So in anticipation of the Stroller Mafia, PCVST had made it known that strollers would not be permitted on the Oval Lawn. Signs around the Oval, prominently displayed today, were also clear on this point:
So, what happens? Well, if you've been paying attention to what goes on around here, you realize that rules just don't mean what they say they mean. And strollers were parked all over...the Oval Lawn:
Public Safety was letting anyone in, with stroller or without. Gee, I wonder if the Stroller Mafia protested the "rule" and PS had to give way?
And in another attempt to pimp the property, PCVST has latched onto free T-shirt giveaways at these events, so people can become walking advertisements for PCVST and its events. The T-shirt promotes the "Roots & Rock Sessions" being held at the Oval Lawn throughout the summer. Information about the events being "For Residents and Their Guests" is conveniently missing. But you knew it would be.
Back
Front logo
Close-up of back
And they don't have the manpower to enforce THIS rule either! What a bunch of pansies. Adam Rose should be embarrassed. I am!
ReplyDeleteThe manpower was there, all over. But perhaps the will power was missing.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't present at the beginning, but I do wonder, as I stated in the post, whether the Stroller Mafia protested leaving their strollers unattended in the playgrounds, which is what the directions stated they should do. Or, it could be that there was no space for them in the playgrounds. Either way, this "rule" wasn't thought out well, the result being that it had to be dropped when faced with reality.
Is anything ever thought out well by Rose Associates? Why should they break with tradition?
ReplyDeleteI like the music and that it's a destination spot. Sorry.
ReplyDelete"I like the music and that it's a destination spot. Sorry."
ReplyDeleteSome people like ketchup sandwiches. What can I tell ya? Different tastes ....
5:57 obviously a Rose troll.
ReplyDeleteI would love one of those t-shirts. I could use it to wipe down my kitchen counters...
ReplyDeleteThe t shirts are pure cheese lol! Someone gets paid to regurgitate these old ideas?
ReplyDelete"You gotta love this place..."
ReplyDeleteI DO love this place!! It's wonderful!
Slowly we are loosing oval grass.
ReplyDeleteThe grass area was again move a few feet less (front of play ground 12) to give more space for the green market
& the dog sand box area.
Making space for a dog run?
It does seem like a ridiculous rule, plus some of those baby rides go for over $500.00. BTW if you had a motorcycle parked on 1st. Avenue loop, it's either gone or ticketed or both. The tow trucks were out, this has been a long time coming. Obey the parking regulations or else.
ReplyDeleteWhy is anyone who has something positive to say called a troll? I liked the concert and the music in general. I'm not a troll, just someone who happens to disagree with the old-timers who seem to hate just about everything.
ReplyDeleteJust curious - there are people with so much anger or maybe animosity is a much better word toward people with dogs. Would a dog run be a good solution to that? This way, most dogs will hang out there than walk around.
ReplyDeleteAt a party over the weekend someone asked me where I lived. I fibbed and told them Gramercy. I'm too embarrassed to tell people I live in Stuy Town. This is a perfect example. We have "award winning security" yet they can't corral strollers? Teenagers can coral strollers in theme parks but our security force isn't up to the task???
ReplyDelete>>the old-timers who seem to hate just about everything<<
ReplyDeleteJust a note that posts which state "old-timers" = "hate" are having a very hard time getting through here. It really is a stupid meme. Also posts that blatantly attack Adam Rose are also having a hard time getting through. Nothing is so black and white, please.
>>Would a dog run be a good solution to that? This way, most dogs will hang out there than walk around.<<
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a good solution. A dog run would mean that residents living around it would not get peace, and dog owners have every right to walk around the complex with their dog, and would still do so, irregardless of a dog run.
This is a RESIDENTIAL area!
ReplyDeleteWhat makes it so great to have bass-booming concerts here on a weekly basis?
Yesterday everything was calm and quiet in the Oval.
Then came 3pm.
I don't know if old timers = hate is the problem, but there is something about the negativity of this blog that definitely makes it seem like everyone here just hates the place. And that just makes everyone seem so curmudgeonly (hence, perhaps the old timers generalization). Not to mention, the degree of complaint--there's such angry vitriol in the language...
ReplyDeleteI don't see 3/4 of the problems you all do, or at least they don't bother me to the same extent or consider it much different than how this place always has been. A bit younger, for better or worse, but really, it's a delightful place to live even now.
It's a product of its creation--a moderate income, proletariat, not so fancy, bureaucratic, but oh, what a bargain/bang for your buck, compared to the rest of Manhattan/much of Brooklyn. I thank my lucky stars I live here and I just don't see enough reason to complain as much as it seems people (regardless of "age") like to here and on other blogs/pages re Stuytown.
Then you will be overjoyed at a blog post I will be writing about what I like/love about this place.
ReplyDelete"I don't know if old timers = hate is the problem, but there is something about the negativity of this blog that definitely makes it seem like everyone here just hates the place."
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a lifestyle blog or a newspaper. STR deals with Quality of Life issues. Issues that effect all of us. The complete and total lack of leadership needed to manage this place effects all of us and yes, it is infuriating at times.
Not to mention that people who LIVE , really live at gramercy and gramercy park, usually insult us stuytown pcv residents. Been this way for 10 + years.
ReplyDelete>Would a dog run be a good solution to that? This way, most dogs will hang out there than walk around.<<
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a good solution. A dog run would mean that residents living around it would not get peace, and dog owners have every right to walk around the complex with their dog, and would still do so, irregardless of a dog run.
Exactly correct STR. What kills me however, is how obviously correct you are. One of these geniuses wrote a letter to T&V last week also expressing a desire for a dog run. It's hard for me to imagine how completely separated from reality these proponents of dog runs
are.
Hey, I'm an "old timer" aged 65, lived here for over 30 years. I love living here, and I have nothing whatsoever against young people (was one once myself!). However, I am very dismayed by the downturn in the quality of life here. The garbage that seems to grow more and more and be dealt with in a less and less acceptable manner; the constant turnover of short-term tenants and some of the noise issues really are annoying. I miss the Oval as it was, but I don't feel I have any business complaining about it because I don't own the Oval (LOL!) so I just stay away from the Oval when the noisy concerts are on and keep my windows closed (because it is loud!) I think management needs to cut out the gimmicks and try to find a balance between the youngsters who live here, albeit short term, and those of us who call this HOME as in really it's our home! I love the dogs and enjoy meeting the dog owners who live in "my" building, but I know that some people are not happy around dogs. My young neighbors aren't bad at all and I can't really complain about them; some of them are friendly and some reserved, but I don't really care because I've got my own life and friends. I'd like to see a bit more courtesy from them, such as not littering the area just outside with cigarette butts and being so sloppy with the garbage chucked into the recycling area, but management needs to step up to the plate there and "educate" the new tenants about this kind of thing. I certainly don't think the kids mean any ill will when they do the things they do that annoy us older, long-term residents. I haven't encountered any that seemed mean or nasty in any way whatsoever. I think we could all get along fine if management would, as Marie said, show some leadership.
ReplyDeleteHow is wanting a dog run being separated from reality? It's separated from what you want, but it's not separated from what others want. It's not just your Stuytown anymore. If enough folks want a dog run, we'll likely get a dog run.
ReplyDelete"No, it's not a good solution. A dog run would mean that residents living around it would not get peace"
ReplyDeleteThough it's totally acceptable to allow kids to scream their bloody lungs in in playgrounds? I'll take a dog run over a playground ANY day!!!
>>How is wanting a dog run being separated from reality? It's separated from what you want, but it's not separated from what others want. It's not just your Stuytown anymore. If enough folks want a dog run, we'll likely get a dog run.<<
ReplyDeleteThen I propose we get one right near where you live.
The comments about the dog run vs. the screaming kids show both the schism between student tenants and long time residents, and also the incredibly poor decision that was made to allow dogs in ST/PCV.
ReplyDeleteWhen the complex was built, the original family dynamic was that (usually) one parent worked and the other stayed home to care for the kids. Nobody was around during the day studying or working from home, and the screaming kids bothered very few, and those that had issues would try to get apartments that were removed from the noise.
Now, there are many "adults" around during the day who need some peace and quiet, and are disturbed by both the noise from the playground AND those few dogs that do make a lot of noise.
Stuyvesant Town was not meant to be used as a dormitory. It was built to accommodate families with children and working people who had schedules that fit into the rhythm of the complex.
Don't blame anyone for these disruptions except Tishman Speyer for creating the problem, and Rose/CW for continuing it.
Re: dog run. If you look at the map of ST and PCV, you'll see that except for the center of the Oval, the grassy areas are close to the buildings, i.e., under someone's window. A bunch of dogs running around and barking is not what most of us want right under our windows (and I know because the lawn under mine was being abused for a while)--especially those who work at night and rest during the day or have babies or are sick or work at home. To anyone who thinks we need a dog run (and isn't willing to walk to Tompkins Square Park or Madison Square Park), I say, scout the property, find a suitable place, and poll the people who will live with the noise to see if they're cool with your plan. Then report back to us.
ReplyDeleteSTR--I don't even have a dog and I don't mind. What's the matter with a dog run--it's fun to watch the dogs play.
ReplyDelete"If enough folks want a dog run, we'll likely get a dog run"
ReplyDeleteTrue! if enough folks pay outlandish rents then the rules of civility don't apply any longer as well.
This used to be a nice place to live.
"Then I propose we get one right near where you live."
ReplyDeleteI propose we put it in his living room!
If you live in NYC and have a dog that needs to run, you bought the wrong dog.
Tishman Speyer gets so much hate here, which is understandable. But I'm surprised that Metlife comes out unscathed. After all, they sold for top buck to a buyer with virtually no experience in residential real estate. Surprise, surprise, it turned out very badly.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me Metlife threw Stuy Town under the bus to a much greater extent than the current villains. I hope they pay up on Roberts.
"Though it's totally acceptable to allow kids to scream their bloody lungs in in playgrounds? I'll take a dog run over a playground ANY day!!!"
ReplyDeleteSeriously? Were you an abused child?
To 450p
ReplyDeleteThen go over to Tompkins Sq Park or Madison Sq Park and watch all the cute dogs run.
Those dog runs are NOT in the middle of a residential area!
"How is wanting a dog run being separated from reality? It's separated from what you want, but it's not separated from what others want. It's not just your Stuytown anymore. If enough folks want a dog run, we'll likely get a dog run."
ReplyDelete"Though it's totally acceptable to allow kids to scream their bloody lungs in in playgrounds? I'll take a dog run over a playground ANY day!!!"
I'm going to be very statesman like in my response to these two posters. I will not say that you are self absorbed or stupid. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just speculate that there is obviously something wrong with your thought process. There is, I hate to break this to you, a difference between children and dogs. If a child on the playground isn't potty trained they would be wearing diapers. Unfortunately this isn't the case with dogs. For christ sake haven't you passed any of the dog runs in this neighborhood and smelled the stank coming from it? There are areas on the property now that smell like piss and that's without a concentrated dog area. I won't even get into the noise factor. I understand that this odor does not offend you and that you would welcome living around it, but are you able, on any level, to appreciate how some may be offended by it?
Someone mentioned not blaming anyone other than Tishman Speyer and to a large extent I agree. People who make absurd comments like this I suppose really shouldn't be held accountable for what they say. This is why the no dog rule for so many years was so important. Hopefully we could go bak to that some day and just grandfather in all the existing dogs. It would not be unprecedented. I say we take it to a vote!
If anyone here has been to an actual dog run like the one in TSP, it's pretty quiet. Not sure why people think dog runs are full of dogs barking at each other. They're quiter than the playgrounds.
ReplyDeleteAll the dog runs I've seen, including TSP, have a certain amount of barking. And, as someone mentioned, the smell....
ReplyDelete>>This is why the no dog rule for so many years was so important. Hopefully we could go bak to that some day and just grandfather in all the existing dogs. It would not be unprecedented.<<
ReplyDeleteI think this would be a tough, if not impossible, enforcement, given the size of PCVST. Public Safety would have to be continually checking registration tags, and not just in the Oval area. Plus, there's that city (?) rule that a dog owner can keep his/her dog if the landlord doesn't find out about the animal in a certain space of time.
I do think that, ultimately, something is going to have to give, because the way it's going, there will be more dogs as time goes on and greater dog problems. For one, there will be prospective tenants, with money, who will not want to rent here, or buy into the place, because of dogs. PCVST will become a haven for dog owners, and if you think you see a lot of dogs now, wait another five years.
But I don't see an easy solution.
Who doesn't want to rent or buy because of dogs? Every damn apartment in NYC has dogs, practically. Have you ever walked down Park avenue?
ReplyDeleteYou are projecting your old image of Stuytown onto the rest of the city, but that doesn't apply. Certainly not anymore.
I'm thinking it's probably best not to feed a troll. A twisted comment regarding kids and dogs is just twisted. Ignore the troll
ReplyDelete>>Every damn apartment in NYC has dogs, practically.<<
ReplyDeleteEvery damn apartment in NYC certainly does NOT have dogs. I guess you meant "apartment building," but that's not true, either.
Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't make me a troll. I live at 445 East 14th Street and overlook Playground 7. It's mostly used by men playing hockey until they closed Playground 10. Suddenly their was an influx of toddlers and small children. Screaming, fighting with each other, crying, all the things children do. Except their parents rarely intervened. They were obviously used the cacaphoney that comes with their children. One by one you'd hear the windows being slammed and the ACs being turned on to drown them out. And what would a shriek-fest be without cookies, half eaten bagels, and pizza crusts left on the benches and scattered on the ground. Classy moms!
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'd take a dog run over a playground any day. Regarding the smell, the TSP dog run has various shovels to pick up after dogs. The cans are changed very frequently and it doesn't stink. Thank you too for the assumption that all pet owners love the smell of urine and feces. You stay classy too.
Regarding rolling back the dog rule: I lived in a 160-unit coop that did exactly that, grandfathering the existing dogs. Then the dog owners insisted that they be able to continue to have dogs once his/her pet died, as this is the reason they bought in the building. OK. But then many non-dog owners said they bought in the building because they MIGHT want to have a dog some day.
ReplyDeleteLong story short, dog ban was rejected. I think this is a typical story.
>>I live at 445 East 14th Street and overlook Playground 7. It's mostly used by men playing hockey until they closed Playground 10. Suddenly their was an influx of toddlers and small children. Screaming, fighting with each other, crying, all the things children do. Except their parents rarely intervened.<<
ReplyDeleteIs there any way of you knowing if these are Stuy Town parents?
A dog run? What could possibly go wrong? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120613/financial-district/pet-owners-pooh-pooh-dirty-new-east-river-dog-run
ReplyDeleteRe: Playground 7. It used to be kids playing hockey there, not adults. I think there was a kids' league. One recent Saturday I was asked directions to the hockey playground by a young guy (20s) who had parked his car and was looking for his game. I asked him if he lived here or if he was just freeloading.
Re: dog ban. I know of a coop building that ended up banning both dogs and cats after one owner's dog became a huge nuisance. It can be done.
Is there a history of a lot of non-resident parents using the playgrounds? I wasn't aware.
ReplyDeleteAnecdotally, most of the kids in my building are great, but there are a few are allowed to behave very badly. Not uncommon, unfortunately.
"Is there any way of you knowing if these are Stuy Town parents?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not! Don't hold your breathe thinking public safety would track their comings and goings. After all, they are too busy chasing pitt bulls!
11:24 am - As someone above posted, we'll put the dog run right under your window. I walk my dog at 6 am so I'd like the run to be open at 6 am too. He does bark quite a bit as he's big and loud. You're classy enough to handle it at 6 am though eh?
ReplyDelete>>A dog run? What could possibly go wrong? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120613/financial-district/pet-owners-pooh-pooh-dirty-new-east-river-dog-run<<
ReplyDeleteComing to PCVST within five years!
>>Of course not! Don't hold your breathe thinking public safety would track their comings and goings. After all, they are too busy chasing pitt bulls!<<
ReplyDeleteNot that I've seen.
"Not that I've seen"
ReplyDeleteSarcasm STR, sarcasm ;)
Most of the guys playing hockey at Playground 7 get their game schedule from a twitter account. Lux posted it sometime last fall. They often displace the children. They displace the kids at TSP as well.
Good luck getting Peace Officer Tubs to do anything about it.
Anon 3:06--
ReplyDeleteIs it your expectation that Public Safety regularly confirm that kids and parents live here? That seems really invasive to me, and I don't think it would go over too well. Outside teams shooting hoops is another story.
Walking by nearby playgrounds, I don't think we're overrun by non-residents--most of the parents and kids and nannies know each other too well.
And so what if we have a few nonresident kids on the playground? I suspect this has been happening for generations.
"And so what if we have a few nonresident kids on the playground? I suspect this has been happening for generations."
ReplyDeleteIf you're not a worker, resident , or guest of a resident you don't belong here (it's private property). That's so what.
OK, due to the current rapid tenant turnover in our community, I guess I am going to have to explain some history. First, all playgrounds in STPCV have a signs stating that they are not public playgrounds, they are open only to residents and their guests. Do not confuse this with the public access requirement of STPVC, whereby it is open to anyone to visit, to go and pass through, sit at a bench, etc. Second, due to the pressure of this blog, the former Lux Living blog, and letters to the T&V, ID checks are now required to use playgrounds 9 and 11 (the basketball playgrounds)that were overrun with non-tenant use and, in the case of playground 9, violence was also as issue there.
ReplyDeletePlayground 7 has been advertised by various outside blogs as a place to play hockey in Manhattan. There is currently no ID check at that playground but I bet it’s mostly non tenant use as well. Look at all the large duffle bags that are on the side, tenants would just skate directly over to the playground.
You gotta love the Point 10 black print on a dark gray t-shirt! You'd need a microscope to read that cheesy rag.
ReplyDeleteOutsiders using the playgrounds is nothing new. However, to give public safety credit (or the recreation department if one still exists) where credit is due, they have done a much better job of keeping outsiders out. You couldn't get near a game of basketball at Playground 9 some time back. When I tried to take my autistic son out to try and get him to shoot some hoops the playground was so crowded we couldn't get on a court. It was all adults, all the time. Finally, I got in a few games myself and noticed that virtually no one else playing lived in PCV/ST. Others noticed too and complaints were made by phone and on Lux Living, and after numerous threats to file for diminished services (without the supposed TA) and a rent decrease, it was addressed. Now at least 1 hoop is always available if I can convince my son to go down. So, in this one area I give kudos to management for addressing this issue.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, a dog run would never happen because the affected tenants could easily sue to get rent reductions or more. Not to mention there is a dog run on 15th and second just 1 block west of ST.
Some further history: In the early days, there was a recreation department whose members wore identifiable outfits. They were assigned to various playgrounds, where they organized games and kept an eye on activities. In the summer they supervised the showers in the playgrounds that had them (our version of the beach). They knew the kids and knew they lived here.
ReplyDeleteThat the situation with outsiders using our facilities got to where it was (is?) shows how Management was asleep at the wheel. They should have alert in handling the property, making sure that all things (not just playgrounds) continued to run smoothly, but instead they didn't and then had to make a greater effort to fix what they had allowed to get broken. So no kudos to them for finally waking up to what they should have been doing all along.
ReplyDeleteThis is off topic but may affect some of you guys out there:
ReplyDeleteI am a "market" renter who has been living in PCV for a little over 3 years. I recently renewed my lease and like the previous lease there is a provision regarding amount of rent I am to pay. The "legal" rent they say I owe them is about $1500 more than the "preferential" rent I am required to pay. They state in this lease I will get a 60-day notice should they opt to charge me the higher rent.
Before I signed this lease I expressed my concerns to Mr. Liskow of the TA's lawyer's office and was told that CW had promised that they would not opt to raise anyone's rent whose lease contained this clause for the length of their lease.
Yesterday, I received an email from Mr. Liskow stating that this was no longer the case and that my rent could be raised to the so-called "legal" amount and that his firm was no longer going to answer any more questions about the matter.
Uh-Oh.
Anony 10.20 AM-Go to the STPCV TA FB page, John Marsh of the TA posted this:
ReplyDelete"Yes, there seems that there was an e-mail that went out with wrong copy by the J51 attorneys. Something else was supposed to go out instead. We are waiting for more word tomorrow. Ignore that email for now."
"They state in this lease I will get a 60-day notice should they opt to charge me the higher rent."
ReplyDeleteIs this a joke, albeit a bad one? What gives here?
There is a current tread on leases and Roberts at the conversion blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pcvstconversionforum.blogspot.com/2012/06/june-9.html#comment-form
This link is also provided in the STR's link list.
I am anon 6/15 10:20 AM
ReplyDeleteI did see that post on the FB page and I don't know who John Marsh is but I would expect that the TA would step up and address this more formally. Some random FB post (I'm not even on FB and created a phony account to view that page) from some guy I've never heard of does not make me feel better after receiving that unsettling email.
Not only can I have my rent jacked up about $1500 a month I am told that I can not expect any help from the TA's Law Firm. This, after an earlier email from them told me I could sign the lease without worrying about this. Here is the email:
"Two notices posted on this site, one on April 6, 2011
and one on May 14, 2012, discussed an issue involving the “preferential rents” reflected in the Owner's leases with Roberts tenants. The issue concerned whether, as a result of certain events that may occur in the lawsuit, the Owner would be able to raise the “preferential rent” the tenant was paying (sometimes referred to as the “lower rent to be charged”) to the higher “legal rent” during the term of a lease. The Roberts attorneys stated that the Owner had stated that it would charge the lower rent for the duration of the lease term and seek up to the “legal” rent only upon renewal. Based upon current information, the Roberts attorneys are now updating their statement to state that the Owner is no longer so stating. All tenants should keep that in mind when signing leases for future tenancies.
You will not be subject to an increase immediately, and may never receive such an increase. Also, pursuant to the terms of the Preferential Rent Rider in your lease you will receive at least 60 days notice of any such increase if the owner seeks one, so please understand that we will not be able to discuss this issue further or answer any questions that you may have about this at this time."
Gee, I hope we're not allowing promotion of that conversion blog here again.
ReplyDelete