Author Topic: The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought  (Read 9137 times)

Offline Lilybell

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 1227
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.

Offline lmaniace

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 491
The proposal to expand the historic district would cover buildings that are pretty much fo equal qthose 

Offline lmaniace

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 491
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!

Offline JK resident

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 518
“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.

Offline lmaniace

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 491
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

Offline abcdefghijk

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 950
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.


Offline dssjh

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 4556
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.

Offline lmaniace

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 491
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.

Offline hum@njukebox1

  • Activist
  • *****
  • Posts: 192
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.

Offline lmaniace

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 491
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!

Offline abcdefghijk

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 950
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...

Offline Tom Lowenhaupt

  • Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 70
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). 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.

Offline JK resident

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 518
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.

Offline JK resident

  • Mayor
  • *******
  • Posts: 518
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.

Offline lmaniace

  • Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 491
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.


Jackson Heights Life