|
|
| SAS - Myopic MTA (974075) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (974075) | |
SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Sep 1 21:35:37 2010 From Today's NY TimesAugust 31, 2010 Above Ground, a 2nd Ave. Subway Plan Attracts Critics By TERRY PRISTIN The Second Avenue subway, finally under construction on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, is of course a vast underground project. The $4.45 billion first phase, now scheduled to be completed in 2018, will extend from 96th Street to 63rd Street and Lexington Avenue. But the project will also include construction above ground — not just station entrances but also a half-dozen boxy buildings on corners along Second Avenue that the transit agency acquired through condemnation. These so-called ancillary buildings, ranging in height from five to eight stories, will house ventilation equipment. They are also intended to disperse smoke and allow for evacuation from subway tunnels in the event of an emergency. To the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York, the proposed buildings, designed by DMJM+Harris and Arup, part of the team that designed the Jet Blue Terminal at Kennedy International Airport, are “handsome in proportion and detail, while simple and straightforward in design.” But to some real estate specialists, the structures represent a missed opportunity or an unwelcome industrial intrusion into a residential neighborhood, or both. Richard Bass, the chief planning and development specialist for Herrick, Feinstein, a law firm based in Midtown Manhattan, said that at three of the sites — on 97th Street, 72nd Street and 69th Street — the M.T.A. could have worked with private developers to incorporate the ancillary buildings into residential towers. Mr. Bass represented a co-op on 69th Street in negotiations with the M.T.A. over the adjacent ancillary building. He is not involved in a lawsuit the co-op filed against the Federal Transit Administration and the M.T.A. On each of the corners cited by Mr. Bass, the developers could have sought development rights, known as air rights, from smaller adjacent residential buildings, Mr. Bass said. He said taller apartment buildings would have been more in character with a residential neighborhood and would have helped fill a need for moderately priced housing. In addition, the M.T.A. could have had the developers share in the cost of the subway structures, Mr. Bass said. “It seems that the M.T.A. missed an opportunity to play in the real estate game in a way that would have been a win-win-win,” Mr. Bass said. “This could have provided the M.T.A. with a more cost-effective facility, a more urbanistically appropriate structure for the surrounding community, and an opportunity to create more housing in partnership with developers.” Citing the pending lawsuit filed by the 69th Street co-op, M.T.A. officials were unwilling to be interviewed. But they did agree to answer written questions by e-mail. They said they would not release cost estimates for the ancillary buildings until they had hired the contractors. Nor would they say how much they had paid for the building sites. Kevin Ortiz, an M.T.A. spokesman, said by e-mail that the agency had worked with developers on both the 97th Street site, where the Century Lumber Corporation once stood, and on 72nd Street, the longtime home of Falk Drug and Surgical Supplies. Plans for 72nd Street, where the site measures 75 feet by 75 feet, were scuttled because “in order for a development to work, additional property would have had to be acquired, which we couldn’t justify as a transportation use,” he said. On 97th Street, “M.T.A. Real Estate worked very long and hard to make it work, but in the end the developer lost interest,” he said. In a subsequent e-mail, Aaron Donovan, another M.T.A. spokesman, said the developers that the agency had consulted owned the sites. Mr. Donovan said the agency had not issued requests for proposals from developers “because we didn’t own the properties,” which were acquired through eminent domain. According to the M.T.A., only the 97th Street site, which measures 100 feet by 125 feet, is large enough to accommodate a residential development. The M.T.A. also would not say why it did not consult a second developer for that site. Several developers, architects and engineers took issue with the M.T.A. and said the agency should have sought to work with private developers. “It does sound like a missed opportunity,” said Douglas Durst, who developed the Bank of America building at One Bryant Park. The 69th Street site, at 50 feet by 80 feet, “is a little tight,” he said, “but the others are the perfect size for residential.” Some real estate specialists said the transit agency could have found a model in an agreement struck in connection with the extension of the No. 7 subway line on the far West Side of Manhattan. On a large site at 26th Street and 11th Avenue owned by the Moinian Group, the M.T.A. plans to build a seven-story ancillary structure for that line. The building was designed so Moinian Group could eventually build a residential tower that would incorporate the M.T.A. building, said Oskar Brecher, director of development for Moinian. “It was a very complicated process that required a great deal of time,” Mr. Brecher said. “The midwife was the Hudson Yards Development Corporation,” he added, referring to the city agency overseeing the development of the area. Around the country, public officials have worked with the private sector to encourage development along new mass transit lines to increase ridership. Of course, no one thinks the Second Avenue subway will lack riders. But transit-oriented developments can also be used to defray construction costs. Julia Vitullo-Martin, director of the Center for Urban Innovation at the Regional Plan Association, said the M.T.A. typically had not engaged in strategic thinking when it came to its real estate. “The M.T.A. does not think of its real estate as either an investment opportunity or a development opportunity,” she said. For Civitas, a civic group representing the Upper East Side and East Harlem, the critical issue is how the buildings, to be made of terra cotta tile, glass and granite, will affect street life along Second Avenue. The local community board has yet to take a formal position on the ancillary buildings. “Certainly, the design of these structures could be improved,” said Hunter Armstrong, the executive director. “Having large blank industrial buildings inserted into a lively streetscape will diminish the activity and appeal of Second Avenue,” he said. Civitas persuaded the M.T.A. to include retail spaces in two of the sites — 360 square feet at 69th Street and 240 square feet at 72nd Street. Mr. Ortiz said the M.T.A. chose this style so that the public would recognize the buildings as industrial. He said the structures were not intended to be “starchitecture” but would be “respectful of their immediate surroundings.” The building materials “need to be robust,” he said, “as they will receive only very minimal maintenance attention.” The M.T.A. did not always intend to make the buildings look industrial. In the final environmental impact statement, completed in 2004, it said they “could be designed to appear like a neighborhood row house in height, scale, materials and colors.” The M.T.A.’s decision to build industrial rather than brownstonelike buildings was cited in a federal lawsuit filed in January against the Federal Transit Administration and the M.T.A. by a cooperative apartment building, 233 East 69th Street. Residents say that, as now conceived, the auxiliary building would be so close to their building that 32 windows facing east would be blocked. They also contend that the building “would be totally out of harmony” with the neighborhood. At a conference on April 14, the M.T.A. argued that its building would blend in with the surroundings, but Judge William H. Pauley III of Federal District Court in Manhattan disagreed. “You’re asking me to suspend my common sense,” he said. The M.T.A. had no comment on the lawsuit, which is still in its early stages. |
|
|
| (974076) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by 7th Avenue Express on Wed Sep 1 21:44:09 2010, in response to SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Sep 1 21:35:37 2010. They may as well give up on this subway line. It's always some sort of delay. Just build a light rail line. |
|
|
| (974079) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 22:10:15 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by 7th Avenue Express on Wed Sep 1 21:44:09 2010. You're wrong again. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (974081) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 22:12:17 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 22:10:15 2010. he isn't wrong or right because there was no question to be answered in the first place.He simply was stating his opinion. Shouldn't you be lifting mailbags? |
|
|
| (974082) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by joseto on Wed Sep 1 22:20:54 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 22:12:17 2010. Well, it seems to me that light rail would just get more congestion. Building an EL might not be so "Attractive" and well the subway is going to take forever :S |
|
|
| (974083) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Sep 1 22:23:02 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 22:12:17 2010. I also think that his opinion is wrong. Light rail?!? |
|
|
| (974084) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 22:25:11 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by joseto on Wed Sep 1 22:20:54 2010. exactly. we may not agree with his opinion but that doesn't matter. Opinions can't be right or wrong. |
|
|
| (974087) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 22:39:00 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by joseto on Wed Sep 1 22:20:54 2010. Well, it seems to me that light rail would just get more congestion.Exactly. He was wrong. |
|
|
| (974088) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 22:39:23 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Easy on Wed Sep 1 22:23:02 2010. I also think that his opinion is wrong.Thank you. |
|
|
| (974089) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 22:41:53 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 22:12:17 2010. You're wrong too, by the way.He is wrong because this doesn't necessarily mean a delay and this has nothing to do with changing over to light rail. In fact that would be a completely stupid thing to do. It's something that someone who knows nothing about mass transit might say. Which is funny because he's a subway conductor. But it seems he spends most of his time thinking about who or what he's going to f*ck next. So that explains a lot. As for the last thing...huh? |
|
|
| (974090) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 22:52:04 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 22:41:53 2010. 1: Explain to me what I was wrong about2: Have you ever been wrong yourself? Just wondering. |
|
|
| (974097) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 23:42:57 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 22:52:04 2010. 1. You were wrong that "he isn't wrong or right".2. Plenty of times. Who hasn't? |
|
|
| (974099) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 23:50:06 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 23:42:57 2010. 1: ok good for you. I'm wrong, but im just saying that to shut you up because you are fixated.2: I want a link to a subchat thread where you have been wrong about something and admitted it. |
|
|
| (974103) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 23:55:19 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 23:50:06 2010. 1. Good for you. Doesn't make you or he any less wrong. So...w00t?2. Did I say I was ever wrong HERE? LOL. You didn't say it had to be here. |
|
|
| (974106) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Sep 2 00:06:41 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by 7th Avenue Express on Wed Sep 1 21:44:09 2010. Regardless of whether your opionion is right or wrong, it certainly seems, at least in my opinion, to have been formed with little or no input from what is actually transpiring. With the TBMs now in the ground it would cost the MTA a lot of money to cancel the contract to bore the tunnel up to 96th St. Once they reach 96th it should be relatively simple to rehabilitate the former cut and cover segments and complete the SAS up to around 110th. From there 125th shouldn't be all that hard. Cancelling the northern end of the line at this late in the gam would create (ironically enough given the thread title) a myopically shortsighted disaster of public finance.You can say that the case for ridership south of 63rd isn't there, and that in that case it makes more sense to build an LRT, particularly with the potential access multiple streetcar routes open up in the Lower East Side. However, for your opinion to have any merit, it has to be backed up with at least some sort of fact as opposed to some anecdotal garbage about how something will never be completed. But then none of this addresses Mr. Bauman's original post. I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the prospect of the MTA's ventilation structures on the UES being integrated into residential, commercial, or mixed-use structures. People sharing space with the machinery which will move the millions introduces a degree of risk which a single use ventilation structure avoids. Will we suspend the SAS if some grandmother on the tenth floor forgets her cooking and starts a grease fire? And just how liable will the MTA be for the byproducts of any fires that may be vented through these ventilation structures? I realize that the neighboring structures share the same proximity and thus anything affecting a shared use ventilation structure should affect the surrounding buildings, but it will be those people living in the structure who have a legal link with the MTA and its potential millions waiting to be tapped by the right lawyer. It seems less myopic and more pragmatic to accept the slight reduction in residential and commercial space and in doing so avoid the potential problems a combined ventilation/residential unit would bring with it. |
|
|
| (974127) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Sep 2 06:20:46 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by WillD on Thu Sep 2 00:06:41 2010. . I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the prospect of the MTA's ventilation structures on the UES being integrated into residential, commercial, or mixed-use structures. People sharing space with the machinery which will move the millions introduces a degree of risk which a single use ventilation structure avoids. Will we suspend the SAS if some grandmother on the tenth floor forgets her cooking and starts a grease fire? And just how liable will the MTA be for the byproducts of any fires that may be vented through these ventilation structures? I realize that the neighboring structures share the same proximity and thus anything affecting a shared use ventilation structure should affect the surrounding buildings, but it will be those people living in the structure who have a legal link with the MTA and its potential millions waiting to be tapped by the right lawyer. It seems less myopic and more pragmatic to accept the slight reduction in residential and commercial space and in doing so avoid the potential problems a combined ventilation/residential unit would bring with it.It's not exactly an untried concept. What about Grand Central Terminal? Should the rail yards been kept uncovered to guard against some grandmother's grease fire, instead of building what's now the Helmsley Bldg, the Biltmore Hotel, The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, etc? |
|
|
| (974253) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Thu Sep 2 11:43:15 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 23:55:19 2010. 1:good for you i was wrong. now get off your fixation.2:So what you are saying is you have never been wrong about a single thing you have ever said on subchat? |
|
|
| (974267) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 2 12:27:59 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Sep 1 23:50:06 2010. Re your two-There is a better chance of the Second Ave Subway being connected to Staten Island and White Plains than Brian ever admitting to being wrong in any way. |
|
|
| (974268) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Thu Sep 2 12:28:55 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Thu Sep 2 12:27:59 2010. exactly. He thinks he is never wrong here. Everyone has flaws, and he refuses to admit he has some. |
|
|
| (974274) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Sep 2 12:44:53 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 23:55:19 2010. But I initially made the same reading mistake. |
|
|
| (974393) | |
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Sep 2 20:10:56 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by WillD on Thu Sep 2 00:06:41 2010. "Regardless of whether your opionion is right or wrong, it certainly seems, at least in my opinion, to have been formed with little or no input from what is actually transpiring. With the TBMs now in the ground it would cost the MTA a lot of money to cancel the contract to bore the tunnel up to 96th St. Once they reach 96th it should be relatively simple to rehabilitate the former cut and cover segments and complete the SAS up to around 110th. From there 125th shouldn't be all that hard. Cancelling the northern end of the line at this late in the gam would create (ironically enough given the thread title) a myopically shortsighted disaster of public finance."Agreed. At the very least, they need to get the 2nd Avenue line (as heavy rail subway) up to Lexington and 125th, especially given that much of the stretch of tunnels north of 96th is already there. Those tunnels shouldn't go to waste, given how close they are to the Phase 1 tunnels. I'm sure the Phase 2 stations would be well-used if built. |
|
|
