Community Forum for Extell's Riverside Center

New York Times & Co Snooze while Extell Advances

A new post has appeared on Marta Hallowell's Huffington Post blog pointing out the massive silence accompanying the massive Riverside South/Riverside Center on Manhattan's West Side. 

A simple layperson might think the subject would merit some interest from the mainstream media. It's got all the elements, including:

• Financing from the Carlyle Group, the prominent private equity firm involved in the New York State Pension Fund influence-buying scandal.
• A developer, Extell Development Corp., which is trying to build way more than the legally binding limits attached to the property permit.
• A plan by a starchitect that violates long-standing City Planning guidelines.

• The opposition of numerous community groups, Community Board 7, and various elected officials.

But what do I know? I'm just a layperson...

UPDATE: Other stories in local on-line media:

dnainfo.com

Curbed

WestSide Independent

Extell, Riverside Center Revisions and Plumes

As we have heard, Extell is revising their plans to account for the plume of exhaust coming from the adjacent IRT Powerhouse, currently owned and operated by Con Ed as a steam generating plant. But something is wrong. There must be something else going on here. The revisions they made supposedly to account for exhaust plumes don’t make any kind of sense. They don’t avoid the plumes you actually see coming out of the smokestacks.

The Powerhouse has one giant, highly visible exhaust stack. It also has several short exhaust stacks, extending just a story or so above the roof line of the building, which is less than ten stories tall. Here is the problem, which anyone who visits the area can see for themselves:

The giant stack almost never has anything coming out of it, while the short stacks frequently have lots of visible exhaust coming out of them.

Here you can see a picture of the Powerhouse that shows its single massive tower (click on the picture to enlarge it):

If you look at this picture, you will notice nothing coming out of the top of the big smokestack, but if you follow it down to the base of the tower, you will notice a short smokestack silhouetted against it with a clear, wind-driven plume going up and to the left.

There are also a handful of short smokestacks along the valley in the center of the building, not visible in the above picture. They are just past the roof line you can see. They also emit visible exhaust.

If Extell were required to re-design their buildings to account for plumes coming from the Powerhouse, wouldn’t it make sense for the adjustment to account for the smokestacks that actually have smoke coming out of them? Wouldn’t you think they would put a park between the Powerhouse and the new buildings, as RSPC has proposed, or at least a smaller, truly public park next to the Powerhouse as proposed (separately, and with differences) by the Coalition for a Livable West Side and the consultants to CB7? How exactly is making giant buildings immediately next to the short smokestacks of the Powerhouse supposed to be protecting the public?

Do I know exactly what is coming out of those smokestacks? Of course not. It could be anything, including something completely innocent. If you think it's easy to just ask Con Ed and they'll tell you, I suggest you try it and see if you have better luck than I did. It would sure be nice if there were some transparency here, on all fronts.

Extell's Revised Plans for Riverside Center

Extell presented their revised plans for their massive Riverside Center development (on the southern end of the Riverside South development in Manhattan) at yesterday's Community Board 7 meeting.

Extell showed a new model of the planned development. The new plans fail to address any of the outstanding issues with the prior plans. The new model is just as massive as the old one, with the same number of residential units and the same trampling on the legally binding Restrictive Declaration.

As I speculated prior to the plans being unveiled, Extell simply re-arranged the space allocation on the existing footprint, making the buildings more squat (and in the opinion of several attendees, more ugly), reducing the height of the buildings on the riverfront side while increasing the height along West End Avenue.

It was announced that the ULURP process would begin in April.

CB7 has done some more work on this project, and you can see the results on the relevant part of the CB7 website. The key new items (listed on the site) are

• Core Principles and Key Recommendations, Feb 4, 2010.
• Letter to City Planning, Feb 7, 2010.

The recommendations are generally consistent with prior views of CB7, including:

• Reducing overall density by at least 20%
• Reducing the height of the buildings
• Increase public open space
• A variety of suggestions to improve environmental impact and human usability

Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer attended most of the meeting. Thank you for attending, Ms. Brewer.

RSPC: Great New Info about Riverside South and Extell

We have written about the Riverside South Planning Corporation before, most recently about how the courts have recently upheld their role (or at least someone's role) in overseeing the Riverside South Development, and assuring that the developer meets its obligations.

They have made excellent proposals about developing the site. Here's a sample:

Now, they have dramatically enhanced their site, putting up a real treasure trove of relevant documents about the whole project. This is a real public service!

The current developer, Extell, is simply ignoring the relevant legal agreements. Now anyone can see the history for themselves, thanks to RSPC. There is no excuse for this project proceeding unchecked. Where are the public agencies and officials who are supposed to protect our interests, not to mention enforce the law? I can only hope that they are waiting for the right time, before the project gets underway.

Extell's Partner Carlyle Group Part of $120M of I'm Sorry to NY

The guilty pleas continue to dribble out about influence peddling at the $129 Billion New York State Pension Fund. You remember -- that's the scandal in which "Investment companies, including prominent firms like the Carlyle Group, have paid $120 million in settlements with Mr. Cuomo’s office and agreed to change their practices."

"In State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Loglisci described a “culture of corruption”...

"When Mr. Morris and Mr. Loglisci were indicted nearly a year ago, Mr. Cuomo’s office accused Mr. Morris of having positioned himself as a gatekeeper, controlling access to about $10 billion in pension assets that were to be invested in hedge funds and private equity firms. Mr. Loglisci said Wednesday in court that Mr. Morris used his control over the pension fund to secure campaign contributions from investment firms."

The story is simple: private equity funds, Carlyle Group among them, made campaign contributions in exchange for the State Pension Fund making investments in the funds, investments which are lucrative to the funds regardless of how things turn out for the State of New York and its pensioners.

That's the way the Carlyle Group acted, and the tens of millions they paid to say "I'm sorry" confirms their role in what a participant described as a "culture of corruption." They get what they want, and they're used to paying for it.

Extell isn't exactly shy about getting what it wants either. It has quite a staff of lobbyists and others to help clear the way for them. Is everything on the up-and-up about Riverside Center?

• Why are things going ahead when Extell is being probed over their conduct at other buildings in the same Riverside South development?
• Why is Extell being permitted to proceed with plans that so clearly violate earlier legal agreements, agreements whose validity has been upheld by the courts and affirmed by public officials?
• Why is Extell being permitted to proceed with plans that are clearly in violation of City policies and based on bogus calculations?

While it's nice that the buildings may be a little less high, it really is a minor accommodation. It doesn't make a dent in the potential huge profits, or constitute a real re-design.

Extell Revises Plans for Riverside Center

We had heard rumors for some time that Extell's plans for gigantic buildings in its planned Riverside Center development were threatened by the plumes from the Con Edison steam plant that is adjacent to the site. Now we know that there was something to the rumors.

I'm no expert in building, but anyone who looks at the site with the tall smokestack right next door ... why would you even think of building really tall buildings right next to the smoke stack of a working power plant? I guess that's what happens when you're Extell and used to getting your way, and you're backed by the Carlyle Group's billions of dollars. You just plow ahead and assume that the "common people" will make way; after all, they usually do.

The wonderful people at the Coalition for a Livable West Side put out a notice saying that, prodded by the Coalition, City Planning talked with Extell about the plume problem, and Extell has actually responded by revising their plans, reducing (so it is said) the planned height of some of the buildings!

Based on Extell's track record of building as much as they possibly can, it's hard to believe that they will actually reduce the total planned floor space. The space chopped off from the tops of buildings may well show up again lower down.

That is the purpose of a meeting at 6:30pm on Wednesday March 17 at Community Board 7, 250 West 87th St (between Broadway and WEA). Extell will be there, and will show its revised plan. The public (that means you!) is welcome to attend. Please do, and post your reactions as comments.

HUD Probes Extell: the Comments

My previous post describes a HUD probe (finally!) into Extell's truly outrageous behavior regarding the Rushmore development in Riverside South, the same general area in which they currently are seeking City permission to build Riverside Center.

The original article on which the post was based appeared in the Real Deal on Feb 4. Last time I looked, a total of 42 comments had already been made, a HUGE number on an article of such narrow interest. Apparently there is a deep vein of feeling on this subject, which under the circumstances is completely understandable. Many of the comments are understandably cynical and negative, and a few are obvious, pathetic attempts to cover itself by Extell. Here are a couple samples, but by all means, scan them all yourself:

If you take a close look at Extell and the people that run the place ------Gary Barnett, Raizy Haas (preceded by Lela Goren), is it any wonder that an underhanded event took place...

Can anyone say tip of the iceberg?

I wonder how long it will take the AG to fail a decision. So far they have been very lenient with Extell....

Andrew Cuomo gets over $100K for his political campaign from Extel, of course he is going to be lenient.

How come The Carlyle Group was left out of all this? They're the co-sponsor and big money behind everything, right?

HUD Probes Extell over Riverside South Development

Gary Barnett's Extell Development Corporation (with their backers, the Carlyle Group) are in the middle of a major push to develop two whole blocks of prime land adjacent to the Hudson River. It is the last major undeveloped portion of the Riverside South tract. They call their development Riverside Center. While the design has some attractive aspects, it violates basic tenets adhered to by City Planning and the terms of the agreement with the community that is legally attached to the land.

Before New York officials cave in to the pressure that Extell must be exerting on them to break the rules and let Extell build the development as proposed, wouldn't it be wise to consider what kind of developer Extell is? How have their other developments worked out? Do they play by the rules, or do they throw money around to persuade officials to violate them for the benefit of Extell and its investors?

An amazing article appeared a couple days ago that reveals that HUD is probing Extell's handling of one of their other buildings on the RIverside South site, the Rushmore.

(Pictured above are AG Andrew Cuomo, HUD Sec'y Donovan, and the Rushmore.)

Here is the opening of the article:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has launched an investigation into the Rushmore condominium, amid allegations that the lawyers for the developer, Extell Development, held previously undisclosed meetings with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office to prevent existing buyers from backing out of their apartment contracts.

Please read the whole article. Before you make any decisions permitting Extell to start a new development that, even from the beginning, violates many agreements and principles, please, NYC officials, consider the whole picture!

Elected Officials Attend CB 7 Meeting on Riverside Center

We were pleased to see that time and attention that key elected officials are giving to Extell's Riverside Center project.

Councilwoman Gale Brewer attended most of the meeting, and paid close attention to the many views expressed.

NYS Senator Tom Duane attended, in spite of a very bandaged thumb. He had to leave after awhile, but a couple of his assistants stayed for the meeting, paying attention and taking notes.

While NYS Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal couldn't attend personally, I met Lindsey Allison, her chief of staff, who attended most of the meeting with another member of staff.

The issues with this development are plain, and laid out in earlier posts in this blog. They include:

• Keeping to the density limits of the Restrictive Declaration, which is still in force.
• Extell plays games with density calculation.
• The plans violate long-standing city policies.
• Extell plans a discredited towers-in-a-park design concept by a celebrity architect.

Thank you! We appreciate it! We'll remember!

A Sanitation Garage (and Park) for Riverside Center

Michael Kramer came to the recent CB 7 meeting on Riverside Center and made a compelling presentation for an underground sanitation garage. Here is the main part of his presentation (click to enlarge):

For more information, please contact Michael Kramer, CB7garage@earthlink.net.

Meeting about Extell's Riverside Center

Park River Independent Democrats Presents

Riverside Center

(59^th to 61^st Streets at the Westside Highway)

 

Another Mega-Development Proposed for the Westside

What can the community do about it?

Meeting: January 21, 2010, 7 PM

Speakers:

Shelly Fine, former Chair of Community Board 7

Ethel Sheffer, former Chair of Community Board 7

 

Schwab House, 258 West End Avenue, (73^rd and 74^th Streets)

Refreshments to be served

Extell Breaks its Deal with the Upper West Side

A wonderful post appeared in Marta Hallowell's Huffington Post blog concerning Extell and the Riverside South/Center project.

The post is here -- please read it!

Among the things she talks about are:

The developer Extell is quietly pushing for big changes to its Riverside Center project ... any future construction was bound by a Restrictive Declaration ...  Now, after half the project is already built, Extell is trying to get out of the Restrictive Declaration. ... the Restrictive Declaration limits the developer to build no more than an additional 2.4 million sq. ft. But Extell is pushing for a variance to increase that amount to 3.1 million sq. ft.

Read her blog to understand where the above picture comes in!

CB 7 Riverside Center Meeting on Extell

There will be a meeting of CB 7's Riverside Center Working Group this Wednesday, January 13, at 6:30pm at their offices, 250 West 87th St, Manhattan, second floor. It's easy to get to, right by the stop of the #1 subway.

Please come! Why? If you're interested in Extell's plans for what they call Riverside Center, that's what the meeting is all about.

According to an e-mail I got from the Coalition for a Livable West Side, here is the meeting agenda:

1.      Anticipated certification and ULURP schedule

 

2.      Follow-up on CB7 consultants' report and meetings with Extell

 

3.      Review of major recommendations and priorities  on density, zoning, open space, site plan

 

4.      CB7 Committee assignments on housing, school, transportation

 

5.      Retail survey report

Hope to see you there!

Where is the Riverside South Implementation Task Force?

In a previous post, I referred to a decision issued November 24, 2009 by the New York court of appeals affirming that Extell and all its successors are bound by the terms of the 1992 Restrictive declaration. This decision also provided for monitoring compliance by the developer (in this case Extell), but there is no body that is currently empowered to perform this essential function!

The body that had been performing the monitoring and compliance function was the Riverside South Planning Corporation, RSPC. This role of RSPC was established in a four page Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was not part of the Restrictive Declaration. The MOU had a sunset clause, and the court ruled that the MOU has expired, and that therefore Extell has no obligation to RSPC.

The court went out of its way to explicitly affirm the fact that the Restrictive Declaration remains in force without sunset and without limit, "binding all successors for all time -- including Extell."

In a footnote, the court describes how the Declaration would be monitored:

Under the Restrictive Declaration, the developer's
compliance with the plan is monitored by the Riverside South
Implementation Task Force, which consists of a representative of
the Mayor's office of Construction, the Director of the
Department of City Planning, another Mayoral appointee (a
Commissioner of an agency, at the election of the Mayor) and two
appointees of the Speaker of the State Assembly.

Where is the "Riverside South Implementation Task Force" today?

It appears that the RSPC was intended to play that role, but now that the court has ruled the original agreement empowering it is no longer in force, some entity (perhaps a revised or reconstituted RSPC!) needs to be empowered to play the role of monitoring Riverside South implementation.

Extell, the Carlyle Group and their lawyers know all this, of course. They know the terms of the Restrictive Declaration. They know it calls for oversight. They know the RSPC was set up to provide that oversight. When they discovered that the side letter establishing RSPC as the entity to provide that oversight had expired, the right thing to do is simple -- sign a new letter with RSPC. Instead, they shut out RSPC and said, in effect, that they could live without oversight just fine, thank you.

What they're banking on is that the Mayor and everyone else empowered by the document to appoint the overseeing Task Force will simply let the matter slide. And so far, they're getting away with it. 

Mr. Mayor? Director of City Planning? Speaker of the State Assembly? Will you please remedy this situation?

Court: Restrictive Declaration Applies to Extell

In a decision issued November 24, 2009,the New York court of appeals affirmed that Extell and all its successors are bound by the terms of the 1992 Restrictive declaration. This is an important decision because it limits the extent of what Extell can build on the property to limits agreed to with the community.

The suit was brought by the Riverside South Planning Corporation, RSPC, against Extell and the Carlyle Group, the current developers of Riverside South and RIverside Center. RSPC sued Extell and Carlyle to cooperate with RSPC per the terms of prior agreements. It lost, and appealed. On November 24, 2009, the appeals court issued its decision, affirming the lower court's rejection of RSPC's claims.

The decision was focused on a clause in a separate Letter Agreement. The court said:

In this breach of contract case, we are asked to
determine the scope of a sunset clause that appears in a 1993
Letter Agreement relating to the development of a parcel of real
property.  ...we affirm the judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim.

This is not the decision RSPC wanted to get -- I don't yet know whether this will be the end of the matter. As readers of their website will know, they have some excellent ideas and proposals. And more than their ideas, someone needs to check what the developer is actually doing and make sure it conforms to the terms of the Restrictive Declaration.

However, the sunset clause in question is not in the Restrictive Declaration -- it's in a separate 4 page Letter Agreement specifically concerning the relationship between the developer and RSPC. However discouraging it may seem, this courtroom loss is limited to obligations Extell has to RSPC. It says nothing whatsoever about Extell's obligations to the community, as expressed in the 284 page Restrictive Declaration recorded with the New York City Register.

The court's opinion makes this very clear. Here is their description of the Restrictive Declaration:

...in 1992, formal approval was obtained from the City of New
York. Penn Yards recorded a 284-page Restrictive Declaration
with the New York City Register memorializing that approval.
Having been recorded in the chain of title, the declaration
imposed numerous restrictions on the owner that would run with
the land and bind any developer as well as any successors or assignees.

This court case is not about the Restrictive Declaration, but about a later short agreement between Trump and the RSPC.

On March 31, 1993, Donald Trump entered into a four page
Letter Agreement with the RSPC to "confirm our arrangement
to continue working together."

The cornerstone of the case concerns a sunset clause:

Most relevant to this case, a sunset provision was
included on the third page of the four-page Letter Agreement

It was the sunset clause in the 4 page Agreement that was the subject of the suit lost on appeal by RSPC, not the Restrictive Declaration. So that there may be no doubt about that, the court went out of its way to explicitly affirm the fact that the Restrictive Declaration remains in force without sunset and without limit, "binding all successors for all time -- including Extell." Here is the language:

We further note
that RSPC succeeded in negotiating a Development Plan that
incorporated environmental sustainability and design criteria
and, unlike the Letter Agreement, such plan is part of the
Restrictive Declaration that is recorded in the chain of title
and runs with the land, binding all successors for all time --
including Extell. Nothing we decide today allows Extell to
unravel that significant accomplishment of the RSPC.

In summary:

• On November 24, 2009, the appeals court affirmed that Extell is not required to interact with RSPC under the terms of the 1993 letter agreement.
• The court affirmed that Extell and all its successors are bound by the terms of the Restrictive Declaration.

Footnote: What should Extell have done? Continued to cooperate with RSPC, and signed an agreement extending their relationship. It would have been a real demonstration of ethical behavior, and would have been most welcome.

Riverside South, Extell, ULURP and the City Council

Recent events have reminded us that the New York City Council has the power to stop development projects it doesn't want to see go forward. That is a hurdle that Extell and its financial backers, the Carlyle Group, will have to pass with their proposal for the completion of the Riverside South project in Manhattan. Currently they are on a collision course, with Extell demanding a dramatic increase to the legally recorded limits, and with the City Council having complete power to just say no. Which, given the history of the project and the size of the proposal, it should!

The City Council gets its power from being a key step in the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP). Following is the City's diagram of just part of the process, the one relevant to recent events (click to enlarge):

You can see that, after City Planning Commission approves, the City Council can then shut down the project, essentially just because they want to. The mayor has the power to veto -- but then the Council can override the Mayor's veto.

All of which just happened with the Kingsbridge Amory project in the Bronx.

First the Council rejected the plan; then the Mayor vetoed the rejection; and finally, just yesterday, the Council overrode the Mayor's veto. Many strong feelings were expressed, both against the Council's action and in favor of it. In other cases, of course, the Council endorses large projects, as they just did for the Related Companies huge development of the railyards near Penn Station.

In the case of Extell's Riverside South development, important politicians, including the local Councilwoman Gale Brewer, have gone on record supporting the existing limits that Extell is trying to exceed. Let's hope that, when the time comes, they exercise the power they so clearly have.

Community Group: Extell Must Honor Restrictive Declaration

The Committee for Environmentally Sound Development has been working to "end endless growth" for at least the last 17 years. They just issued their December, 2009 newsletter, and devote a good portion of it to the southern portion of the Riverside South development.

The article provides a sound analysis of the current situation.

After reviewing the background, including the 1992 Restrictive Declaration that limits development on the site, the newsletter says:

It is south of 61st Street that the developer Extell wants to deviate from the 1992 agreement in order to increase density. Considering that the 1992 agreement was overly generous to development at the expense of park area this request should be unequivocally denied.

While agreeing (as everyone does) that the original plans calling for a TV studio need to be changed, the newsletter points out that:

A substitute is necessary that is not residential housing. ... The lot at 59th and West End Avenue is directly above the Amtrak Railroad and a station at that point would add to our mass transit capabilities. A ferry terminal at 59th Street and the Hudson River would encourage New Jersey residents to commute by boat instead of cars. Placing a park between these two facilities would be a delight for the neighborhood. ... the west end of the lot [could] be used as a garage for the Sanitation Department ... with a park above.

The article concludes:

If Extell can not be persuaded to adhere to the square footage set in the 1992 Agreement, then the need is great enough for the City to use the power of eminent domain to obtain this last bit of undeveloped space for a public purpose.

You can contact the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development at 212 877 4394 or Elfreud@aol.com. Consider sending a donation to support their work. The address is PO Box 20464, Columbus Circle Station, New York, NY 10023-2678.

Elected Officials Say the Restrictive Declaration Is In Force

Since 1992, the developer of Riverside South has been bound by a Restrictive declaration. In December 2008, our elected officials wrote a letter that states that the Restrictive Declaration is still in force. When push comes to shove, we hope they will maintain this position.

The letter was to the New York City Commissioner of Parks and Recreation. The main subject was the park on Riverside South, but in the course of discussing the issue at hand, they state that the 1992 Restrictive Declaration still controls the development that can take place on the property.

The effectiveness of the Restrictive Declaration is important because Extell, the current developer, is trying to put up buildings that way exceed the limits in the declaration, and is in other ways evading controls and limits that have been in force for nearly 20 years. Here is a post that goes into the subject in more detail.

Here is the header of the letter:

Here is the key sentence:

Here are the signatures:

 

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Senator Thomas Duane, Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, and Councilwoman Gale Brewer: THANK YOU for standing up for us and confirming that Extell is still bound by the terms of the 1992 Restrictive Declaration. Extell is currently preparing plans that go way beyond the limits of that declaration in terms of density and other factors. When the time comes to act, we hope you, along with Amanda Burden, the head of City Planning, will put a stop to this excessive development.

Ask Mayor Bloomberg, the Milsteins, NYDS and Hudson Rise How to Pay for a Park

How can a park for Riverside Center be paid for? Ask the NYC Sanitation Dept., Mayor Bloomberg, HUD and the Paul & Irma Milstein Foundation.We all are longing to see a lush, green park as part of the Riverside Center development. But the realists out there want to know: how can it be paid for? There are many ways in which a park can be supported, just look around.

The NY Department of Sanitation is currently obliged to to garage our community’s sanitation trucks (CB7) in a CB4 location, because there is no room for them in our neighborhood. The lower west side has a problem with that. NYDS wants to have space designed for the CB7 trucks underneath the Extell development, where a car dealership is currently planned. They are willing to pay $384 per sq. ft. which is a good  price in today’s real estate market. The Sanitation Department has also indicated their willingness to green district garages with LEED certified standards and roof top parks. Voile. New park paid for.  To see a more thorough discussion of this, please refer to this document by Michael Kramer. (And thank you Michael for making us aware of this issue).

Also take a look at this ad by the Hudson Rise group for a fund-raising party, using some of the nabe’s celebrities as spokespersons (Kirsten Dunst, Lou Reed, William Thompson, etc).... Another idea to explore.

Readers should also be aware that yet another new park was recently formed in Tribeca. Here is a photo:

It was paid for in part by HUD money granted to refurbish lower Manhattan after the 9/11 attack, but  the Paul and Irma Milstein Foundation also contributed $500,000 for its construction, and $556,000 was contributed by the Office of the Mayor.

Funding a park can be done, my dear Riversidecentrics, we just need to be patient and find a way.

This was written by Marta Hallowell.

Extell, Riverside Center and the Restrictive Declaration

Gary Barnett's Extell Development and their financial partners for Riverside South, the Carlyle Group, are proposing a development they call Riverside Center (sites L, M and N of Riverside South) that exceeds the limits set by the Restrictive Declaration governing development on the property. In total, they are asking for more than a 30% increase in the already-too-large limits they have.

Community Board 7 has done an analysis of the differences and made them available. The full document is on-line.

The first and most important number is Total Square Footage.

• Original: 2.37 million Square Feet
• Proposed: 3.1 million Square Feet
• Difference: + 730,000 Square Feet

One of the most interesting things we have learned recently, from the Coalition for a Livable West Side, is that space was "borrowed" from the allocations for sites L, M and N and used for other buildings in Riverside South! This is a legitimate practice, but only if you subtract the space you've used from the original allocation, which does not appear to have been done in this case.We hope to make this analysis available soon.

The other dramatic change is in Residential Square Footage.

• Original: 572,192 Square Feet
• Proposed: 2.55 million Square Feet
• Difference: + 1,977,808 Square Feet

What this amounts to that they want to build about 2,500 condos in the small two block area, using a design from a famous architect but a design that is nonetheless seriously flawed. In addition, they want to build a hotel, a car dealership and 1,057 more parking spaces than were originally allotted. Too much!

Extell Avoids a Landmark, Sells to Abu Dhabi

Shortly after Extell got the City Landmarks Preservation Commission to not declare a key piece of property a landmark for its giant project across from Carnegie Hall, it sells a majority share to the investment arm of the Abu Dhabi government.

The New York Times has details of the highly politicized landmarks issue. A couple highlights:

Last week the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 6 to 3 to give landmark protection to the 100-year-old B. F. Goodrich tire company building on Broadway just north of 57th Street, but not to a connected building around the corner designed by the same architect at the same time. Some commission members on both sides of that unusual divided vote cried foul, complaining that politics played an inappropriate role.

In the 2009 election cycle, Extell made campagn contributions to three of the four councilmembers who questioned the designation of both buildings, as well as to other councilmembers.

The three members of the commission who voted no to landmarking one building without the other contended that both were architecturally or historically important and should not be separated. One of them, Roberta Brandes Gratz, said in an interview that she also objected to what she saw as political pressure. “Intimidation by the City Council should not have an impact on our votes,” she said.

The National paper of Abu Dhabi has the details on the investment. Here are a couple highlights:

Aabar Investment, a company controlled by the Abu Dhabi Government, is helping fund the development of a 73-storey luxury apartment building and hotel in New York City.

Khadem al Qubaisi, the chairman of Aabar, confirmed the company had paid Extell Development for a majority stake in a project rising at 157 West 57th Street in Manhattan, just a block away from Central Park and next door to Essex House, a hotel owned by the Jumeirah Group of Dubai.

[Extell's president Gary Barnett said] "We’ve seen residential buildings selling at between $5,000 and $6,000 a square foot. Even with the current market still slow, we think it will do extremely well when it is finished.”

It appears that Extell likes its financial partners to be big and international in scope: Abu Dhabi in this case, the Carlyle Group in the case of Riverside Center.

How Much Money will Extell Collect from the IRS?

Extell, along with other companies that contributed to the real estate bubble, could collect a huge amount of money in tax refunds from the IRS under new legislation that was signed into law by President Obama.

The legislation is a give-away of previously-collected taxes to companies that are doing just fine. Nationwide, the total in tax refunds to corporations like Extell under the new law is estimated at over $30B. Will Extell use the windfall it is likely to get to give something to the community, or at least stand by its commitments?

Here are some of the highlights from the New York Times article on the subject:

But tucked inside the law was another prize: a tax break that lets big companies offset losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against profits booked as far back as 2004. The tax cuts will generate corporate refunds or relief worth about $33 billion, according to an administration estimate.

Before the bill became law, the so-called look-back on losses was limited to small businesses and could be used to counterbalance just two years of profits. Now the profit offset goes back five years, and the law allows big companies to take advantage of it, too...

Among the biggest beneficiaries are home builders, analysts say. Once again, at the front of the government assistance line, stand some of the very companies that contributed mightily to the credit crisis by building and financing too many homes.

Pretending to promote job creation, the government is dispensing cash to companies that either do not need it or need it precisely because they didn’t run their businesses prudently. Isn’t there something wrong with that picture?

Extell's finances are not a matter of public record, so it's hard to know what the story really is. But the rules under the new law are clear: if Extell incurred losses during 2009 (which seems reasonable given their continuing construction, the slow-down in sales and Mr. Barnett's personal default on a loan), they will be eligible to get refunds of income tax they paid in past years on past profits -- in other words, the government will send Extell a check to make up for their losses. Amazing.

When Extell took over the Riverside South development, they knowingly inherited a deal with the community from their predecessors. By conforming to the limits of that deal, Extell stands to make $1.5 Billion in profit (not revenue -- profit!). But that's not good enough for them. Extell is denying the deal still restricts them, and is applying to City agencies for an increase in the footage they can build. An increase of about 700,000 square feet, which would result in additional profit of over $500,000,000.

The US government has just passed a sweetheart deal for companies like Extell that will be paid for by ordinary taxpayers.  Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Burden, Councilwoman Brewer, Councilwoman Quinn, please stand up for ordinary New Yorkers. Don't give Extell yet another gift by allowing them to violate the terms of their agreement with the community.

Another Comparison, and One to Make Your Mouth Water

Another alternative plan for the development of lots L, M and N on Riverside South has been put forward by the Riverside South Planning Corporation, which began as a coalition of non-profits including the Natural Resources Defense Council, in 1992. They are the 3^rd party in the 1992 Restrictive Declaration, along with City and Donald Trump (binding to Trump’s successors, currently Extell).

See the picture for a loose idea of what they envision.

As many of you know, the Hudson Powerhouse (sometimes called the IRT Powerhouse) is up for designation by the Landmarks Commission. It is a truly remarkable building, designed by McKim, Meade and White. Our sources say that there is very serious interest in acquiring the landmarked building for use as space for a community cultural center. (Only a small portion of the interior is still used by Con Edison.) There are comparable centers around the world. In Paris the Musee d’Orsay was formed out of an elegant old train station. In London the Tate Modern was formed from an old power station, one nowhere near as pretty as our own! Such spaces capture the flavor and essence of a certain period of history of the cities they represent, and make truly special cultural centers.

However, the Powerhouse would be best appreciated if there were a broad park across the street from it, thus affording a view of its length and height. The next time you walk down West End Avenue, try to picture how grand the Powerhouse would look, without the double deck of parked cars in the parking lot blocking your view. Picture it bordered by a park instead! Imagine the park as a place for people visiting something like a museum to rest after a few hours of walking and for the neighborhood to enjoy as well. Notice the long, wide sidewalk in RSPC’s plan, between the park and next to the buildings that would be permitted, and imagine the vibrant retail scene that would thrive there. The park could connect to Riverside Park South through a well-landscaped and well-lit space beneath the Miller Highway, or it could connect by being elevated over the submerged highway, another suggestion of the RSPC plan.

    The RSPC plans specifies that Extell must be held to the 2.4M square feet they were granted in the ’92 Restrictive Declaration, which would fit on the land remaining after mapping out the park. So there you have a basic strategy. A cultural center, alongside great retail; a gorgeous sunny park on one of the last wide open spaces in New York; and a limited amount of new residential development. We’ll talk more about this strategy in our next post.

This was written by Marta Hallowell.

Extell Promotes a Park, Then Changes the Subject

 

Extell spent time and money promoting a vision of Riverside South that included a full-block park adjacent to the IRT Powerhouse, similar to the one supported by RSPC. That park is now null and void, and Extell is trying to make the whole subject disappear.

Here is the story.

In 2007, Extell distributed a magazine and had a website that promoted their vision for the Riverside South development. Here is one of the pages, scanned from a personal copy (click to expand):

The picture shows a block-long park bordering the IRT Powerhouse at the southern edge of the development. Here is a blow-up of the part of the page showing the park to the north (left) of the IRT Powerhouse:

Extell no longer talks about this sensible, attractive park, and instead proposes to build a huge development (5 tall buildings comprising over 3 million square feet) that violates the agreements they inherited when they acquired the property.

Alternatives to the Extell Plan for Riverside Center

You have seen CB7’s alternative plans by now:

and you’ve seen the Coalition for a Livable West Side’s alternative plan:

Let’s do a comparison.

                The Coalition’s plans were developed by Craig Whitaker, a well respected and well known New York architect. Whitaker points out that America is a “front door” society: we greet guests at the front door, we put the holiday directions at the front door, etc. That’s where our public face is. The back door opens to more private functions, the trash pick-up, the recycling collection, the family’s casual hangout area. People are not accustomed to entering through someone’s back yard, back door, or something that feels like an alley. So retail establishments and restaurants that don’t have a front door on a good street don’t do well.

                This is why Extell’s plan and CB7’s alternative plans are likely to deliver a moribund retail community. Most of the businesses in it would face inward, toward the water feature and the center of the development. Bottom line: people won’t go back there. They won’t see it. And it will be in the shadows of the massive buildings surrounding it, making it even more unwelcoming.

                We all know that this neighborhood needs some retail, some culture, some restaurants, some mom-and-pop shops etc. to come to life.

                Mr. Whitaker's version offers 4 buildings in the corners of the site, apparently surrounded by public streets, with a north-south running park dividing them. Because of the streets, there is an improvement in terms of providing retail with more “front doors” to draw community in. But the park feels private rather than public. Mr. Whitaker even recommends that Extell raise money to maintain the park from the tenants of the buildings surrounding it, along the lines of Gramercy Park. The logical extension would be to surround the park with a fence and give the residents keys, as they do at Gramercy Park. Furthermore, the park will still be in dense shade for most of the day, giving it a hidden and unwelcoming feeling.

                City Planning prefers parks that expand along the south end of blocks, so that they can capture more sun, pleasing both to people and plants.

So although good thinking has gone into the Coalition’s alternative plan in terms of how the community would actually interact with the design, it still doesn’t deliver what most people want in a public park.

 Stay tuned for a discussion of another alternative plan that offers just that.

This was written by Marta Hallowell.

Extell Gets a Landmark Break

Here is some Extell news closely related to Riverside Center.

From Crane's New York:

"In surprise about-face, the Landmarks Preservation Commission votes to allow developer to raze building in order to make way for 1.5M-square-foot successor."

From the New York Times blog:

"The 6-to-3 vote by the commission represented an unusual instance of discord on the commission, which under the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has designated hundreds of new landmarks and created new historic districts but has still been accused of being too accommodating to developers and business interests."

This is relevant to Riverside Center because the adjacent IRT Powerhouse is getting close (we hope) to landmark status.

UPDATE: The Observer has a long and interesting article on this event. Here are a couple excerpts:

"The city's Landmarks Preservation Commission backed off its effort to landmark a B.F. Goodrich Company building on West 57th Street, a rare retreat by the commission and one that follows aggressive pushback from development giant Extell, which plans a mixed-use skyscraper on the property."

"I am appalled," Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, said after the vote. "I don't think that the Landmarks Commission should be considering such political features in the landmarking..."

Extell Erases History, Hopes No One Notices

What do you do when you want to overcome a past whose realities you don't like? Get a new name! Among other things, it helps you erase history.

The name Riverside South has been around for some time. But it was getting inconvenient for Extell.

Here is the background and a couple interesting facts:

• There are two related, registered domains: www.riverside-south.com and www.riverside-south.org.
• This same-name, different-extension structure is pretty common for related entities. If x.com is the commercial entity, x.org is the related non-profit.
• The names make perfect sense for related, cooperating entities: .com for the developer (Extell in this case) and .org for the non-profit charged with representing community interests and overseeing the development (RSPC, Riverside South Planning Corporation).

www.riverside-south.org goes to RSPC, as you would expect. What about Extell? If you Google "Extell Riverside South," you don't find Extell's site. As far as Extell is concerned "Riverside South" is history. Now it's "Riverside Center." Sure enough, if you Google "Extell Riverside Center," their site www.riversidecenternyc.com comes up first. What's this about?

Simple. Extell would rather that people not find out about RSPC.

But if Extell's internet name is essentially the same as RSPC's, the relationship will be easy to find and will raise questions. Extell would like to bury that piece of reality.

Here is the history of www.riverside-south.org:

• If you go the the internet wayback machine (which shows you what the internet looked like at various past times), you will discover that www.riverside-south.org goes all the way back to 2003.
• The 2003 version of riverside-south.org is just a COMING SOON announcement, although it provides a pretty good little summary of the situation.
• The COMING SOON announcement stayed essentially the same for years, until finally sometime after mid-2008, the current version of the site was put up.

It gets interesting when you do the same exercise for the commercial version of the domain, www.riverside-south.com:

• Past versions of riverside-south.com only seem to go back to mid-2007, according to the Wayback machine.
• I remember clearly seeing those versions. They were attractive depictions of the wonderful, natural environment of Riverside South, with sweeping vistas of parks, water and happy, relaxed people. There were even bird songs!
• OK, I saw them, now where are they?? Well, see for yourself -- they're gone, gone, gone! The inconvenient past has been erased. Wow.
• If anyone out there has some magic that can recover this bit of the past, please contact me.
• Here's a kicker: what does the domain get you now? Well, check it out here: www.riverside-south.com.
• If you get what I get, the www.riverside-south.com will be mapped to a subject Extell likes better, and you'll get to the main page advertising the Rushmore! You don't need to believe me -- try it, you'll see!
• The domain re-direction (you type in one domain but get to another) is the erasure of history. Extell wants everyone to think Riverside Center.

This erasure of the past corresponds directly to Extell's inheriting an obligation to work with the public, non-profit entity created to oversee the development of Riverside South, namely, the Riverside South Planning Corporation. Extell broke faith with its obligation to the public; it declared it would have nothing more to do with RSPC and its obligations under prior agreements. At some point, Extell  realized that having a domain that was the same as RSPC except for .org or .com could be really embarrassing, so it dropped the website so full of promises it had intention of delivering, and just mapped it to the Rushmore. That's it!

The Extell theory of history and morals: if you find something inconvenient, delete it, divorce it, change the name, erase the history, and declare vigorously (with lawyers and celebrity architects) your version of reality.

Extell's Sleight of Hand: No Public Streets

Extell (and their financial backers, the Carlyle Group) has some pretty simple goals with the "Riverside Center" development. These goals revolve around making money (surprise, surprise!). They already own the land. It's a fixed cost. The more they can build on the land, the more they can "spread out" the fixed cost of the land over the resulting units, and the more money they can make.

This makes perfect sense, and by itself, there's nothing wrong with it. Not a thing. Really! I'm not against making money, and I'm not against others making it. Money is a nice thing to have.

However, we all agree that there are limits. Robbing people is a way of making money, but it doesn't pass muster. Recent hedge fund problems have highlighted the various ways of making money by defrauding people, and we don't approve of those either.

It gets tricky when the money-maker tries to push the edges. Like when a bunch of toughs surround a person on a lonely street and "request a donation" in a menacing way. They may argue it isn't robbery, but how would you feel if they were surrounding you?

Extell is pushing the edges in its own way, with high-priced lawyers and sheer nerve. But they don't want to seem like that at all, so they direct our attention elsewhere. Their main way of doing that now is by using a celebrity architect to make a fancy design, a design that many people genuinely like -- but it's a ruse! Its purpose is to distract us from the facts, from the fact that Extell is trying to violate prior agreements and build far more than they are allowed to build according to prior agreements and current standards.

The Coalition for a Livable West Side recently sent a clarifying memo to CB7 about Extell's plan and their alternative proposal. Here is one of the Q&A's:

If the project's streets were mapped as public, would the allowable Floor Area be reduced?

Yes. This is why the developer wants to keep streets and driveways private.  If the site is one undivided parcel the developer claims that the Floor Area should be determined based on the square feet of the entire lot.  This seeming conundrum is sometimes solved by building streets and then deeding them to the public upon completion of the project.  The developer gets a greater number of square feet and the streets are public.  With the public streets shown in the Coalition for a Livable West Side plan even 2.4 million square feet would be too much.  Therefore, some process for transferring the streets to the public is necessary.

When you look at Extell's plan, you can't help but notice that it's a "towers in a park" plan with no public streets. Is this what genius architects do? Well, maybe, but the fact is, if Extell can count what would otherwise be a normal street as buildable land, then they can build more. But they couldn't help themselves from wanting even more, of course...

Extell's Riverside Center Violates City Policies

Community Board 7 commissioned a study on Extell's plans for Riverside South. Several posts in this blog provide the context.

When you glance at the report, it seems pretty mild-mannered -- and it is! It was written by professionals who did a careful job and present their results dispassionately. But the substance of the report is a devastating analysis of Extell's plans. Their report makes the role of the celebrity architect so clear: we are supposed to be so wowed by his non-rectilinear buildings and his prizes that we somehow don't notice all the things wrong with the design.

1. The proposed design is a "tower-in-the-park," which the "City Planning Commission has worked strenuously to eliminate."

2. The Extell plan claims to have lots and lots of open park space, but it's just not true. Instead, it has "...ambiguous open space which is not clearly delineated as either public or private space, but is in fact private space"

3. "Further, by turning its back on the landmark quality Con Edison Generating Plant, it renders the adaptive reuse of this monumental structure less desirable."

4. The retail uses are contrary to both common sense and public policy. The report says that Extell's plan for retail "...is contrary to City Planning policy"

5. Instead of public streets, the design calls for private spaces. Having public streets instead of private spaces "has been City policy for some time for waterfront and upland blocks."

6. In their greed for profits, Extell has designed a space without sunlight. The design results in "extensive shadowing of the superblock’s landscaped and sitting areas for a good part of the day."

7. The buildings are designed without setbacks, in violation of policies that go all the way back to 1916. The consequences include:

• "unpleasant pedestrian-level winds"
• "making the areas adjacent to the tall tower’s shear walls unusable and sometimes dangerous"
• "these shear building walls are intimidating and are contrary to the urban design convention"

8. The length of the walls violates long-standing City Planning regulations.

So let's sum up the analysis in plain language:

Extell's plan:

Violates long-standing City Planning Commission standards on several grounds.

Turns its back on the IRT Powerhouse.

Converts public space to private use.

Is bad for retail.

Creates a space that will be dark and dangerously windy.

What more do you need to know?

Celebrity Architect: Great for Extell, Bad for New York

Extell Development Corporation is pulling out all the stops in its effort to generate some mega-profits in these tough times. These profits hinge on getting permission from the City to violate the deal for the land they inherited when they bought it.

In addition to having a mercenary army of suits who attend community meetings, they decided some time ago that having a Pritzker Prize-winning celebrity architect design their monster project would distract people from noticing that it:

• Lacks schools for all the new families
• Has no true public space
• Violates past and current guidelines for density
• Detracts from the nearly-landmarked IRT Powerhouse next door.

Noticing that people weren't immediately demonstrating in favor of the project (to put it mildly), Extell decided to have their celebrity come to town and give a talk. Here is the report on the talk in The Architect's Newspaper. As the article says,"Portzamparc’s plan is already facing skepticism from locals, and not only because it is 800,000 square feet larger than previously allowed." However, the article is amazingly pro-Extell, quoting a CB 7 member who sounds favorable to the project, even while CB 7 as a group has gone on record with serious objections, in a letter to Amanda Burden, the head of the City Planning Commission dated January 14, 2009.

The meeting also got some attention in Curbed. The comments on the article are worth scanning. Here are a couple highlights from frequent commenters:

"The NIMBYs actually seem to get it right for once. Bravo to them. Portzamparc's towers in the (portzam?)park are DOA. They'll be litter-strewn, awkward barrenlands half of the year, just like the Frederick Douglass Houses they seem to be inspired by. I hope Extell/Christian pay attention to the NIMBYs this once."

"The Christian de Portzamparc plan is abominable, but the alternative ideas need more thought. ... But God forbid that Extell builds its proposed plan. That's the worst of the lot."