The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought

[lmaniace]

Lillybell,
I'm not sure I've seen details on this. Do you have a link? Thank you.

[abcdefghijk]

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.

[CaptainFlannel]

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.

[dssjh]

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.

[JK resident]

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.
 

[lmaniace]

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.

[hum@njukebox1]

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.

[jeanette]

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.

[JK resident]

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. 

[NYC Peromyscus]

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.

[abcdefghijk]

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.

[Lilybell]

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.

[JHResident]

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.

[CaptainFlannel]

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.

[queenskid2]

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.