to evade landmark status and build a larger structure that produces much more income.
Supposedly the fire was caused by a malfunction of the boiler. How often does that happen?

In my humble opinion it seems fishy that this 1-story landmark furniture store burned down right at a time when the owner had so much to gain from it burning down.
1. Get to write off furniture inventory that would never be sold in this economy.
2. Get to evade landmark status and build a larger structure that produces much more income.
Supposedly the fire was caused by a malfunction of the boiler. How often does that happen?

Yes - it's "fishy", yes - it's happened before.  Not much we can do about it though.  The FDNY has spoken.

The owner was known to have wanted to build a larger building much in advance of the fire than made things easier for him.

If the building is to be built "as of right," leaving the community to quibble over aesthetics only, perhaps it can be demanded of the developer that he conform so exactly to historic standards that it's no longer worth his dime to put up another apartment building.

let's all just be realistic here.

a) this will get built.

b) it will be an architectural monstrosity.

c) there won't be anything "affordable" about a single unit.

d)  the neighborhood will get more crowded -- adding more residents usually does that -- and services will be stretched even further.

e) the process will encourage more guttings and cough 'improvements' cough along the same lines.

look for the block between 82nd and 83rd on the south side of 37th or perhaps the block between 77th and 78th in the  side to be next.

that's certainly a relief, julie 

i actually mis-wrote the address i was thinking of. i meant the strip that formerly housed newman jewelers, the vitamin store, flagship and so on. that is clearly owned by someone with a different attitude.

Of course placing a six story building changes the whole aesthetic of this neighborhood. It was planned as a garden community, not a "coop city". The zoning laws need to be changed to prevent this from happening. One needs only to look at 86Th street between 35Th Avenue and 37Th Avenue to see what the results will inevitably be. It is quite disappointing that Landmarks has no say in the matter, although it 's not stopping me from voicing my opposition to them.