Jackson Heights Life

Get Connected => Neighborhood Chat => Topic started by: lmaniace on May 09, 2018, 07:41:02 PM

Title: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 09, 2018, 07:41:02 PM
We will tell you how you can help tame this threat, but first the details.

It's no secret that high-rises well above the six-stories that's been the max in Jackson Heights will be rising here. At least five buildings that would break though that ceiling are proposed, approved or under construction - including two 13-story buildings - a photo of one we've attached here. The Jackson Heights Beautification Group (JHBG) the Queensboro Houses Association and others included at least one elected official are pushing city government act on our seven-year-old application to expand the existing landmark district before it is too late.

First, let's get one thing out of the way.  We are not trying to freeze all development or prevent new housing from being built. We will explain later,  but back to the threat.

We've already seen massive development in Long Island City and part of Astoria, as well as Flushing and other parts of Queens, now it appears to be JH's turn. Several months ago a developer bought two, two-story brick buildings on 89th Street off 37th Avenue and filed plans to put up a nine-story building there. This should SCARE you if like JH's planned mix of smaller buildings with apartment buildings because this is the first time developers bought multi-family buildings in Jackson Heights in order to tear them down to put up much bigger structures.

Think about this: these will not contain so-called affordable apartments (even those not affordable for most local renters,) but they will burden our local infrastructure: our already crowded transit system, parks, schools and streets.

As we said above landmarking does not halt development, witness the six-story building that went up on 37th Avenue near 84th Street a few years back or "Kelly's Manor," a five-story building to replace a one-story structure already approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

What land DOES do is it requires new buildings to fit in with the character of our neighborhood. The fact is
the buildings and their gardens outside the historic district are of the same high quality of the buildings designated as an historic district in 1993. 

How you can help:
Remember, complaining about how bad this is on this or other site won't help.
Instead, contact Landmarks Preservation Commission Executive Director, Sarah Carroll.
1. Place "Expand the Jackson Heights Historic District" in subject line or atop your letter.
2. Tell her know why the landmark extension is important to you. USE YOUR OWN WORDS, but you may want to cover some of these ideas:
* The buildings in the proposed district extension are just as worthy as those within the existing district.
* Jackson Heights' architecture and building gardens create a distinctive and beautiful community appreciated by NYC’s most diverse population.
You can email her at: scarroll@lpc.nyc.gov

and please copy us at expandJHdistrict@gmail.com

Or write her at:
NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission Executive Director Sarah Carroll.
The Municipal Building
1 Centre Street, 9th Floor North
New York, NY 10007

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: NYC Peromyscus on May 10, 2018, 07:09:48 AM
We will tell you how you can help tame this threat, but first the details.

First, let's get one thing out of the way.  We are not trying to freeze all development or prevent new housing from being built. We will explain later,  but back to the threat.


Really? Looking forward to that explanation, because this seems like NIMBYism at its finest.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 10, 2018, 07:56:12 AM
How can a person write a letter to support this proposal if I have no idea what this new proposed landmark district looks like? You show a building under construction on 72nd Street that also shows some siding clad wood houses. Are these the homes that you view as landmark worthy? The ominous word “threat” seems to imply some scare tactics from the 1950’s red scare.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Lilybell on May 10, 2018, 09:06:36 AM
The Mayor and DM Glen LOVE what they call "vertical housing".  In their vision, it's one of the few viable options that would enable a larger amount of moderate/low income housing.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, so don't yell at me.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 10, 2018, 09:55:03 AM
New York is a vertical city.  Since the 1920's.

We are part of New York.

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Alfster on May 10, 2018, 11:49:27 AM
New York is a vertical city.  Since the 1920's.

We are part of New York.

Exactly.  NYC (as most true cities) are vertical cities.  If people clamor for more "affordable housing" or just housing in general, space must be made for them.  So, various building codes must be changed and lower density housing would necessarily need to be removed to make room for higher density housing.  It's a natural progression of the overall growth of NYC over time. 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: jeanette on May 10, 2018, 11:51:56 AM
Where's the evidence that building more housing creates affordable rents? Not theory, not MBA bs, but real world evidence. Is housing getting less expensive in LIC?
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Alfster on May 10, 2018, 12:34:24 PM
Where's the evidence that building more housing creates affordable rents? Not theory, not MBA bs, but real world evidence. Is housing getting less expensive in LIC?

Of course, not, but much of LIC is or is transforming into luxury housing.  There are still many areas in Queens and elsewhere that have illegal SRO or converted cellars/basements.  There is a great amount of demand for housing, but what is considered "affordable housing" is still beyond the reach of some.  If more housing isn't created it's likely that the housing market will continue to only provide ever increasing rents and home prices.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: NYC Peromyscus on May 10, 2018, 12:45:34 PM
Where's the evidence that building more housing creates affordable rents? Not theory, not MBA bs, but real world evidence. Is housing getting less expensive in LIC?

Manhattan, Brooklyn, and NW Queens have started to see the effect of more housing coming online:

https://therealdeal.com/2018/05/10/brooklyn-queens-see-another-record-breaking-month-for-concessions/

From the blog post: "For the 11th time in the past 12 months, the net effective median rent in Brooklyn dropped, seeing a 2.9 percent year-over-year decrease to $2,686. In Queens, the net effective median rent fell 11.7 percent year over year to $2,646, marking the eighth decline in the past nine months.
The year-over-year size of concessions went up in both boroughs as well. It increased to 1.8 months from 1.4 months in Brooklyn, and rose to 1.6 months from 1.1 months in Queens."

The article attributes these drops primarily to all of the new developments (esp the concessions).

We've been in a period of incredible increases for a number of years because inventory (especially for starter-level homes) has been very low. Thus competition has driven up sale prices and rents.  Might finally start coming back to earth as more inventory becomes available and changes to tax code alters incentives for homeowners.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: hum@njukebox1 on May 10, 2018, 12:54:15 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if whatever develops......was nice.  Perhaps a contemporary take on the JH historic district.  I'm surprised at the response thus far to the original post.  I would have thought there would be a great deal of support for expanding the historic district west to the BQE....and east to Junction Blvd.  This area holds a great deal of historic charm.  That said, I don't seem to mind the building being built on 72nd as that area could use some improvement.  What I fear most is just a mish-mash of high rises being built here and there with little to no thought regarding the aesthetic charm of the existing neighborhood. 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Alfster on May 10, 2018, 01:19:45 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if whatever develops......was nice.  Perhaps a contemporary take on the JH historic district.  I'm surprised at the response thus far to the original post.  I would have thought there would be a great deal of support for expanding the historic district west to the BQE....and east to Junction Blvd.  This area holds a great deal of historic charm.  That said, I don't seem to mind the building being built on 72nd as that area could use some improvement.  What I fear most is just a mish-mash of high rises being built here and there with little to no thought regarding the aesthetic charm of the existing neighborhood.

I do agree that it would be nice to have a bit more urban planning so that any new construction could perhaps save some historical or architectural elements that exists now.  That would take a lot of agreement between developers.  I certainly don't want to see a "mish-mash of high rises" either, especially if little regard is given to how this high density construction will affect existing infrastructure and transportation options (among other issues).  At the same time, the only way to build additional housing for the masses is to increase density. 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 10, 2018, 02:25:20 PM
Wow. Glad there is so much interest in this issue.

It can get a little complicated. What landmarking does and DOES NOT do is often misunderstood. As we said in our initial post - landmarking does NOT freeze development in a historic district. In the third paragraph above I promised a further explanation, which I provided in paragraphs six and seven (copied below.)

As we said above landmarking does not halt development, witness the six-story building that went up on 37th Avenue near 84th Street a few years back or "Kelly's Manor," a five-story building to replace a one-story structure already approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

What land(marking) DOES do is it requires new buildings to fit in with the character of our neighborhood. The fact is the buildings and their gardens outside the historic district are of the same high quality of the buildings designated as an historic district in 1993. 


A couple of other points. Yes large parts of Manhattan and some other scattered parts of NYC are vertical, but clearly that's not the entire case. Large parts of Brooklyn and some significant parts of Manhattan are of equal or lower density than Jackson Heights and some of these are protected by historic districts --- exactly the designation we are seeking. Much of Jackson Height from 69th Street to 91st Street was placed on the National Historic Register, while only the core area actually received officials NYC historic designation then.

Also, I will get a map showing the proposed district up on this site in the next day or two.
know.

I haven't answered everyone's question, but we are just beginning the campaign. Many of you know the Jackson Heights Beautification Group. We were established in the late 1980s when JH was in some deep trouble and the organization deserves some credit for helping turn the neighborhood around. We are a civic, environmental, arts and educational organization made up of all volunteers, which is why I need to get back to work and cannot answer more questions now.

In closing I want to get across this point: Communities are more than just the buildings and people who live there. They are a kind of ecosystem, made up of rich relationships developed over time between the built and among the environment the people who live there. As we learned from massive redevelopment and urban renewal in the 1950, '60s and '70s, you can't just sweep away neighborhoods, rebuild and then expect healthy communities (read Jane Jacobs.) Especially not neighborhoods that serve a broad mix of ethnicities and economic levels that is Jackson Heights. But without protection (which is merited by our architecture) much of Jackson Heights will be lost

Finally, and this is not meant as a put down of the Brooklyn neighborhood, but we don't need a Williamsburg in Queens. Jackson Heights is a pretty special place as it is. Thank you for reading to the end.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Alfster on May 10, 2018, 02:35:46 PM
We will tell you how you can help tame this threat, but first the details.

It's no secret that high-rises well above the six-stories that's been the max in Jackson Heights will be rising here. At least five buildings that would break though that ceiling are proposed, approved or under construction - including two 13-story buildings - a photo of one we've attached here. The Jackson Heights Beautification Group (JHBG) the Queensboro Houses Association and others included at least one elected official are pushing city government act on our seven-year-old application to expand the existing landmark district before it is too late.

First, let's get one thing out of the way.  We are not trying to freeze all development or prevent new housing from being built. We will explain later,  but back to the threat.

We've already seen massive development in Long Island City and part of Astoria, as well as Flushing and other parts of Queens, now it appears to be JH's turn. Several months ago a developer bought two, two-story brick buildings on 89th Street off 37th Avenue and filed plans to put up a nine-story building there. This should SCARE you if like JH's planned mix of smaller buildings with apartment buildings because this is the first time developers bought multi-family buildings in Jackson Heights in order to tear them down to put up much bigger structures.

Think about this: these will not contain so-called affordable apartments (even those not affordable for most local renters,) but they will burden our local infrastructure: our already crowded transit system, parks, schools and streets.

As we said above landmarking does not halt development, witness the six-story building that went up on 37th Avenue near 84th Street a few years back or "Kelly's Manor," a five-story building to replace a one-story structure already approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

What land DOES do is it requires new buildings to fit in with the character of our neighborhood. The fact is
the buildings and their gardens outside the historic district are of the same high quality of the buildings designated as an historic district in 1993. 

How you can help:
Remember, complaining about how bad this is on this or other site won't help.
Instead, contact Landmarks Preservation Commission Executive Director, Sarah Carroll.
1. Place "Expand the Jackson Heights Historic District" in subject line or atop your letter.
2. Tell her know why the landmark extension is important to you. USE YOUR OWN WORDS, but you may want to cover some of these ideas:
* The buildings in the proposed district extension are just as worthy as those within the existing district.
* Jackson Heights' architecture and building gardens create a distinctive and beautiful community appreciated by NYC’s most diverse population.
You can email her at: scarroll@lpc.nyc.gov

and please copy us at expandJHdistrict@gmail.com

Or write her at:
NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission Executive Director Sarah Carroll.
The Municipal Building
1 Centre Street, 9th Floor North
New York, NY 10007

Hmm, for the owner of the home in the foreground it appears to me that they would be pleasantly surprised in the form of an increased valuation of his or her home.  #winning?
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 10, 2018, 02:55:54 PM
out of curiosity, why do you think this would result in an increased valuation?
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Lilybell on May 10, 2018, 03:56:19 PM
Quote
New York is a vertical city.  Since the 1920's.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I am well aware NY has tall buildings, but that's not what I meant by vertical housing. I'm talking about the plans to change zoning in areas restricted to 6 stories in order to build very tall apartment towers. I don't think people realize how many areas the city wants to rezone.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 10, 2018, 04:07:46 PM
Lillybell,
I'm not sure I've seen details on this. Do you have a link? Thank you.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 10, 2018, 04:25:14 PM
Wow. Glad there is so much interest in this issue.



Finally, and this is not meant as a put down of the Brooklyn neighborhood, but we don't need a Williamsburg in Queens. Jackson Heights is a pretty special place as it is. Thank you for reading to the end.

The redevelopment of the Williamsburg waterfront is very attractive. And open to the public.

There are now wonderful promenades to stroll along the East River and even a mini beach. Previously these areas were inaccessible to the public. 

In truth, you are saying things that don't make sense.

The urban planning of Williamburg along the waterfront is impressive and has resulted in much new parkland for the community there.

We should be so lucky!

There is a way to allow development and high towers whereby the developer creates parks for the public as well. Like in Williamsburg.







Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: CaptainFlannel on May 10, 2018, 05:26:52 PM
Quote
In truth, you are saying things that don't make sense.

The urban planning of Williamburg along the waterfront is impressive and has resulted in much new parkland for the community there.

There's a difference between things that don't make sense and things one doesn't agree with. Unfortunately for the people who grew up in Williamsburg, they can no longer afford to live in their community. That's a problem.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 10, 2018, 05:30:23 PM
and if we had hundreds of acres of disused industrial wasteland running along Northern or Roosevelt, 40 story glass towers might be an improvement. having lived over there in the mid 80s, i'm still not so sure -- because, as Captain Flannel noted, most of the longterm residents aren't seeing any quality of life boost at all. if you're a working class person, you can only derive so much pleasure from watching someone eat a $32 piece of fish in your backyard.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 10, 2018, 06:24:38 PM
City and part of Astoria, as well as Flushing and other parts of Queens, now it appears to be JH's turn. Several months ago a developer bought two, two-story brick buildings on 89th Street off 37th Avenue and filed plans to put up a nine-story building there. This should SCARE you if like JH's planned mix of smaller buildings with apartment buildings because this is the first time developers bought multi-family buildings in Jackson Heights in order to tear them down to put up much bigger structures.

The above is not a true statement. On 73rd Street between 37th Ave and Broadway there used to be 6 multiple family homes in the middle of the block that were torn down to put up 5 to 8 story residential and commercial buildings. In fact there is another house that has its utilities cut and about to be demolished. Do you believe that any of those homes were landmark worthy?

This seems less about trying to save some minor architectural detail and more about NIMBYism. You state that the community should decide what the building looks like. Absent this landmarking the developer hires an architect and builds what the zoning allows. It may done in the new international style and not neo-Georgian style.
 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 10, 2018, 07:48:03 PM
To folks who say they want more housing - for the last time: Landmarking does not stop new housing. So you could go on and on about the need for more housing here, but that has nothing to do with this post.

Jackson Heights has a lot of housing packed into small space.  The 11372 zip code already has one of the highest population densities in NYC and the nation - it just doesn't feel like it because it was wisely planned.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: hum@njukebox1 on May 10, 2018, 09:45:49 PM
Exactly.  Jackson Heights was wisely planned.  Its appeal stems from the fact that it was wisely planned and has a pretty much unified aesthetic.  What a shame it would be if that aesthetic was lost.  Take a stroll through Astoria and the unattractive mishmash of architecture that exists there.  Take a stroll through Flushing......if you can make your way through the overcrowded streets.  It's nice to know the historic district of Jackson Heights as it exists now should remain intact, but wouldn't it be nice to protect the entire area from Roosevelt to Northern and the BQE to Junction Blvd?  I certainly think so.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: jeanette on May 10, 2018, 10:40:27 PM
NYC Peromyscus, your link is to a R/E propaganda sheet. That's the old MBA trick, raise the price so high that you can advertise a price-drop. And the boasted decreases still represent unaffordable rentals.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 11, 2018, 01:08:02 AM
In this expanded district it would include many new buildings that are not historic. Many of the large apartment buildings are old and ugly looking square boxes. This expanded district would cheapen the current historic district. It seems silly to claim that modern buildings are poorly made. All of these older buildings have old electric, plumbing and old elevators that create a fire hazard. 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: NYC Peromyscus on May 11, 2018, 07:02:40 AM
So is the proposal really to make nearly the entire neighborhood a historic district? That makes no sense just by the landmarking standards given how many different types of buildings from different eras that already exist.

And it's important to remember that making something a historic district favors one set of aesthetic standards over others that people may desire for their own property. Then you have unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats enforcing a bunch of rules, many of which will seem arbitrary.

This goes way beyond limiting the size and design of new buildings to include very detailed restrictions on awnings, signs, cornices and on and on. Don't see the need for this at all.

And Jeanette, if there is any data source that you would believe that indicate that median rents in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and NW Queens have stabilized and even started creeping down, then let me know what that is. It's been talked about for over a year now all over the place...google will find you multiple sources. it was the inevitable consequence of thousands of new units coming on the market simultaneously.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 11, 2018, 07:54:41 AM
All this talk about how great Jackson Heights is planned.

Yes, the historic district is uniform and attractive.

But the hard truth is, apart from the private gardens, Jackson Heights has minimal open space/parkland compared with pretty much every other neighborhood in NYC.

The smart thing would be to work with the developers and remedy that situation.

They can build their towers... and in turn create public parkland/open spaces for us in Jackson Heights.

This has been successfully achieved elsewhere.

Folks are dissing Williamsburg...but that situation is already here in Jackson Heights.  Where people who can't afford to live in complexes with private gardens can only glimpse into those paradises... and merely dream of open spaces for themselves.





Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Lilybell on May 11, 2018, 09:01:13 AM
Quote
Lillybell,
I'm not sure I've seen details on this. Do you have a link? Thank you.

Hi Len, there's nothing I can share without getting fired, sorry! Honestly, I don't see how it can happen before DeBlasio's term ends.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JHResident on May 11, 2018, 10:03:44 AM
Re: NIMBY
Yes it's NIMBY.  That's exactly what the Landmark status is all about.  Preserving a way of life that outside developers don't have any consideration for.  You can build, but it has to fit in.

If you want uncontrolled expansion with random buildings popping up on a regular basis, move to Elmhurst or Corona.  You too can have garish signs illuminating the nail salons and 99 Cent stores being built right next to your home and lose your view to some multi-story dwelling being built where your view used to be.

As far as I'm concerned, the charm of Jackson Heights is the Garden Apartments and the Town Houses, even though I can't afford them.  Some of the Town Houses have already been torn down to build the IS 230 expansion.  Many of the big houses between 37th avenue and Roosevelt have already been torn down and replaced with ugly brick multi-family dwellings which do not have adequate parking nor any green space.

By the way, there was green space in Jackson Heights years ago (before 1950) near where Travers Park and the Garden School are, but the golf course was replaced with apartment buildings and the smaller park and schools.  While Jackson Heights didn't need a golf course, if that land could have been preserved as open space, how much better would our neighborhood be today.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: CaptainFlannel on May 11, 2018, 10:17:38 AM
Quote
In this expanded district it would include many new buildings that are not historic.

The current historic district includes post-war buildings that are not in character with the original development of the 1920s. Roosevelt Terrace comes to mind as the biggest example (and perhaps Donner Gardens as well, I'm not clear if that is in the historic district). There are other examples of 1950s post-war buildings throughout the neighborhood that were built on during the post-WWII housing boom - if I understand the history correctly - the community gardens that had been part of the original plan for the neighborhood. So, the criteria for the historic boundaries doesn't appear to have been a lack of non-historic buildings.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: queenskid2 on May 11, 2018, 12:01:44 PM
The problem with increased development, especially residential development, is that neighborhoods don't always have the infrastructure to accommodate more people.  For years we had schools holding classes in old closets and bathrooms.  There were just not enough schools.  To its credit, the city went on a school building spree in our community, but they were entirely public and intermediate schools.  Where will these children go to high school.  And can our schools handle a new wave of children?

The same with transportation.  People have mentioned Williamsburg, but the subway infrastructure there was never designed to handle the new population.  And when all those new buildings in LIC start to fill up our subway lines will become even more crowded.

My point is, planning should include more than just increasing residential capacity.   
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Lilybell on May 11, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
Quote
By the way, there was green space in Jackson Heights years ago (before 1950) near where Travers Park and the Garden School are, but the golf course was replaced with apartment buildings and the smaller park and school

And the area by the Duane Reade was a big archery field! That sounds like fun.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 11, 2018, 01:58:17 PM
The proposal to expand the historic district would cover buildings that are pretty much fo equal qthose 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 11, 2018, 02:15:26 PM
The idea is NOT to make all of JH a historic district, just that portion developed under the plan by Edward MacDougall and Queensboro Houses.
The buildings in the proposed expansion areas are pretty much of equal quality to those in the already landmarked district. That's why they are on the National Register of Historic Places. (A great honor, but it doesn't protect anything.)
The strange thing about people clamoring for high rises in JH (11372), they seem to be under the impression that we are an inappropriately low-density developed area.
Zip code 11372 is a VERY HIGH POPULATION DENSITY neighborhood, one of the densest in the nation. It just doesn't feel like it because it was well-planned with a mix apartment buildings, private homes and gardens.   
Yeah, what could go wrong with allowing developers to run roughshod over a carefully planned neighborhood?
Ciao!
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 11, 2018, 04:57:56 PM
“As far as I'm concerned, the charm of Jackson Heights is the Garden Apartments and the Town Houses, even though I can't afford them.  Some of the Town Houses have already been torn down to build the IS 230 expansion.  Many of the big houses between 37th avenue and Roosevelt have already been torn down and replaced with ugly brick multi-family dwellings which do not have adequate parking nor any green space.”

Where exactly has this happened? Landmark status does not increase the parking requirements for new construction or requires more gardens. That is the role of the NYC planning commission who oversees the zoning law and its requirements for certain areas based on density. I think your complaint should be with them. As far as parking requirements, I believe the city is moving away from requiring parking near major subway stations. The belief is you don’t need a car.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 13, 2018, 12:29:19 PM
The attached pictures and the following text are from our postcard, which will be available in JH in a week or so.

You don't have to wait, though. Please send a letter, in your own words, that covers the points below.
HELPFUL TIP: Landmarks Preservation Commission's responsibility has to do with historic/architectural quality. Your motivation might be to prevent rampant development that will overwhelm trains, parks and local infrastructure. That won't cut it with the LPC, so use you time effectively and make a pitch that they will respond to. THANK YOU!
 
I urge the Landmarks Preservation Commission to extend
the Jackson Heights Historic District. Our goal is to
preserve the buildings developed contemporaneously
with the landmarked central core of Jackson Heights.
These buildings were built to the same planning and
architectural standards, and they complement the scale
and character of the existing Historic District. This new
designation is urgently needed, as a series of large, out-of-character
developments have recently been proposed in or near the proposed extension.

Chairperson
NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission
The Municipal Building
1 Centre Street, 9th Floor North
New York, NY 10007
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 13, 2018, 03:37:55 PM
The attached pictures and the following text are from our postcard, which will be available in JH in a week or so.

You don't have to wait, though. Please send a letter, in your own words, that covers the points below.
HELPFUL TIP: Landmarks Preservation Commission's responsibility has to do with historic/architectural quality. Your motivation might be to prevent rampant development that will overwhelm trains, parks and local infrastructure. That won't cut it with the LPC, so use you time effectively and make a pitch that they will respond to. THANK YOU!
 
I urge the Landmarks Preservation Commission to extend
the Jackson Heights Historic District. Our goal is to
preserve the buildings developed contemporaneously
with the landmarked central core of Jackson Heights.
These buildings were built to the same planning and
architectural standards, and they complement the scale
and character of the existing Historic District. This new
designation is urgently needed, as a series of large, out-of-character
developments have recently been proposed in or near the proposed extension.

Chairperson
NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission
The Municipal Building
1 Centre Street, 9th Floor North
New York, NY 10007


Look, I agree that the Historic District might be expanded if that is done  properly.

But the before/after photos are disingenuous.

That high rise is replacing cheap housing which is truly not aesthetically appealing by any stretch of the imagination...which exists around the BQE to 73rd Street.

Not Tudor mansions as suggested by your alarmist before/after shots.

I believe you should be honest in what you represent even in our era of Fake News.

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 13, 2018, 03:58:02 PM
within five years, we'll be hemmed in on all sides by high rises (that one didn't replace housing, it's going up on what used to be a one-story retail strip and church). the current historic district is unlikely to be touched, but unbroken 10-12 story buildings on all sides? with proposed amenities like public space that -- if Manhattan is the blueprint -- will be yanked off the table once building is complete? no thanks.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 13, 2018, 04:07:16 PM
Nothing disingenuous here.
Photo on the left is located in the area included in the proposed expansion area. They are not Tudor mansions, although they are nice.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: hum@njukebox1 on May 13, 2018, 04:12:03 PM
If the historic district is not expanded, couldn't high rises start popping up at 75th and 89th streets and south of 37th Avenue just outside the boundaries of the current historic district?  If that happens, the feel of the current historic district will be destroyed.  Seems to me the expansion would only encompass a few blocks west of 76th, and few blocks east of 88th and the block between 37th Avenue and Roosevelt.  Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 13, 2018, 04:23:55 PM
To answer your question hum@njukebox1 - YES.

And just to clarify, before anyone accuses us of being disingenuous. By high-rises we are not talking about 20, 30, 40-story buildings, but only what is permitted by current zoning. And in the case of what is proposed for the expansion area on 89th Street, that's nine stories - approximately four times taller than the neighboring two story buildings. Finally the proposed expansion would only touch Roosevelt Avenue in a few spots.

Happy Mothers Day to all mothers and anyone whoever had a mother!
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 13, 2018, 04:39:37 PM
I guess I am simply not frightened by high rise like other folks are.

I imagine it's due to a person's history.

I come from a low rise place.

And ran away as fast as I could...
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Tom Lowenhaupt on May 13, 2018, 04:51:52 PM
FYI, there's a page on the Jackson Heights Wiki about Roosevelt Parc at Roosevelt Avenue and the BQE (see https://wiki.jacksonheights.nyc/wiki/Roosevelt_Parc (https://wiki.jacksonheights.nyc/wiki/Roosevelt_Parc)). As the "Parc" impinges on my view of the sky more each day, I'm no lover. But,

...considering its proximity to Diversity Plaza (see https://wiki.jacksonheights.nyc/wiki/Diversity_Plaza), perhaps a civic evangelist might extrapolate on the co-habitation potential and draw the Roosevelt Parc developer, Friends of Diversity Plaza, and the broader neighborhood into a planning process.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 13, 2018, 06:21:58 PM
The attached pictures and the following text are from our postcard, which will be available in JH in a week or so.

You don't have to wait, though. Please send a letter, in your own words, that covers the points below.
HELPFUL TIP: Landmarks Preservation Commission's responsibility has to do with historic/architectural quality. Your motivation might be to prevent rampant development that will overwhelm trains, parks and local infrastructure. That won't cut it with the LPC, so use you time effectively and make a pitch that they will respond to. THANK YOU!

 
I urge the Landmarks Preservation Commission to extend
the Jackson Heights Historic District. Our goal is to
preserve the buildings developed contemporaneously
with the landmarked central core of Jackson Heights.
These buildings were built to the same planning and
architectural standards, and they complement the scale
and character of the existing Historic District. This new
designation is urgently needed, as a series of large, out-of-character
developments have recently been proposed in or near the proposed extension.

Chairperson
NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission
The Municipal Building
1 Centre Street, 9th Floor North
New York, NY 10007


Where is the map of this proposed extension? How can you repeatedly ask us to support something if we have no idea what it is you are proposing? That picture also is very misleading because it shows the big building on 72nd Street which is on the border of Jackson Heights that has some awful wood houses next to it. It is very far from the historic district. Landmarked building and districts need to show they have some architectural merit that is worth saving. That is not the case on 72nd Street.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 13, 2018, 06:26:26 PM
Where is the map of this proposed extension? How can you repeatedly ask us to support something if we have no idea what it is you are proposing? That picture also is very misleading because it shows the big building on 72nd Street which is on the border of Jackson Heights that has some awful wood houses next to it. It is very far from the historic district. Landmarked building and districts need to show they have some architectural merit that is worth saving. That is not the case on 72nd Street.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 13, 2018, 06:55:30 PM
I guess I am simply not frightened by high rise like other folks are.

Don't think we're frightened by high-rises, just don't want them sweeping through Jackson Heights, a unique mix of private homes and apartment buildings that contains an unusual amount of green space around the housing. That uniqueness is what got the core of this planned community designated a NYC Historic Landmark in 1993 and the larger area listed on the National Historic Register. Why would anyone want to see that damaged, especially since we already are one of the densest neighborhoods in New York City (Zip Code 11372)... and the nation for that matter?   

Quick question abcdefghijk,
You didn't explain what was disingenuous about the postcard photos, or why you described the photo as featuring Tudor mansions, or how it has anything to do with fake news?

And thank you for the info, Tom Lowenhaupt. Please wish Patti a Happy Mothers Day from Barbara and me. Roosevelt Parc? Swanky, though I like Interstate Vue - still French sounding.


All the best.

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 13, 2018, 07:23:36 PM
I guess I am simply not frightened by high rise like other folks are.

Don't think we're frightened by high-rises, just don't want them sweeping through Jackson Heights, a unique mix of private homes and apartment buildings that contains an unusual amount of green space around the housing. That uniqueness is what got the core of this planned community designated a NYC Historic Landmark in 1993 and the larger area listed on the National Historic Register. Why would anyone want to see that damaged, especially since we already are one of the densest neighborhoods in New York City (Zip Code 11372)... and the nation for that matter?   

Quick question abcdefghijk,
You didn't explain what was disingenuous about the postcard photos, or why you described the photo as featuring Tudor mansions, or how it has anything to do with fake news?

And thank you for the info, Tom Lowenhaupt. Please wish Patti a Happy Mothers Day from Barbara and me. Roosevelt Parc? Swanky, though I like Interstate Vue - still French sounding.


All the best.

We in Jackson Heights are in a position of power.  As opposed to being reactionary, my point is use that power to force the developers of the new high rises to incorporate public space (gardens) in their design.  Otherwise they don't get approved.

It's a question of taste.  I am a modernist in my aesthetic and so not averse to well constructed contemporary high rise.
Some are attractive.

By not being reactionary....that is black and white, good compromises can be reached (win/win) benefiting the community and the developers.

It's a pragmatic approach.

With a balanced and open mind, much can be achieved. Incorporating modern design.

Your postcard shows an area that is outside the Historic District that is already zoned for highrise and implies the historic district will look like that.

But in truth, what are the new boundaries of the Historic District that you are suggesting?

And why not show a jpeg of a mini Chrysler Building?

With bargaining power, instead of being reactionary, we could even make developers build that!

(I am being hyperbolic...to make my point...) 





















Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 13, 2018, 08:19:55 PM
The NYC planning commission is the body that controls zoning, parking, how high you can build, how much garden you need to have. You have to get Dromm to get them to down zone Jackson Heights. This will eliminate all these big towers. This whole landmark the entire neighborhood is just silly.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: CaptainFlannel on May 13, 2018, 08:34:04 PM
There are no mansions in Jackson Heights. While many of the homes are lovely, by no stretch of the imagination could they be described as mansions. Some of the nicer homes are attached or semi-attached, which seems rather contrary to the idea of what a mansion is.

Google can be very helpful when you're trying to find information. I'm not sure if this is the proposed expansion of the historic district, or even outlines the historic district correctly, but given what I've heard about the interest in expanding the historic district, this may be it:
http://architecturaltrust.org/~architec/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Map_Jackson_Heights.jpg (http://architecturaltrust.org/~architec/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Map_Jackson_Heights.jpg)
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 13, 2018, 08:57:00 PM
Isn’t this on 77th Street?

http://stmedia.stimg.co/1506112861_01004581346+18LeMond092217.online+182750.JPG?w=2000
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: CaptainFlannel on May 14, 2018, 08:51:54 AM
^what a pretty house! Where is this located?

My parents thought the semi-attached homes in JH that looked like this were single family homes until I pointed out the two doors. (I did too until I noticed the garages on each end.).
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Alfster on May 14, 2018, 09:24:04 AM
Isn’t this on 77th Street?

http://stmedia.stimg.co/1506112861_01004581346+18LeMond092217.online+182750.JPG?w=2000

Wow!  How many illegal rooms could fit into a basement of a house that size?  LOL (j/k)
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JHResident on May 14, 2018, 12:13:01 PM
Where exactly has this happened?

75th Street and 76th Street between Roosevelt and 37th Avenue.  Look at the buildings and parking lot along 75th St if you want to know how the rest of the neighborhood will look without landmark status.  Random building heights and dense housing, more curb cuts, more businesses with garish signs.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 14, 2018, 03:47:08 PM
That area is zoned R5 but most of the houses have been converted to Doctors offices which is allowed under zoning laws. Same as a church. That has been like that for thirty years. The parking lot is only allowed by special permit which is backed by Dromm (and predecessors) who has his office next door. I don’t agree that it should be allowed. It is a commercial use in a R5 zone. Those houses have already been converted so it is too late.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Alfster on May 15, 2018, 02:25:39 PM
Isn’t this on 77th Street?

http://stmedia.stimg.co/1506112861_01004581346+18LeMond092217.online+182750.JPG?w=2000

Hey jerk, that's my house!  #getoffmylawn
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Lilybell on May 16, 2018, 10:56:42 AM
Quote
^what a pretty house! Where is this located?

It's Greg LeMond's mansion in Minnesota (he was selling it for under 5M). (i'm no expert on MN real estate; I did a reverse image search)
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Simka on May 21, 2018, 10:04:52 AM
The problem with increased development, especially residential development, is that neighborhoods don't always have the infrastructure to accommodate more people.  For years we had schools holding classes in old closets and bathrooms.  There were just not enough schools.  To its credit, the city went on a school building spree in our community, but they were entirely public and intermediate schools.  Where will these children go to high school.  And can our schools handle a new wave of children?

The same with transportation.  People have mentioned Williamsburg, but the subway infrastructure there was never designed to handle the new population.  And when all those new buildings in LIC start to fill up our subway lines will become even more crowded.

My point is, planning should include more than just increasing residential capacity.   

That is the point that I have tried to make when this subject has come up before. There are always people who try to ignore it or argue it away. But I have friends who live in Williamsburg and have had a pretty close-up view of what they've experienced there. And I have seen it in other places too.

We're lucky in Jackson Heights to have a lot of different trains coming through here, but even those are pretty crowded. It would be a shame if big buildings start going up and thousands more people move into the neighborhood without any consideration about the effects on the subways, schools, and other services.

And about NIMBYism—give me a break! I haven't liked seeing all of this overdevelopment wherever it's occurred. Mostly for the reason stated above, but also because the new housing is for higher-income people (unless the developer has one of those deals where a few apartments need to be set aside for lower-income residents, in exchange for being allowed to build a taller building or get some other break). And having taller buildings go up creates massive construction that can seriously damage surrounding properties (I saw this not just in Williamsburg, where my friends and the developer who built an apartment building next to theirs have been locked in legal battles for years now, but also in Park Slope). After which the people in nearby low-rise buildings have their views and sunlight blocked.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 21, 2018, 10:20:49 PM
Hello all,

I've attached a map showing the bounds of the proposed extensions of the Jackson Heights Historic District. The extensions contain the diagonal lines. The outermost line marks the area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The dark gray area is the existing district. As you can see the proposed areas avoid new construction and buildings of "lesser architectural quality" that so concerned several.

Speaking of lesser quality, I'm not sure how legible the map's details are because of the 128 KB limit on images here. You can see the higher res version here - www.facebook.com/JacksonHeightsHistoric/ .

BTW, you can help preserve one of NYC's highest density neighborhoods in a form that doesn't feel crowded by contacting the Landmark Preservation Commission's Executive Director Sarah Carroll at scarroll@lpc.nyc.gov

This will take one minute, pretty much regardless of your computer skills


Please put Expand the Jackson Heights Historic District in the subject line. You may want to say something along the following lines below. Key points: 1) the expanded district's proposed buildings are just as high quality as the current district. 2) these distinct buildings and their generous open space are endangered by development. 

I urge the Landmarks Preservation Commission to extend
the Jackson Heights Historic District. Our goal is to
preserve the buildings developed contemporaneously
with the landmarked central core of Jackson Heights.
These buildings were built to the same planning and
architectural standards, and they complement the scale
and character of the existing Historic District. This new
designation is urgently needed, as a series of large, out-of-character
developments have recently been proposed in or near the proposed extension.

And thank you all for the great discussion and support. Now it's your turn to make it happen
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 22, 2018, 12:46:50 AM
I really don’t have any vehement opposition to the expansion but I did notice some odd things. That whole appendix looking thing around 73rd Street includes the old converted movie theater which has just been modified. There is nothing worthwhile to save at that location.  Also a funny inclusion is Apna Bazzar. That building is garbage.

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Alfster on May 22, 2018, 08:56:54 AM
Quote
By the way, there was green space in Jackson Heights years ago (before 1950) near where Travers Park and the Garden School are, but the golf course was replaced with apartment buildings and the smaller park and school

And the area by the Duane Reade was a big archery field! That sounds like fun.

Archery?  Don't we have enough problems with weapons?  :-/
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: rosie on May 22, 2018, 12:58:17 PM
I support expanding the boundaries of this LPC-designated historic district, but also know it's not the only tool in our toolbox. Landmarking is a difficult (but not unattainable! just difficult) route for a few reasons. Firstly, the current chair of the LPC has given notice, so the department is going to be going through a period of adjustment for who knows how long while a long-term replacement is found. Obviously the staffers will continue to do their jobs, but it does change the overall attitude and tone of the LPC as a whole. Secondly, while I love every little historic wood-frame building in our neighborhood and (personally) wish we could save them all forever, many of them don't have enough historic significance to be protected by the LPC. Trust me, I work in the field, and you would be amazed at the beautiful buildings the LPC deems "not worthy" and allows developers to demolish.

That all being said, I will support any effort to expand the JH historic district, but think other approaches have merit as well. The best tool to fight out-of-context development (like that ginormous building going up at 72nd) is to change the zoning. The current zoning for JH can be found here http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/zoning/zoning-maps/map9d.pdf (http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/zoning/zoning-maps/map9d.pdf) and information on what that all means is here http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/zoning-maps.page (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/zoning-maps.page). I'm not an expert at reading those things, but I hope this might be helpful to JHBG and other concerned neighbors.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 22, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
Quote


Archery?  Don't we have enough problems with weapons?  :-/

if we have a Target, we may as well have archery.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 27, 2018, 11:25:02 AM
A friend took me to this garden recently. The Lotus Garden.  It's AWESOME.

And an example of developers working hand-in-hand with the community creating open space.

This would be a great idea for Jackson Heights.

Built on top of a garage in the UWS. 

There are creative solutions to work with developers. And NYC is full of them. (Community spaces, community theaters, open space created etc...)

We should learn from what's been done elsewhere... and that will benefit us all.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 27, 2018, 11:30:09 AM
that is really quite lovely. but it would have to be outside what most people consider to be "Jackson Heights" to be in this area -- since there's no open land within those parameters.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 27, 2018, 12:05:30 PM
75th Street car park. 78th Street/Roosevelt car park.

Perfect for it.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 27, 2018, 12:40:09 PM
75th Street car park. 78th Street/Roosevelt car park.

Perfect for it.

good locations, absolutely.

hundreds more cars on the street might be a negative, though. and the cost of buying the land from owners that know they have something very valuable.

not saying it couldn't/shouldn't happen, just noting.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 27, 2018, 01:05:20 PM
Eventually those parking lots will be developed.

It's simply a matter of time. 

The future beckons.

The community needs to think smart and get something out of it too...and not simply be reactionary. (Which is never the most intelligent way to deal with anything)

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: theplanesland on May 27, 2018, 03:06:32 PM
I've attached a map showing the bounds of the proposed extensions of the Jackson Heights Historic District. The extensions contain the diagonal lines. The outermost line marks the area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The dark gray area is the existing district. As you can see the proposed areas avoid new construction and buildings of "lesser architectural quality" that so concerned several.
And thank you all for the great discussion and support. Now it's your turn to make it happen

Len, I just want to ask, as a low 70s person: why the heck are you including Apna Bazar in your proposed historic district? I mean, they're great for cheap vegetables, but architecturally, they're basically an ugly, crumbling shack.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 27, 2018, 03:39:21 PM
Eventually those parking lots will be developed.

It's simply a matter of time. 

The future beckons.

The community needs to think smart and get something out of it too...and not simply be reactionary. (Which is never the most intelligent way to deal with anything)

they very well might. and one of them will probably be developed into a four-tier parking structure to accommodate all the excess cars that are being discussed in other threads here. yes, sometime in the future cars will be obsolete and we will all get around on monorails and those futuristic buses that straddle four lanes of traffic, but i doubt that will happen in the next five years.  and sometimes, we need to actually address needs of the present day and not simply try to create the needs of the future.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: BEB on May 27, 2018, 05:21:25 PM
I wonder, has it been mentioned on this site about the recent sale for the corner building at 74-12 37th ave (Corner of 75th and 37th ave that currently houses Mejbaan) for $16 million? I heard this while I was on a Jane's Walk. It sounds like we may need to ready ourselves for another spot rezoning situation there?
Sale info here: https://www.cpexecutive.com/post/top-5-retail-space-sales-8/

I am also confused about this proposed expansion of the historic district. Couldn't this be wildly unfair to a large swath of those who own smaller homes and buildings? I get that there could be an upswing in the value of certain buildings. But won't many of those who own in the newly added area also have huge financial responsibilities when it comes time to make repairs to their exterior structures? Won't things like replacing windows and roofs all need to have Landmark's approval, requiring they be done in historic context? Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 27, 2018, 05:47:14 PM


I am also confused about this proposed expansion of the historic district. Couldn't this be wildly unfair to a large swath of those who own smaller homes and buildings? I get that there could be an upswing in the value of certain buildings. But won't many of those who own in the newly added area also have huge financial responsibilities when it comes time to make repairs to their exterior structures? Won't things like replacing windows and roofs all need to have Landmark's approval, requiring they be done in historic context? Or am I missing something?

You are not missing anything.  You are 100% correct that any repairs become astronomical because they must replicate the original.  And so have to be customized.

I imagine that many of those in the proposed expansion don't want to be expanded upon!
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 27, 2018, 06:03:58 PM
i'm sure some of the residents in the proposed expansion area don't like the idea. a large percentage of those in the current historic district objected to it being put into place as well. there will always be a fight over things like this.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 27, 2018, 09:45:57 PM
Right now, residents in Queens have very little to negotiate with. We already have a nine-story building going up by right next to two-story houses on 89th Street. What kind of meaningful open space could be obtained by granting another four or five stories on top of what would already be too tall by many people.  What could we get by granting an additional four stories to the 13-story just south of B-way near the BQE.
The kind of developments that result in significant open space cover larger footprints and are much taller.
Also one point that is missed when we are talking about building more housing. Rents in new construction is far more expensive than what exists; it does nothing for providing affordable housing.
Landmarking does give a community some leverage in negotiating.
Finally, two quick points that many do not understand: Historic districts do not prevent new housing. Second Jackson Heights (11372) is already one of the densest neighborhoods in New York City and the nation.
All the best!
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 27, 2018, 10:40:42 PM
What you want is a re-zoning if the neighborhood so the area gets down zoned from a R7 to a R4. This whole historic district is just a way to try to go around the NYC planning commission. There are a number of homes that have replaced their slate roofs and wood windows so you punish new homeowners who want to upgrade their inefficient homes. A slate roof could cost $50,000 for some these houses.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 27, 2018, 11:11:16 PM
Tell you what, JK Resident. You work on the zone change. We'll support you.
Meanwhile we'll work on landmarking because we want to preserve the character of JH. $50,000 for a new roof? That's cheaper than non-landmark roofs. Also, LPC doesn't not require slate if the substitute looks good. They don't even require that on individual landmarked buildings.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 28, 2018, 12:55:21 AM
I don’t have to work on a zoning change. Dromm has to request the NYC planning commission start one. Since he controls purse of NYC that should be easy. That is the work of paid professionals. Since the main idea of your group is to prevent 15 story buildings your group of die hard preservationists should push for both ideas. I really don’t care about either idea. I believe that the city needs more housing and would rather see new buildings than the current rundown homes that infest our neighborhood.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: theplanesland on May 28, 2018, 07:50:22 AM
What you want is a re-zoning if the neighborhood so the area gets down zoned from a R7 to a R4. This whole historic district is just a way to try to go around the NYC planning commission. There are a number of homes that have replaced their slate roofs and wood windows so you punish new homeowners who want to upgrade their inefficient homes. A slate roof could cost $50,000 for some these houses.

Wait, you want to downzone the neighborhood to eliminate six story buildings? I live in a six story building surrounded by other six story buildings. They've all been here since 1928. Jackson Heights is not just a neighborhood of little houses. An essential aspect of the neighborhood is that it is a neighborhood of lots of six story apartment buildings. R4 also requires off-street parking for every dwelling unit. That's ridiculous! In a 48-unit apartment building, they'd have to, what, install a parking lot? Build a garage? I don't get where you're coming from at all. R4 zoning for the neighborhood would completely shatter the character I and many others came to Jackson Heights to enjoy - a dense, walkable, transit-focused neighborhood of well-kept co-ops.

If you want a neighborhood that's all little houses, move to Bayside.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 28, 2018, 10:13:48 AM
What kind of meaningful open space could be obtained by granting another four or five stories on top of what would already be too tall by many people.  What could we get by granting an additional four stories to the 13-story just south of B-way near the BQE.



Other neighborhoods in NYC have negotiated community theater spaces, art spaces, galleries etc with developers. Whereby these spaces are leased to the community for minimal to zero rent.  That's what we might be able to negotiate.

As well as plazas and open spaces.

It's important to be open and imaginative, LMANIACE  You never know what negotiation might get.  And then the ENTIRE neighborhood might benefit.

We are not the first neighborhood to be faced with these issues. It's been happening in NYC forever. Let's be smart and learn how previous NYC neighborhoods have benefited by negotiation.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 28, 2018, 10:16:28 AM
I don’t care about tall buildings going up replacing these wooden crummy houses. This group that wants to eliminate 15 story buildings does. Look at the picture posted. R4 could be zoned around the area where there are houses so they are not demolished to build a 15 story. Other areas could be zoned R5, R6, etc. This is the real goal that this group aims to achieve. This whole Landmarking is a red herring for wanting to down zone Jackso n Heights. Obviously existing buildings would be exempt from these zoning laws.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 28, 2018, 10:57:34 AM
Eventually those parking lots will be developed.

It's simply a matter of time. 

The future beckons.

The community needs to think smart and get something out of it too...and not simply be reactionary. (Which is never the most intelligent way to deal with anything)

they very well might. and one of them will probably be developed into a four-tier parking structure to accommodate all the excess cars that are being discussed in other threads here. yes, sometime in the future cars will be obsolete and we will all get around on monorails and those futuristic buses that straddle four lanes of traffic, but i doubt that will happen in the next five years.  and sometimes, we need to actually address needs of the present day and not simply try to create the needs of the future.

Some folks are visionary.  Others are not.

Difference is the beauty of humanity.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 28, 2018, 11:06:51 AM
is it time to revisit the visionary plan to close LaGuardia Airport and move all flights, jobs and infrastructure upstate to Stewart?

visionaries need to be persistent.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 28, 2018, 11:38:50 AM
that last post was snarkier than i meant it to be, but look:

for decades, all over Manhattan, public plazas and "community spaces" have been:

a) built, then gradually taken out of public use
b) promised, then scaled down during the building process
c) never allowed to materialize because no one held developers accountable.

it's not just those things, either. developers have promised to install/maintain subway escalators that they actually own, and they stay "out of service" for years at a time (FiDi, 53rd street). it's a shell game and the public loses 99 percent of the time.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on May 28, 2018, 11:53:58 AM



So, we are going to allow the owner of the parking lot on 75th Street to build much higher if he builds us a community room or a very small park? Why not let that person just build what current zoning allows and not add to the congestion for some minimal neighborhood amenities that few would enjoy. There is nothing that will require they to build higher so all this is just speculation. How about letting the owner continuing to rent out the land for parking? This whole the neighborhood will now decide what and how tall every piece of land is used for sounds like socialism.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 28, 2018, 12:00:35 PM
well, we already have laws in place dictating how land can be used. that's what this whole thread is about.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on May 28, 2018, 12:28:35 PM
Difference of opinion is also part of the beauty of humanity.

Looking towards the dreams of the future, 10, 20, 30 years ahead... for the younger members of the Jackson Heights community...




 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on May 28, 2018, 01:14:47 PM
on that, we agree. both parts.

i only hope that more of those younger neighbors choose to stick around -- all over NYC, people move in at 18-29, then bolt for the suburban enclaves where they came here from. sometimes it's financial frustration, sometimes the old "i can't raise my child in the city" (which i never understood).

and i'm certainly young enough that i'll be able to enjoy (or kvetch about) the changes for at least 25 years. likely will turn into a pumpkin within 30.
 
Difference of opinion is also part of the beauty of humanity.

Looking towards the dreams of the future, 10, 20, 30 years ahead... for the younger members of the Jackson Heights community...
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on May 29, 2018, 04:29:26 PM
Jackson Heights is a special place. It’s one of NYC’s densest neighborhoods, but it doesn’t feel crowded. That’s because it was well planned, with plenty of gardens around its buildings.

Here’s how you can help protect Jackson Heights from rampant development:
Send an email to NYC Landmark Preservation Commission's Executive Director Sarah Carroll at scarroll@lpc.nyc.gov, urging the LPC to expand the district.

Please put Expand the Jackson Heights Historic District in the subject line and include these points: 1) the proposed expansion’s buildings are just as high quality as the current district. 2) these distinct buildings and their generous open space are endangered by encroaching development. 3) We applied for the expansion in 2011 and it’s time for LPC to hold a hearing on this proposal. And don’t forget to thank her.

JHBG is working with elected officials and other organizations to expand the landmark district to include the almost all of area planned of Jackson Heights’ developer Edward A. McDougall and his Queensboro Corporation.

BTW, to those who've raised questions about our strategy, we are not talking about protecting wooden boxes. That is just silly. We are talking about protecting substantial brick well-designed buildings (left photo.) So please stop introducing red herrings into the discussion.

If folks are interested in a zone change or negotiating to get open space, why don't you folks work on this. Please keep us apprised and perhaps we can lend some help.
JHBG decided to work on expanding the historic district some time ago. We made the application for the expansion in 2011; had a meeting with LPC chair in 2015 and recently decided to step up campaign.

We work full-time at jobs to support ourselves and families. (I'm sending this message from my office, so shhhhh, no snitching.) We have no magic wand to make things happen, and if is not clear yet, we are not paid to do this. We are just regular folks working together to get things done for the community. We welcome you working with us. We welcome you working separately. I guess the key word is work. LOL.

All the best.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JHResident on May 30, 2018, 01:06:07 PM
As an example of what I fear will become more widespread, the first picture shows the type of house that lines the east side of 75th St, the other shows what has been built to replace similar houses on the west side.  While the first is not especially historically significant, this type of house defined the parts of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst that border Roosevelt Avenue.  They are all but gone in Elmhurst and rapidly being torn down in JH.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: petster on June 02, 2018, 12:54:43 PM
I really see this development as ruining the whole fabric of the neighborhood.  Jackson Heights was never designed for such density and denies us  light and air ( not to mention increased traffic, noise and garbage). That,  plus the fact that most of the new construction is ill conceived, cheap and without consideration to the architectural history of the community.  The theatre that was torn down could have most certainly  been incorporated into  the Target/ housing that is going up.  Its' exterior and art deco interior could have been  preserved, thus representing something interesting and in line with neighborhood stylistically.   Something like this would never happen in Brooklyn where most  original structures are capitalized on and preserved at the same time. 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: theplanesland on June 02, 2018, 01:01:47 PM
I really see this development as ruining the whole fabric of the neighborhood.  Jackson Heights was never designed for such density and denies us  light and air ( not to mention increased traffic, noise and garbage). That,  plus the fact that

Jackson Heights absolutely was designed for density! That's why we're full of six story apartment buildings and we have FIVE subway lines serving the major interchange in our neighborhood. We are a dense, urban neighborhood. Now, we're all frustrated with the MTA, but we have a dense commercial fabric and multiple transit options for dense living in a way that Brooklyn neighborhoods served by a single occasional F train which shuts down on weekends just don't have.

There are a million more people living in NYC than there used to be, and if we don't build places for them to live, we'll become San Francisco, where working class people have to live 60 miles out of town because all of the in-city apartments have become utterly unaffordable. Jackson Heights has the bones and the resources to welcome newcomers.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 02, 2018, 03:28:05 PM
As an example of what I fear will become more widespread, the first picture shows the type of house that lines the east side of 75th St, the other shows what has been built to replace similar houses on the west side.  While the first is not especially historically significant, this type of house defined the parts of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst that border Roosevelt Avenue.  They are all but gone in Elmhurst and rapidly being torn down in JH.

Wait a minute. This street is not even included on the proposed expansion! You admit that this house is not important, so why are trying to protect it. The new homes built by Manhasset homes is what the current zoning allows in a R5 area. You should try to advocate for a R5A district. The new contextual designation of R5A or R7A allows development but only if it co forms with the surrounding buildings. This is what the group really want. Again what the group really wants is to down zone Jackson Heights and not preserve anything historic.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: petster on June 03, 2018, 01:17:36 PM
Creating new housing doesn't mean destroying everything in its path. It should be compatible in scale. There are plenty of one and two family homes between 69 street and Junction.....not just six story apartments. The neighborhood was designed that way. It creates an orchestration of low density and apartment buildings that would allow you to have  open air and green.  I'm not against new housing, I just think it can be done much more thoughtfully....and Jackson Heights was NEVER created for density as is most of Queens.  Quite the opposite. People  moved to Queens historically to get away from the city and it's crowds. Six story apartment buildings in JH are not the same as these high rise monstrosities  that are going up.  The JH transit hub provides easy access to the city ( if your into congestion and crowds) and an escape from the city.  If people are complaining about the MTA, it's because the infra structure was never designed to  be used by so many people.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 03, 2018, 06:04:34 PM
Creating new housing doesn't mean destroying everything in its path. It should be compatible in scale. There are plenty of one and two family homes between 69 street and Junction.....not just six story apartments. The neighborhood was designed that way. It creates an orchestration of low density and apartment buildings that would allow you to have  open air and green.

Well said Petster, but you have a stronger argument than you realize for protecting this mix of housing here. JH is already one the densest neighborhoods in NYC. It doesn't feel that way, however,  because of the skillful blend of private housing, apartment buildings and gardens. That's what makes JH special and is a big part of why JH is a historic district and deserves to have that status extended to the deserving areas beyond the current district.

It's hard to understand why some would want to destroy that makes our relatively affordable neighborhood (in an unaffordable city) so livable and environmentally sustainable. It's just so short-sighted.
I'm willing to bet if any respond, they will say that we need more housing in NYC, ignoring the fact that historic district status does not stop new housing from being built. Facts are just so darn inconvenient... and stupid, as one former president said.

All the best.
 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JHMNY on June 04, 2018, 01:34:23 PM
The Jackson Heights Beautification group has a new promotional video on the subject of the historic district's expansion:

Jackson Heights Historic District Expansion Promo (https://vimeo.com/270862267)
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lalochezia on June 04, 2018, 10:00:44 PM
JH is already one the densest neighborhoods in NYC.

You keep repeating this line as if it were gospel. What data source are you using to back up this assertion?


In the 2010 census, Jackson Heights was one of the middling neighborhoods in NYC, density-wise
. There are dozens denser in manhattan,  at least 5 denser in brooklyn (likely more) and  at least 3 denser in queens (again, likely more given the granularity of the data).

Here's my source. Where's yours?

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/data-maps/nyc-population/census2010/m_pl_p2_nta.pdf
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lalochezia on June 04, 2018, 10:01:52 PM
.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 04, 2018, 10:15:26 PM
Good point, lalo.
The area that I've been referring to (and tried to regularly cite this in my posts) is zip code 11372, the part of JH south of Northern Boulevard, which roughly corresponds to the area included on National Register of Places and the MacDougall development plan. Once you go north of Northern, the density drops dramatically. It's mostly two-story buildings, so that would pull down the overall densite.
I thought I had posted the source here. I will post as I have on other pages.
You are absolutely right to raise question. At the risk of being irreverent, even the gospel, isn't the gospel truth.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lalochezia on June 04, 2018, 10:19:39 PM
Fair enough!. It would be nice to compare densities with other zipcodes then....
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on June 04, 2018, 10:38:40 PM
i already *feel* crowded a lot of the time.  on the streets, in the subway, at businesses. we could ramp it up more so that it's more like manhattan in that sense, but is that a plus?
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 04, 2018, 11:21:06 PM

lalochezia

Here is the link: http://zipatlas.com/us/ny/zip-code-comparison/population-density.htm

I've been trying to confirm the data with the NYPL, but I haven't been abel to track down an expert on this area. I've spent sometime on the U.S. Census website as well without luck finding any comparison of zip code data.
I'm planning on calling the Bureau if a I get a break at work in the next few days.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lalochezia on June 05, 2018, 12:16:32 AM
Fascinating. If the data & calcs in that table are good, I eat my words and doff my hat.

7th most dense according to their calcs; even if they are off by 10%, it still puts us in the top 15.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 05, 2018, 01:47:44 AM
As far as expanding the district to include 6 story buildings, I don’t see a problem. Some of the houses that your map wants to preserve seem in poor shape and lack any architectural detail. So what if our neighborhood is dense. Why should it not be more dense? Are you claiming that the sewer , electric grid, schools can’t handle any more buildings.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 05, 2018, 08:50:05 AM
And that is 7th densest in the nation!!!

Thanks LALO. I was a daily journalist for 34 years so I appreciate a little skepticism.

I hope you think this is a good project. Aside from the architectural merit, my thinking is: we are a dense neighborhood, but it doesn't feel it AND that's a tribute to the original plan for JH. Perhaps this is how we should create dense city neighborhoods -- with a little more park space, though!!!!

All the best.

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: CaptainFlannel on June 05, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
Quote
So what if our neighborhood is dense. Why should it not be more dense?

Clearly this is a matter of opinion. Folks ITT have given their reasons for why they like the character of the neighborhood and want to preserve it and extend the historic district. People aren't under any obligation to explain the reasons for their opinion again and again in a fruitless attempt to justify their already explained opinion to those who disagree with them. That's just argument for argument's sake, and serves no real purpose.  Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Shelby2 on June 05, 2018, 09:07:53 AM
i already *feel* crowded a lot of the time.  on the streets, in the subway, at businesses. we could ramp it up more so that it's more like manhattan in that sense, but is that a plus?

I agree. I've taken to changing my walking route in order to avoid overly crowded sidewalks that are really unpleasant to navigate. My route changes only help a little bit. I was interested to read Jadasie's post from another thread, pasted below, that shows the increase in pedestrian traffic over the past ten years. It really is too crowded here!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another data set (Excel file), this time from the DOT, measuring neighborhood foot traffic:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/misc/nycdot-bi-annual-pedestrian-index.xls

The latest count is from May 2016, which shows that the stretch of 82nd street from 37th Ave to Roosevelt has the following single-day pedestrian counts:

Weekday (7-9am): 2868 (counted on 5/11/16)
Weekday (4-7pm): 9190 (counted on 5/11/16)
Saturday (12-2pm): 5285 (counted on 6/4/16)

In May 2007 those numbers were:

Weekday (7-9am): 1739 (5/9/07)
Weekday (4-7pm): 4753 (5/9/07)
Saturday (12-2pm): 3114 (5/12/07)

That's roughly a two-fold increase in foot traffic in less than 10 years.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 05, 2018, 10:36:00 AM
This whole argument of there being too many residents in Jackson Heights on sidewalks to walk is pretty silly. Just take another street if this bugs you. I don’t believe there has been a building boom in the area so the increase is not from new construction but from more people subdividing their apartment or houses. Jackson Heights has one of the highest rates of unrelated people living together. I believe the real reason there are so many people is that DOB does not enforce the laws and we are overrun with illegals conversions. This whole argument supports a modification of our zoning laws but not an expansion of the historic district.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on June 05, 2018, 10:45:10 AM
I imagine those foot traffic numbers also indicate that Jackson Heights is an immigrant hub.

In other words, folks from the surrounding neighborhoods of Elmhurst, Woodside and Corona  (and even further afield) gather here because of the familiarity of the immigrant stores and restaurants that exist here. Catering to specific cultural needs.

Plus it's easy to get to Jackson Heights, transit-wise.

I would guess that many counted in that data don't live in Jackson Heights but rather within a few miles of Jackson Heights.

Much like how young folks gather in the Lower East Side/East Village but don't necessarily live there. The stores/cafes/bars cater to the young there.  But young folks are attracted from further afield (like Brooklyn or even Jackson Heights!)...

 
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Shelby2 on June 05, 2018, 11:05:42 AM
I imagine those foot traffic numbers also indicate that Jackson Heights is an immigrant hub.

In other words, folks from the surrounding neighborhoods of Elmhurst, Woodside and Corona  (and even further afield) gather here because of the familiarity of the immigrant stores and restaurants that exist here. Catering to specific cultural needs.

Plus it's easy to get to Jackson Heights, transit-wise.

I would guess that many counted in that data don't live in Jackson Heights but rather within a few miles of Jackson Heights.

Much like how young folks gather in the Lower East Side/East Village but don't necessarily live there. The stores/cafes/bars cater to the young there.  But young folks are attracted from further afield (like Brooklyn or even Jackson Heights!)...

That doesn't explain why the numbers doubled in 10 years. It was the same immigrant hub with most of the same amenities 10 years ago.

Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on June 05, 2018, 11:17:27 AM
I believe the Bengali/Bangladeshi community has grown in that time.

And Jackson Heights is now the center for Bangladeshi immigrants.

Prior to that it was Indian...but I believe the Indian influence has decreased as the Bangladeshi one has increased.

An Indian pal explained to me that many (not all) of the stores in Little India are now run by Bangladeshi folk.  So the term "Little India" should in truth really be "Little Bangladesh" nowadays.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on June 05, 2018, 11:34:15 AM
From wikipedia...

New York City is home to the largest Bangladeshi community in the United States, receiving by far the highest legal permanent resident Bangladeshi immigrant population.[2] The Bangladeshi-born immigrant population has become one of the fastest growing in New York City, counting over 74,000 by 2011 alone.[10][11] The city's Bangladeshi community is spread out in the Jackson Heights neighbourhood within the New York City borough of Queens. 74th Street has most of the Bangladeshi grocery stores and clothing stores in Jackson Heights. The Bangladesh Plaza hosts numerous Bangladeshi businesses and cultural events. Recently, one part of Jackson Heights has become the open platform of all sorts of protests and activism. The neighbouring communities of Jackson Heights, Woodside, and Elmhurst in Queens also similarly have become attractive areas to live for Bangladeshi Americans.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: CaptainFlannel on June 05, 2018, 11:37:41 AM
Quote
This whole argument of there being too many residents in Jackson Heights on sidewalks to walk is pretty silly.

There is a difference between a silly argument and one you don't agree with. I advise learning the difference so as to not insult people you disagree with.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Shelby2 on June 05, 2018, 11:43:22 AM
From wikipedia...

New York City is home to the largest Bangladeshi community in the United States, receiving by far the highest legal permanent resident Bangladeshi immigrant population.[2] The Bangladeshi-born immigrant population has become one of the fastest growing in New York City, counting over 74,000 by 2011 alone.[10][11] The city's Bangladeshi community is spread out in the Jackson Heights neighbourhood within the New York City borough of Queens. 74th Street has most of the Bangladeshi grocery stores and clothing stores in Jackson Heights. The Bangladesh Plaza hosts numerous Bangladeshi businesses and cultural events. Recently, one part of Jackson Heights has become the open platform of all sorts of protests and activism. The neighbouring communities of Jackson Heights, Woodside, and Elmhurst in Queens also similarly have become attractive areas to live for Bangladeshi Americans.

Still doesn't explain why pedestrian traffic has doubled on 82nd St. between Roosevelt and 37th. Granted, I don't know the country of origin for every person I pass, but it doesn't seem like 82nd St. has many Bangladeshis on it.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: abcdefghijk on June 05, 2018, 12:17:03 PM
I once heard that Jackson Heights is like a port.

New immigrants know to come here and get a foothold in NYC.

(Like the Lower East Side was in the Ellis Island days)

That documentary IN JACKSON HEIGHTS pretty much illustrates it.

Those foot traffic numbers must be a mix of new immigrants and visitors.





Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Lilybell on June 05, 2018, 12:21:12 PM
Quote
This whole argument of there being too many residents in Jackson Heights on sidewalks to walk is pretty silly.

We really need that "ignore" button that allows us to block seeing comments from posters who can't be civil.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 05, 2018, 01:41:22 PM
More foot traffic on one commercial street leading to the subway is generally a healthy sign, because it's good for business and safety. I don't find the streets unpleasantly crowded, but that's me. 
The question is why the increase?
Don't think we've had a significant population increase because not really any new housing  There's been an increase at 73rd and Broadway as well, but not as great.
Some possibilities more people being attracted to stores on 82nd, more people walking down this part of 82nd to go to the other side of Roosevelt; more people living here using transit, more people visiting/working in JH using transit .
In any case, JH is a great neighborhood to walk in. Take advantage of that this weekend for JHBG's Historic Weekend events.
And sign a postcard to extend the historic district while you're at it; they are available in several stores.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 05, 2018, 02:36:32 PM
The answer is that many people rent a two bedroom and have eight people living in one apartment. The landlord pays the water and hot water so who cares. I have visited many homes and apartments in the neighborhood and many people live in appalling conditions. These many people in one apartment tends to degrade the housing rapidly. I have heard horror stories from repair people and supers. Many people from third world countries are used to living in squalor. Our schools are at overcapacity. Even though we have built many schools they continue to be overcrowded.


https://jacksonheightspost.com/corona-and-neighboring-areas-are-most-crowded-in-nyc
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Shelby2 on June 05, 2018, 02:39:41 PM
The answer is that many people rent a two bedroom and have eight people living in one apartment. The landlord pays the water and hot water so who cares. I have visited many homes and apartments in the neighborhood and many people live in appalling conditions. These many people in one apartment tends to degrade the housing rapidly. I have heard horror stories from repair people and supers. Many people from third world countries are used to living in squalor. Our schools are at overcapacity. Even though we have built many schools they continue to be overcrowded.


https://jacksonheightspost.com/corona-and-neighboring-areas-are-most-crowded-in-nyc

Then it seems that as far as crowded streets and infrastructure goes, we would have plenty of room for new development as long as the city would crack down on illegal dwellings.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 05, 2018, 04:07:05 PM
... and builds a new East River tunnel and four track subway to serve transit-starved Queens; a sizable local park, more schools... and as long as the new construction is in character with the surrounding neighborhood, maintaining our garden city plan... after all we are already one of NYC's densest neighborhoods.
So folks don't forget to continue to write the LPC urging them to move forward with a hearing on expanding JH's Historic District. See first post on how to do that and check out our wonderful video.
https://vimeo.com/270862267



Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 05, 2018, 09:53:39 PM
With CBTC control of all our trains soon the MTA will be able to expand capacity dramatically without building a new tunnel. The 7 line will get it later this year with the Queens Blvd line next. Technology to the rescue. Now if we only get our pampered MTA contractors to perform the work on time and under budget.

The more I read about this Historic district and the need to control density and views and air, the more it seems apparent that is NIMBY’ism on steroids. A group of well off white people wanting to stop multiple family construction in order to limit young immigrant families from living in spacious new apartments that have modern fire control equipment. The whole idea that the new construction is of poor quality while being highly regulated is laughable. The city should crack down on these illegal basements and attics so these immigrants aren’t exploited by the unscrupulous landlords.

https://youtu.be/_1Bgmugve5M
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 05, 2018, 10:53:08 PM
JK resident,
You don't have to support the extension of the landmark district, but at least be fair.
Suggesting that these new big buildings are going to house immigrant families is fantasy; they are being built for affluent people regardless of where they come from. In fact the new buildings are more likely to replace rental apartments where immigrant families live - and trigger a wave of gentrification.
You are trying to slime supporters of the landmark expansion by saying we are white affluent people trying to keep immigrant families out of new housing. JHBG, an all-volunteer organization, has long been a champion of a diverse community and we provide programs for all of our people, regardless of ethnicity, language, income, sexuality and age. Have you seen the cross section of our community who participates in our Halloween Parade, Summer Sundays in the Park, our student art contest, our volunteers greening programs, who it is that plays in Travers Park where we have worked for nearly 30 years to improve?
Instead you call us anti-immigrant, apparently including those of us who came from other countries or whose parents came from other countries. It's an old trick and you aren't fooling anyone.
Our members, supporters and volunteers, including those backing the landmark extension, reflect all who live in JH. We are working people whose kids go to public schools. Clearly you don't know who we are and you don't care who our programs serve, but that doesn't stop you from spouting off. I'd offer to sit down with you to discuss this matter, but you seem intent on demonizing those who disagree with you.
All the best.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 06, 2018, 01:10:32 AM
New housing is being all over LIC and Astoria were the city sets aside as a condition to receive bonds and tax abatements a certain number of apartments for people of middle and low income. They also take account of family size. If you expand the historic district the current low density areas of Jackson Heights will be practically off limits for development. It will be impossible to demolish any of the existing structures. This will drive up the value of existing housing because no new housing will ever be allowed. This is why in Manhattan there is no construction in historic districts. If you feel the current zoning allows out of scale development then you should push to make all zoning contextual (ie R7 to R7A). This would provide more front gardens and setbacks.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 06, 2018, 09:53:51 AM
JK Resident,

I notice no apology or admission that you were just making things up last night in order to smear the campaign to expand the Jackson Heights historic district.

And now you are making things up about affordable housing being built when bulldozers roll into Jackson Heights.

Affordable housing being built in LIC, in what is considered the most massive development/redevelopment project in the nation??? There were ZERO affordable housing units built or planned in the redevelopment of Long Island City when I wrote a report for Metro New York a year and a half ago. If it's changed since then, I'd be happy to hear of it because it is needed. At that time there were 6,000 units built and another 16,000 planned for the massive market-driven development along Jackson Avenue and around Queensborough Plaza. (The waterfront development is a different kind of animal it was organized by the New York State.)

Also you refuse to acknowledge that a historic district does not prevent new construction. We had a new six-story building put up on 37th Avenue a few years ago and a five-story building is planned there too, both replacing one-story structures. Historic district status requires that new construction be in character with the surrounding neighborhood.

Jackson Heights (zip code, 11372) is already one of the densest neighborhoods in NYC; it was well planned; it has distinctive architecture; it's on the U.S. Register of Historic Places. Put hey, it's in Queens so lets make some big bucks.

Another fantasy you wrote about last night was that the new subway computerized signaling system would solve our transit crowding problems. If I remember correctly, this improvement will result in a roughly 10 percent increase in subway service during rush hours, maybe keeping up with the ridership growth that we've had in the last 20 years  due to new construction in Queens, and doing nothing to account for future construction.

It will NOT provide subway service in the vast parts of Queens that are a transit dessert. These folks need to take buses to get to the 7 Train or the Queens Boulevard lines. A new subway line would serve these folks and lessen the load on the above subway lines.

Well that's it. I don't have time to keep fact-checking the stuff you put out. Perhaps we should just ignore it.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 06, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
You are clearly hysterical when you state bulldozers will roll into Jackson Heights. The vast majority of JH is already developed. No one is going to tear down six story apartment buildings to put up a new seven or eight story buildings. This is obviously a red scare tactic to prevent construction of any new housing. There are a group of historic junkies that want to control the appearance of any new construction. That new apartment building was allowed only after a tragic fire required the demolition of the old structure. People just want to control other people. The vast majority of buildings outside the historic district are ugly old brick boxes that do not deserve any protection.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Lilybell on June 06, 2018, 11:00:31 AM
Quote
Many people from third world countries are used to living in squalor.

Wow, JK Resident. Just wow.  >:(
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: CaptainFlannel on June 06, 2018, 01:11:52 PM
Could the moderators address JK resident's incivility on this forum? Could everyone else flag his/her posts?
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on June 06, 2018, 01:18:26 PM
 
Quote
Many people from third world countries are used to living in squalor.


and some -- thankfully, not many -- people from Jackson Heights are used to lolling around in moral squalor and attempting to spread it.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 08, 2018, 12:37:24 PM
Here comes more apartments:

https://therealdeal.com/2018/06/07/following-dob-rejection-developer-adds-62-apartments-to-jackson-heights-project/
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: theplanesland on June 08, 2018, 01:32:23 PM
Here comes more apartments:

https://therealdeal.com/2018/06/07/following-dob-rejection-developer-adds-62-apartments-to-jackson-heights-project/

7 stories, 90th and Roosevelt, right by the tracks. Seems legit to me. It's not going to damage the charming nature of ... Roosevelt under the tracks. But apartments averaging 400sqft? Something doesn't quite line up there.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on June 08, 2018, 01:48:30 PM
it's kind of in line with the micro-apartment micro-trend, which has popped up here and there in brooklyn and manhattan. tiny studios at exorbitant prices, which should be lower out here.

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/12/8/16751842/brooklyn-micro-apartments-for-rent-fort-greene
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Shelby2 on June 11, 2018, 10:03:38 AM
Here comes more apartments:

https://therealdeal.com/2018/06/07/following-dob-rejection-developer-adds-62-apartments-to-jackson-heights-project/

7 stories, 90th and Roosevelt, right by the tracks. Seems legit to me. It's not going to damage the charming nature of ... Roosevelt under the tracks. But apartments averaging 400sqft? Something doesn't quite line up there.

There's a new article about this project on NY Yimby. Regarding the average of 400 square feet, the article says, "150 apartments will result, averaging 400 square feet apiece, indicating rental or possibly hotel use." IMO, this is not a good sign. So many new hotels in outer borough neighborhoods end up being used by the city to house people who can't be accommodated by the over-capacity shelters.

Wouldn't a hotel require different permits than a residential building? I'm not really sure I understand how permits could be filed with no requirement that the applicant say what the building's use will be.

https://newyorkyimby.com/2018/06/permits-filed-for-91-09-roosevelt-avenue-jackson-heights-queens.html
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on June 11, 2018, 01:01:32 PM
i don't read that as "this will be a hotel," but as "this will be an alternative place for the city to place people who might be placed in hotels." the zoning for a hotel would definitely be different, but don't think they'd need any building variance to allow the placement of people in need.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: JK resident on June 11, 2018, 01:38:46 PM
It is only fair that Jackson Heights accept its share of homeless. They all can’t live on 57th Steeet. There are also a lot of immigrant men who need a small space to live while they work to send money back home. Unfortunately this brings lots of prostitution and other services for these hard working migrants.
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: Simka on June 12, 2018, 09:04:04 PM
It is only fair that Jackson Heights accept its share of homeless. They all can’t live on 57th Steeet. There are also a lot of immigrant men who need a small space to live while they work to send money back home. Unfortunately this brings lots of prostitution and other services for these hard working migrants.

What brings "lots of prostitution"? And what "other services" are you talking about?
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: dssjh on June 12, 2018, 09:12:42 PM
It is only fair that Jackson Heights accept its share of homeless. They all can’t live on 57th Steeet. There are also a lot of immigrant men who need a small space to live while they work to send money back home. Unfortunately this brings lots of prostitution and other services for these hard working migrants.

What brings "lots of prostitution"? And what "other services" are you talking about?

perhaps electricity or the demon satellite tv?

and as far as prostitution, go to any high end hotel  in midtown with an Amex Black card. you'll be awash in "services."
Title: Re: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought
Post by: lmaniace on June 15, 2018, 01:45:02 PM
IMHO, hotels are not really the best place for the homeless, so I can understand why some people here may not be thrilled with the possibility of this being a hotel. Assisted housing run by some nonprofit groups where homeless folks can live in a helping community that provides real services is what works. From my reporting experience, when these places are well run and not focused on profits, they don't negatively affect neighborhoods.