Tribeca Neighbors of Hudson Street Lot Oppose Development Plans
Residents of three Tribeca buildings adjacent to a parking lot are taking a dim view of a plan to erect a one-story building on that site, putatively to house a swimming pool. At the November 25 meeting of Community Board 1 (CB1), Maureen Connor, representing people who live at One Worth Street, Ten Leonard Street, and 90 Hudson Street said, “this violates our rights. There are easements for each building. And we don’t think that the design is appropriate for our landmarked area.”
The easements Ms. Connor referred to are part of a late-1980s agreement, ratified when the three buildings and the parking lot were all held by a single owner. As this developer prepared to sell the three apartment buildings (all lofts converted from industrial use, dating from the early 1900s), he calculated that homes there would fetch higher prices if he could assure apartment buyers that the vacant lot they surrounded would never become the site of a high-rise building. So the owner signed a “Declaration of Easement,” which pledged, “Declarant hereby grants and conveys… the right to unrestricted light, air and view over Parcel B,” the parking lot at 74 Hudson Street. The only exception to this agreement was “the right of Declarant… to erect a building or other structure on Parcel B as high at 18 feet above the legal curb level of Hudson Street.”
In 2008, a subsequent owner of the lot at 74 Hudson Street sought approval for a one-story retail storefront. (Nothing can be built “as of right” on this site, because it falls within the legally protected Tribeca West Historic District. This requires the approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which first seeks an advisory opinion from the local Community Board.) In response to that proposal, CB1 enacted a resolution lambasting a “design [that] would be more appropriate in a strip mall in Queens – no, that denigrates Queens; perhaps a strip mall in New Jersey.” The 2008 measure continued, “this proposition is a complete travesty, one deserving a stake driven through its heart, one requiring the wearing of a garlic necklace for protection,” adding, “how many ways are there to express the Community Board’s dread of this scheme? How many ways to say it is absolutely out of the question?… CB1 begs, beseeches and urges the Landmarks Preservation Commission to throttle, dispatch and reject this application.”
Sixteen years later, a third owner hopes to build a one-story structure at 74 Hudson, featuring arches fashioned from pre-cast concrete. This time, CB1 reached a similar conclusion, but was slightly more muted in its disapproval. In a resolution adopted at its November meeting, the Board said, “this is a modest site with an ‘overblown statement design’ proposal that would be more appropriate as a base to a ten-story high building.” The measure concluded, “CB1 does not approve this design, and we recommend that the applicant revisit their proposal for this property. On behalf of the community, we strongly encourage the owner/developer to reach out to all the neighboring property owners whose buildings are abutting this development, so that a better understanding of the way forward is had by all.”