The development threat facing Jackson Heights is greater than we thought

[dssjh]

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

if we have a Target, we may as well have archery.

[abcdefghijk]

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.

[dssjh]

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.

[abcdefghijk]

75th Street car park. 78th Street/Roosevelt car park.

Perfect for it.

[dssjh]

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.

[abcdefghijk]

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)

[theplanesland]

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.

[dssjh]

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.

[BEB]

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?

[abcdefghijk]

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!

[dssjh]

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.

[lmaniace]

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!

[JK resident]

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.

[lmaniace]

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.

[JK resident]

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.