Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Management Office "Cellar" Extension Diagram and Zoning Info





Click on images to make larger.

UPDATE 1/31/14: Cost of the new extension: $3,216,000.  Source: http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BScanJobDocumentServlet?requestid=9&passjobnumber=121333958&passdocnumber=01&allbin=1082869&scancode=ES808449057

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

OMG! The tenants were RIGHT! It is 10,000+ square feet of office just like the tenants have been saying! Horrific!
Worse the Tenant did not oppose this! The Tenant Association did not oppose turning our buildings from residential to commercial so they could build this! The tenants were RIGHT!!!!! The tenant Association let them destroy the open space, change us to commercial and let them spend $5 million to build this so they can charge us 5 times that when they sell PCVST.
It is just like the tenants said. 10,000+ square feet of office and 100+ office management workers coming and going from what used to be our quiet space.
THANK YOU TO THE TENANTS who tried to fight. I am very very sorry to read on this blog all you had to go through while fighting to protect STPCV. THIS IS DISGUSTING.

Anonymous said...

damn it really is 10,000 square feet! i thought they said they were just putting in a door. liars! a 10,000 square foot office! we are officially an industrial park instead of a tree park. we are new jersey or aka exit 15 on the fdr turnpike. actually jersey is now better cuz at least my parents still have trees in our yard. wtf this should not have been allowed! Peter Cooper Village Stuyvesant Town no longer exists. a**holes!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

LOL. Well, I don't think anyone said they were just putting in a door. Does anyone know the square foot size of the former management office?

Anonymous said...

Oh STR I just heard you posted this.
Oh the quiet space is gone. The quality of life is gone. This is so sad. Thank you so much STR for bravely telling us all the truth when we are surrounded by liars and thieves.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I don't live around that space, but, yeah, for the residents facing it, it's a big change. The playground will look like a joke hunched in there. Nice area, with a great view of the Empire State Building at night, if you are on walkway on the southern side. The ESB still should be viewable, of course.

Anonymous said...

No opposition from the TA and Dirty Dan. Why am I not surprised?

Anonymous said...

Yup. The playground is a joke as you say. A bad joke. We told a Security Supervisor we don't feel safe bringing our kids to that playground if they build an office where hundreds of nonresidents and their visitors and high traffic that comes from an office is built there. It is not safe for toddlers who once played and ran free there. I don't know what age kids would be safe there now. But definitely not toddlers. Even the Security Supervisor said management hadn't considered that and agreed it would be a big safety problem.

Anonymous said...

We are in one of the buildings where this is happening and it is worse than you can imagine when you see it in person. Now that we live in an office building can we get a rent reduction because they sold us on a rental apartment in a park of trees and walked us through this now torn down block saying its unique because of its trees which are no longer there. I want the trees over a rent reduction. But that is not possible ever again. We are paying over $4000 a month for no doorman or any luxury amenities. My kids were excited when we were sold on the trees, the park, the playgrounds. We loved the quiet of the block. There is nothing luxury about this place now that the trees are gone. If we wanted to live above offices we could be in a doorman building for the same money. Anyone know if I can sue to get out of our lease?

Anonymous said...

I live in a ST building that has a view of the construction. They have removed the trees and cobblestones and are storing them in the playground. They just broke ground today. It is very noisy and I am not happy about that as well as losing the outdoor space where I used to sit and read or just hang out and chat with my neighbors. The drawing you posted(thank you!) shows only a 4' elevation. I am guessing it will be partly glass to illuminate the work space.But it abuts 274,276,278 first ave buildings. I feel sorry for the people on the ground floor-they will have an awful view.Ii would be nice if someone from CW would tell us what is the project timeline.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there were 100 working at the old office, more like 40-50. They better not hang out outside my window smoking cigarettes or there will be hell to pay!

Anonymous said...

thx for posting. is there more information? can we have the web link? i live in the oval and these guys don't have a lot of the permits the people on the first ave loop made them get. who is supposed to be making sure they get all the right permits? is it really tenants? we really are on our own.

Anonymous said...



I don't get this.

WHY DO THEY NEED ALL THIS SPACE FOR OFFICES? is it because they want to rent out and make money at some point?

they need to MAKE MONEY RENTING. w.t.f.

Anonymous said...

Repeat from my post at the photos tread:

"Anoy 6.52 PM. Re the link and the form, can you please be more specific on what exact building(s) are involved (see my follow-up text), etc. I just went to the link and I am starting the process.

Why you guys kept this process secret and behind the scenes (as per the DOB link: “Will challenges be made public? Zoning-related challenges are posted on the Department’s website after the Department’s review and decision.”) is beyond me but any advice on this process would be greatly appreciated since we all want to be on the same page for this challenge. The challenge form has a “Description of Challenge” section whereby they ask for "relevant zoning resolution section(s)” What do we write there? You are saying that “This week is the deadline” but as per the DOB link, the challenge deadline date for 272 First Avenue is 2/7/2014? The address listing as “Pending" is 274 First Avenue but the challenge form address and the blueprints are for 272 First Avenue? I am confused. Why not post this info from the get go at your post? Anyway, for others new to this, here are some mores specific links to expedite the process.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/development_challenge_process_guide.pdf


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BSCANJobDocumentContentServlet?passjobnumber=121333958&scancode=ES931353279

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/rules/1_RCNY_101-15.pdf

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsByTypeBoroDateServlet?mycomm=y&des=1&requestid=0&alljobtype=A1&allcommbd=&boro=1&houseno=274&street=first%20avenue



http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsDocumentSummaryServlet?requestid=2&passjobnumber=121333958&passdocnumber=01&allbin=1082869&Retrieve=Zoning


Challenge form:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/zrd2.pdf


Anonymous said...

If the sock puppets are finished, I'd like to make a couple of points (if it's even necessary) about this project.

First of all, as you can plainly see from the Zoning map, there is no change of zoning from residential to commercial of the property, nor was the previous management office location zoned commercial. Apparently, it doesn't need to be zoned commercial for this use.

Second, the hand wringing about the children's safety is patently ridiculous. The previous location was adjacent to playground 3, and next to playground 4. All those employees came and went routinely for decades without incident, and the office doesn't draw a disproportionate number of outsiders compared to the 10,000+ apartments. I seriously doubt there is going to be an entrance door in a 4 FOOT HIGH addition, unless they fire everyone and hire midgets. Perhaps there will be an emergency exit, as required by law.

The management office location co-existed with the residents on both 14th Street and Avenue C. If there is ANY valid point to be made here, it should primarily be about vehicular safety with the increase of traffic that will now be drawn to the 1st Avenue loop.

I'm unhappy about the decrease in open space next to Playground 8, but they're not showing us scale plans of how it will look.

One take away from STR's great service in supplying these maps is that you can see that the Avenue C location of the office was zoned RESIDENTIAL. I don't understand how they think that they'll be able to lease out that space to a daycare facility. It is NOT zoned commercial. If anything, the community should push back strongly on this. (the 14th St. location where the current daycare facility is located is properly zoned. There were originally stores located there).

Considering that they have broken ground for this project, have permits and apparently are working within their rights, it might be productive to focus on the actual issues, instead of offering wild unattributed and baseless speculation.

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot to do nothing Dan Garotnik.

Anonymous said...

How the hell are they getting away with this? There is something really dirty and underhanded going down. The tenants in these buildings should DEMAND an inquiry now. Contact the Mayor and Public Advocate. We know Dan is up to his dirty little ears in this, so he is NOT the go-to man. There's something really dirty and corrupt going on here.

Anonymous said...

Same game by developers, lawyers, and lobbyists except Hoboken is fortunate to have Mayro Zimmer who fights to protect Hoboken's character, residents, and parks and we have Garodnick who throws us under the bus then jumps in the bus while they drive over us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/nyregion/powerful-allies-pushed-a-project-in-new-jersey.html?hp&_r=0

You can insert the names of our local players into this same scenario.

Wish we had a Zimmer on City Council instead of a Garodnick.

Anonymous said...

9:12 a.m you are incorrect. They did apply for Change of Zoning and the Permit is Pending review by the DOB process. You can see it on the DOB website thanks to the tenants who posted it last week.
9:12 are you with Compass Rock?

Per the DOB:

Development Challenge Process is pending Zoning Approval. For any issues, please contact the relevant borough office.

Occupancy Classification: Existing: RES - RESID. BLDG - OLD CODE Yes No
Proposed: B - BUSINESS

09/23/2013 121333958 01 A1 Q PERMIT-PARTIAL 01/22/2014 0020939 RA STAND PENDING
CHANGE OF USE TO ADD MANAGEMENT OFFICES IN THE CELLAR AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS
Work on Floor(s): CEL



http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=7&passjobnumber=121333958&passdocnumber=01

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Second, the hand wringing about the children's safety is patently ridiculous. The previous location was adjacent to playground 3, and next to playground 4.<<

I don't consider children's safety pertinent in this case, but the location of the previous management office was "out of sight" to any of our playgrounds. Not sure how the "green roof" of the new management office will look near the playground.

Anonymous said...

We Need An Investigation by Federal Authorities! 10:47 is right - this is Dirty Secret Behind Closed Doors Back Room Corruption!

Anonymous said...

"we have Garodnick who throws us under the bus then jumps in the bus while they drive over us."

HAH he jumped on the bus because they paid for his fare!

Anonymous said...

@12:01 PM

I read the permit, and nowhere do I see a change to commercial zoning. There is a re-purposing for "business" use, but so what ? The construction of "Oval Concierge" in the very same building would have been classified as "business" use, as are the Oval Amenities, and The Avenue C offices had the same use. I think you need to bring someone to this discussion who truly understands zoning law.

And asking me if I work for Compass Rock is about as astute an observation as someone in grade school might make. Is that the best deductive reasoning you've got, or are you incapable of seeing anything in a light other than your own ?

Anonymous said...

God, every issue that arises is always said to be a conspiracy. Every post has multiple exclamation points, as if that makes these absurd theories true. Quality of life is destroyed. If you hate it so much, if you don't think you are getting what you pay for, MOVE. You will quickly find that STPCV is a good place to live, at rents that are more than reasonable by Manhattan standards. But instead of moving, everyone just wants to complain and yearn for the good old days when kids played stickball, the World Book was our internet, dogs were forbidden, we had window fans and not air conditioners, and AM radio was entirely sufficient for all our entertainment needs. And by the way, I'm 60 years old, and not one of those "horrible" transients that people love to complain about.

Anonymous said...

I live in one of the buildings directly affected by the mgmt office expansion and was curious about the zoning issue so I called State Senator Brad Hoylman's office. The person I spoke with is very familiar with the issue. BTW, he said he has gotten exactly two calls on the subject of the new mgmt office from a ST tenant in one of the affected buildings. Mine was the second call.

Here is the story. Brad H's office called DOB over the mgmt office expansion proposal because the word "rezoning" is on the application. The DOB told Hoylman's office that the wording on the app is confusing, that there is no rezoning required for the mgmt office expansion. What is required is a "building change of use," a re-purposing of the basement to an office space. This building change of use is specific to buildings 272 thru 278 First Avenue. The DOB also said since this doesn't require a zoning change, a zoning challenge is not possible.

All of this was explained to the first caller, according to Hoylman's office. That person was given the DOB's number to confirm if she wished.

I strongly suspect that it was this first caller who has used this website to lie and toss all kinds of ugly accusations around. I'm not gonna stoop to this person's level and toss out accusations of my own, but I am now fairly certain I've figured out what this is all about. Anyway, I'm merely very unhappy about what's happening in my backyard, but this individual is apparently so apoplectic that she'd lie on a blog and in notices posted in buildings about the TA, politicians, and other residents conspiring behind closed doors with CW Capital to foist this thing on us. You've been exposed.

The sadly unfortunate fact is that CW Cap has the legal right to do this and the city has approved it, or most of it anyway. All that apparently stands in the way are issues like sprinkler systems and such.

I stand behind all that I've said. Pick up the phone if you have doubts. use Google. Hoylman's contact info is online. They'll talk to you all about it and provide a contact number at the DOB if you don't believe them.

STR, I urge you to make that call yourself. You'd be doing all of us in the buildings affected a service by doing so and putting the entire story out in a post.

Thank you.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>AM radio was entirely sufficient for all our entertainment needs<<

Yeah, and the music was better back then, too!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>But instead of moving, everyone just wants to complain<<

Not just complain, but takes steps to combat the downgrade of quality of life issues. Are we not men and women? We are NOT cattle or sheep!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Regarding the tired refrain of "if you don't like it here, move"--many tenants have already done that. Others, like myself, are on a limited income and would probably choose to move if financially possible. I still like it here overall, but this place is taking a turn for the worse with each passing year.

Anonymous said...

As January 30, 2014 at 9:12 AM notes, the elevation is not to scale so how far the roof will be jutting up out of the ground is still not clear to me. At least it seems like it will be a matter of inches, not feet.

Anonymous said...

"Regarding the tired refrain of "if you don't like it here, move"--many tenants have already done that. Others, like myself, are on a limited income and would probably choose to move if financially possible. I still like it here overall, but this place is taking a turn for the worse with each passing year."

Amen to that, STR. I'm sick of hearing that refrain. A lot of us are disgusted by the constant destruction of the quality of life that is going on here, but we don't want to move because this is our home. We've been here a long time, put down roots and love our homes, even if we don't love are shady, shitty landlord. For those who don't like to hear/read us complain: don't read or listen to us. Go about your business and mind your own business. We, who are disgusted by what is going on, will continue to complain whether you like it or not because we have justifiable complaints and, as the man said, we are not sheep or cattle; we are human beings who are upset because our lives are being negatively impacted by a bunch of greedy, stupid assholes who don't give a shit about us. We won't shut up and we won't move. Nothing you can do about that.

Anonymous said...



Who would have thought things would be worse off after tishman...

i had a strange feeling back then. I totally though, it could be actually worse.

and it is.

THANK YOU COMPASS ROCK, what a bunch of tools. HOW EMBARRASING for them.

Anonymous said...

Wait a second regarding the zoning issue. “They'll talk to you (BH) all about it and provide a contact number at the DOB if you don't believe them.” OK, will do so. But the complete and current zoning map I saw for PCVST had the entire “interior” zoned as R7-2 (residential). The offices on the perimeter were zoned as commercial. See the nyc.gov. link I provided.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/map12c.pdf

The construction map from the DOB has the new office construction zoning listed as C1-7 and C1-5 (commercial). “The DOB also said since this doesn't require a zoning change, a zoning challenge is not possible”. .If there is no rezoning, why is one able to challenge the construction at the “pending“ DOB link? The only reason the so called "amenities" were not considered a change in zoning was the “resident amenity” canard, the old “residents and guest only" BS. Dan’s office would be more appropriate to call than BH (NYC vs NYS) but let’s not start that issue again. Bottom line, the TA and DG's office need to address this issue ASAP on the rational of why a challenge was not done. In the meantime, I posted the detailed DOB links on this tread and the “Photo” tread as well. I want to complete the challenge but the person who gave out the original DOB link (who obviously has zoning and DOB expertise) but will not give us details to us on how to file, he tells us to go to the DOB email address (Photos tread) to ask questions on how to file and they will be answered. But what are the specific questions we need to ask for a proper challenge before the deadline, which seems to be 2/7/2014? Bottom line, the TA and DG’s office (not BH), need to come out and address this issue ASAP. Meanwhile, if one is given the data to do so, file a challenge as an individual citizen.

Anonymous said...

@ January 30, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Thank you for passing along the information from Senator Hoylman's office. They confirm pretty much what the posted permits and zoning plan document.

I agree with you that this blog has been taken over by one person with an agenda, and too much time on their hands.

There is no question that this construction is disruptive, will change the original aesthetic of the property and diminishes use of public space. There are legitimate reasons to protest it, however at this juncture, seeing that the TA chose not to strenuously object, it would be futile to waste time on this issue. Rather, people should concentrate on mitigating the disruption that the offices will bring. Maybe CW would be kind enough to actually TELL tenants what's going on, and what the anticipated changes will bring. It's quite possible (for instance) that much of the operation that requires vehicular in/out will continue to be focused on Avenue C, and the new offices will simply bring some more foot traffic to the loop. But we don't KNOW any of this, because the landlord hasn't bothered to foster any sort of good relations with the tenants, and in light of that, leaves the door wide open for anyone to wildly speculate about whatever they choose to fantasize about.

Anonymous said...

1:37 ARE YOU SAYING ACCORDING TO SENATOR HOYLMAN 1 WOMAN IS BEHIND THE OPPOSING OF OFFICES IN WHAT WAS OUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL PARK? THAT IS YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY... AND SENATOR HOYLMAN IS THROWING 1 WOMAN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSE SHE DARE CALL HIS OFFICE TO OPPOSE THE OFFICE CONSTRUCTION?
DO YOU WORK FOR SENATOR HOYLMAN BECAUSE YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR HIM. IS IT HIS POSITION THAT ONE WOMAN IS LYING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION WE ALL SEE AND OPPOSE?
FOR THE RECORD I AM A MAN.
I OPPOSE THE OFFICES. I PROVIDED A FEW OF THE LINKS FOR OTHERS TO OPPOSE AS WELL.
SEEMS YOU ARE TRYING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM OPPOSING BY SAYING "HERE'S THE STORY" AS IF YOU ARE GOD'S TRUTH. YOU ARE PROBABLY THE SAME ONE CALLING EVERYONE NAMES AND TRYING TO STOP TENANTS FROM VOICING AN OPINION.
ANSWER THIS -= WHY ARE YOU ASKING STR TO STOP ALL THOSE IN THE BUILDINGS AFFECTED FROM HEARING ALL SIDES OF THE TRUTH AND LEARNING ALL SIDES OF THE STORY? IS IT BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS GETTING OUT THERE AND THAT SCARES YOU?
IF 1 WOMAN IS LYING AS YOU SAY THAN WHAT DAMAGE COULD THAT DO. UNLESS OF COURSE THAT 1 WOMAN IS TELLING THE TRUTH. OR IT ISN'T JUST 1 WOMAN BUT MANY WHO ARE FED UP WITH THE LIES AND DESTRUCTION.
IF 1 WOMAN IS STANDING UP FOR US WE SHOULD HAIL HER. NOT SHUT HER UP.
EVERYONE WHO IS GIVING PEOPLE IN THOSE BUILDINGS A WAY TO OPPOSE THIS WITH DOB SHOULD BE THANKED.
DOB IS SENDING THEM LINKS TO DO IT - WHY IS SENATOR HOYLMAN TRYING TO STOP THEM?
MAYBE YOU SHOULD SPEND LESS TIME TRYING TO EXPOSE WHO IS HELPING TENANTS FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES AND MORE TIME FIGHTING FOR THEM NOT AGAINST THEM.

Anonymous said...

People should not be intimidated into moving. If you don't like it move is not acceptable. This is our home.

Anonymous said...

The Senator's office told you about an STPCV tenant with a concern!? Wow. That is just wrong on so many levels.
Who are you and why is the Senator complaining to you about a STPCV tenant with a concern?
That seriously needs an investigation.

BTW agree with STR we are men and women taking steps to combat the downgrade of quality of life issues!

Anonymous said...

Well I thought someone said we have until February 7th deadline to oppose this. Why is 1:37 saying its a done deal? 1:37 why are you discouraging people from opposing? If its a done deal why do you care? Don't matter, I am filing an oppose to it this weekend.
Who is 1:37, how are you connected to Senator Hoylman's office and why are they telling people its over when the fat lady hasn't sung! It ain't over till its over, son.

Anonymous said...

STR You are definitely without a shred of doubt doing something right and something good. Reporting on all that is going on and having tenants educating tenants on links to information. Someone is getting very angry tenants are gaining knowledge and links and know how. The angrier they get the closer we are to saving PCVST.

Anonymous said...

you do realize dan garodnik isnt responsible for everything that happens on this property right? he doesnt own the place and neither does the ta.

seems to me the law is on cws side here. how is this a change of use to commercial if its a management office for residents? surely management offices have to be allowed on residential properties....

if you dont like what the landlord is doing all the more reason to fight for a conversion, which garodnik and the ta are pushing for. but just blaming them for every little thing that happens is concern trolling at best. cw is who is behind this and if youre mad about it then lets get them out!

Anonymous said...

3:43 Your frustrated, ok, but I am trying to help all I can without losing my job with the links for you to help yourselves and to get help on your DOB questions because this is plain wrong.

Anonymous said...

Laughing so hard I about fell off my chair. Thankyou STR. Thank you.
If all this is a big lie why would a Senator care and have 1:37 make a statement for him? If it were a big lie on a blog he wouldn't pay it any attention would he? STR you have officially become the New York Times with Senators making statements through a spokesperson trying to feed us with word games and semantics dances.
"It says rezoning on the app but its not really rezoning" or
"Its a "re-purposing of the basement to an office space" Yeah right at $4 million. Laughing so hard I am crying. What a load of crap.

Anonymous said...

The settlement says we can raise your rent mid lease but we won't really raise your rent mid lease is the same logic as "the app says rezoning but it doesn't really mean rezoning"

If it says they'll raise rents mid lease they will raise rents mid lease.
If it says rezoning then it is rezoning.

Do you think we would fall for the same trick twice?


Stuy Town Reporter said...

A note on the diagram. Though it seems as if the extension is C1-7 based on the legend, the right side of the diagram clearly states that the extension is in the R7 category.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Of course, the entire oval area is R7-2, but areas are being rented out to commercial businesses nevertheless. And, yes, I know about the free pass of "for residents and their guests," but does Oval Cafe card the people buying its food and drinks?

Anonymous said...

3:43 days it all
Bottom line, the TA and DG’s office (not BH), need to come out and address this issue ASAP

That DG and TA went radio silent for over a year on this and are not going on record opposing it says it all.

Yes CW is worse than Tishman. Worse than that would be a TA DG negotiated tenant purchase deal.
saved us money in a purchase but didn't even do that. They went on record in the article STR linked us in the other thread endorsing a multi-million$ construction that will increase a purchase price by a lot.
Who benefits from that? Not Tenants.

If a tenant bid then DG and TA would have tenants paying for this monster office when the property has a ton of existing commercial space that should have been used for offices. TA DG should have pushed back if even to protect the tenant bid.
Now we know in the hands of TA DG a purchase will include less open space, overpriced new office building, faulty plumbing, and TA Susan Steinberg said in the article when she pushed for the office construction "management conceded some trees will have to come down" so in the hands of TA DG there will be fewer trees.

As someone said earlier we are now an industrial park. And a tenant bid will be an overpriced over inflated sucker deal.

Anonymous said...

"And a tenant bid will be an overpriced over inflated sucker deal."

What tenant bid? What condo conversion? What are all you people talking about? Give me a single legitimate source from which anyone could deduce that any such thing could possibly happen.

Anonymous said...

11:50 I hope you are right for all of our sake.
STR thanks for the blog and comment section. Best morning news read in Peter Cooper Village Stuyvesant Town.

Obviously a lot of tenants of all types long-timers, new, stabilized, market rate, old, young are fuming mad rightfully so. We all need to know about everything going on anywhere on the property because it effects us all everyone of us.

Anyone who shuts us out of being involved is up to no good. That's what I always say.

Be weary the one's who keep secret of their actions and share only of their words.

Good News Blog STR. I will start everyday reading you.

Anonymous said...

There's now a hideous looking color rendering posted on the site's barriers.

Anonymous said...

Let's see how the $3 million estimate compares to the actual cost when the construction is completed. I have never had a construction job come in on budget. It will be closer to double that easily.

Anonymous said...

To all the tenants who have been fighting protecting our PCVST homes - who gave us all this information - worked hard when we all know that no one has spare time let alone too much time on their hands as someone so arrogantly spewed - thanks from your neighbors in the Oval. I wish we roared as loud as you when they decimated our Oval.

Anonymous said...

Wow! This is Major. They are spending a lot of Capital. Probably an Improvement over their last digs.

How much we gonna pay for this one?!?

Anonymous said...

The record shows:
The John Marsh TA did not oppose the hideous industrial strip mall design offices.
Dan Garodnick did not oppose the hideous offices.
The tenants fought it and were attacked for doing so for over a year. Even attacked in the comments by a few or 1 guy on this blog when they informed other tenants on how to fight CW and shared DOB links and info with all tenants.
OOOOH you exposed us -
yes we stood up for ourselves and tried to save the open space and trees from the hideous office building.
Really you know who we are? We know who you are. It is on record.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me if this has been addressed already, but will this new monstrosity result in yet another MCI?

Anonymous said...



So it seems that landlords can add Mci and get around tax rules and stabilized leases.

Why didn't Tishman file for the Mci's right out of the gate? Or perhaps met life.

So essentially, this is not regulated stabilized housing. And so that's it? it's gone???????

Anonymous said...

"The record shows:
The John Marsh TA did not oppose the hideous industrial strip mall design offices.
Dan Garodnick did not oppose the hideous offices.
The tenants fought it and were attacked for doing so for over a year. Even attacked in the comments by a few or 1 guy on this blog when they informed other tenants on how to fight CW and shared DOB links and info with all tenants.
OOOOH you exposed us - "

I believe you, but could you tell me why tenants would turn on tenants in order to stop them from protesting this atrocity? What would they get out of it? I can see that the pols would probably be getting some under-the-table payoff or back room deal, but I don't understand why tenants would be against fighting against it. The TA, as we all know, is one limp dick, but we have never expected much from that organization. Can't understand tenants being against putting up a fight and being against any who would. One of the mysteries of life!