Opposition to Prospect Hotel Mounting
Over the weekend we were sent a number of statements by people who live in the vicinity of the Prospect Grand Hall, whose owners recently proposed a plan to erect an 11-story building with parking and hotel rooms on the site. While there was plenty of support voiced for the project at last week’s community…
Over the weekend we were sent a number of statements by people who live in the vicinity of the Prospect Grand Hall, whose owners recently proposed a plan to erect an 11-story building with parking and hotel rooms on the site. While there was plenty of support voiced for the project at last week’s community board meeting (including a vote of confidence by the 5th Avenue BID), the emails we saw over the weekend were largely negative.
— “A building and business of that size will have an enormous negative impact on the quality of life for the residents of 16th street. As others have pointed out, we’ve fought hard to have zoning put into place to keep the scale and feel of this neighborhood.”
–“An 11 story hotel on the GPH site is an abomination. It will completely commercialize the block…To preserve our neighborhood this project must be stopped.”
–“As I stood outside my house today I thought about the height and scope of this project. I am concerned about the height of the project, it would loom over anything in the neighborhood, 11 stories, the tallest is about 8 stories on that block (unless I counted/remember incorrectly). In reading the details on IMBY’s blog I also see that houses on 16th would be demo’ed and that bothers me. Even if they currently own the properties, it is the changing of the scale of the neighborhood that is worrisome.”
–“Aside from the infrastructure and traffic issues, the shadow this 110+’ building will cast, the noise, the blight it will make 16th street into with two major driveways cut into the middle of the block all make me very nervous.”
Personally, we can’t see the justification for a variance in this situation, regardless of the kind of impact the project would have.
Is this a variance or a map change? It plays out differently.
AJ, I think the zoning is R5B, not R6B. R5B = 1.35 FAR and maximum building height of 33 feet. Once again, WBer is spot-on.
Wasn’t Michelle de la Uz the executive director when FAC did the project on the municipal parking lot?
I live behind GPH and I must tell you…As it is, the way they run this place is so inhumane to their neighbors that we can not open our windows during the summer due to the stench of the open rotten garbage conditions, not to mention rats and mice coming into our properties and HUGE HUGE flies.
I can not even imagine what a hotel and 24/7 restaurant service will do to us- not to mention the fumes from the garage. They turn on the newly built exhaust vent from the kitchen, that makes the sounds of a helicopter…and they forget to turn it off most of the times…so it runs overnight which it doesn’t sounds like a lullaby for our families to sleep with. The big trucks from their events block our traffic on 16th sometimes for 1/2 hour, Trying to get in from the service driveway,causing beeping and screaming on a regular basis, imagine the multiply by 4 times the events they will have.
Mentioning the garage: they are selling this project as 400 parking spaces for the neighborhood. Their own website advertises they can hold up to 7000 people at once in this place,so the parking will be conditional ONLY IF they don’t have events going on… GOT IT!
In order to have this project, they need to change three, yes 3 variances (I’m not an engineer so I don’t know how this are called):
1- Commercial
2- Height
3- and finally the need to alter the allowance (or whatever is called) to build all the way in the backyard almost touching our properties.
This project will start/set a precendent for OTHER developers to start going as high as this project, and I really wish that is NOT next to your property or land-blocking air, sun and views.
What really matters is for all of you to think why should someone be allowed, only for their personal gain, to change/alter/the laws, at a sacrifice to a residential area. One that is already negatively affected by GPH at its current medium scale?
I really don’t wish any of you to be in our position, I’m not a NIMBY and I agree with progress and gentrification for the community, but if that will be the case.
To close my post, I would like to remind everyone that Lander was the chairman on the 5th Ave Committee when they took away the public city parking on 5th Ave and 16th Street collecting signatures under the pretenses that this project on 5th ave and 16th was for low income housing. They forgot to mention to us that it was going to be halfway house for drug addicts and a population with mental illness. What kills me is not the project, but how they are trying to deceive everyone. Now Lander is one of the cheerleaders for this project; why? because the neighborhood need parking?
AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
@Wber “What does the current zoning allow?”
R6B zoning, so 40 ft at the street wall and 50 ft. after a set back, depending on overall FAR (2.0) used. That’s why they are going for a spot rezoning.
“Silent partners” are a red herring. The zoning is not tied to who is invested in the project, and if they get a rezoning, they are free to bring in new partners, sell the building, redesign the facade, and do anything else a property owner is allowed to do under zoning.
They can have a hotel and upgrade the place, and in doing so, increase the profit margin – considerably.
What they are proposing is not designed to accomplish any of this but to MAXIMIZE the profit margin for GPH and any other investors (silent and hidden or other wise).
This is why someone should be investigating the backing of this project. It’s bad enough that GPH has Marty and others in their pocket. What if there are other silent and undisclosed partner’s involved, who have others (in City Hall?) in there pockets.
Additionally it is of note that this brings to question the bigger issue of “Spot Rezonings”
Why bother having zoning laws (or any others) if they only apply to those who have no intention of violating them.
Meanwhile any one with enough money or political clout can do as they please.
2 laws in this City –
One for the haves and an other for the have nots.
Thank our Emperor for clarifying that.
g_man – all the more reason to be skeptical of the final outcome! If so little effort has gone into the “design” of this public rollout, the odds are pretty good that the same level of effort will go into the final product. (As I said in a prior post, this is the most pathetic rendering I have every seen – and I’ve seen a lot of pathetic renderings. The whole thing sounds like a fishing expedition on the part of the Hall, and their bait stinks.)
That said, the design as presented in the public review is not binding – only the height, setbacks and other restrictions that are part of the zoning will be.
What does the current zoning allow? What are the changes that are sought? If a block of buildings along an expressway already has 8-story buildings (per one of the emails), why is 11 stories so egregious?
tybur6, ULURP applications seek a change to the zoning map or zoning text. What the building looks like isn’t directly relevant and even if the rendering is stunning, rarely gets codified in the decision.
or rather “ITBY”
@kensigton lite: Yes, some are NIMBYs because they the Hall’s hotel would be IMBYs.