Community Forum for Extell's Riverside Center

Extell Wins (Update: Completely) on Riverside Center

Extell, with its army of lawyers and lobbyists and its mountains of cash, has swept the chips from the table on its one-sided gamble on the massive RIverside Center development. Local Councilmember Brewer has announced unanimous approval of the project by the two relevant Council subcommittees. And her own support! And the support of the chair of CB7!

A cynic would say: why is this surprising? Extell had the money. Any deals that were made in the past limiting development will be ignored. Modern city planning guidelines will be ignored. Sensible alternatives will be ignored. The major media will simply ignore it. Various officials will express opposition in order to maintain a veneer of populist credibility, but their opposition will be toothless. That Extell will get pretty much everything it wanted was a foregone conclusion.

It appears that the cynic was right.

Update

The City Council voted unanimous approval of the project, going so far as to over-turn the minimal improvements (no car dealer, less parking) that City Planning had imposed on them.

The New York Times continued its flawless (from Extell's point of view) non-coverage of the subject with an article announcing Extell's victory.

They had a typical Barnett quote: "I think everybody was trying to get something that was good for the neighborhood and economically viable." Did the genius' at the Times deconstruct the quote? Of course not. Here's a rough translation: "I think the local citizens organized and acted as though democracy actually worked, like they usually do; I think their leaders and officials bent over backwards to appear as though they were on the side of the citizens; in the end, my plans for grossly inflated profits a.k.a. economic viability carried the day."

Extell's Riverside Center Plans Can be Modified!

...If the New York City Council votes them down. It has the power to do this. Will it? It depends in part on the support Councilwoman Gale Brewer receives next Tuesday.

The Land Use subcommittee of the New York City Council is holding a hearing on the Extell Riverside Center development next week. This is a meeting to turn out and really show our support of Councilwoman Gale Brewer, who has been so incredibly supportive and conscientious through this whole process.

The City Council has the power to put a stop to Riverside Center as currently planned. Please lend your support to encouraging them to do so.

The details are:

9:30am Tuesday November 23, 2010

250 Broadway 16th floor, Manhattan

A New Organization: Better Buildings NY

A new organization supporting the common good on the Upper West Side has formed. Here is their attractive web site: www.betterbuildingsny.org.

They have lots of good information. Check it out!

Naturally, being smart, local people, they are paying attention to the largest local development issue, namely, your favorite and mine, the Riverside Center development by Gary Barnett's Extell Development Corp. They have a petition -- please sign it!

 

New York Times: For Billion Dollar Extell Profits, Against Citizens and Elected Officials

Yes, the venerable New York Times actually mentioned Extell's massive, agreement-breaking development of the last major plot of riverside property in mid-town Manhattan! But of course, they weren't really paying attention; the only actual work they did amounted to an unpaid (or was it?) advertisement for Gary Barnett and Extell.

What did the reporter miss? Merely everything that wasn't in Gary Barnett's favor, that's all.The Times prominently featured the one single review, by City Planning, that has come out in his favor, ignoring all the rest. It's like talking about what a great baseball hitter someone is, when the player has made outs 9 of the last 10 at-bats, and the one time they got on base was due to a fielder's error.

Here's a brief summary of the events related to Extell's Riverside Center project that the New York Times would prefer you not know:

• Yes, City Planning approved Riverside Center -- but in doing so, it blatantly violated its own policies and planning principles.
• Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer rejected the proposal.

"Mr. Stringer ... took issue with a number of points, but principally focused on the density (he wants 480,000 square feet less), the open space (he wants it to be more open and inviting), and the schools (he wants Extell to fund a bigger school).

Specifically, on the density issue, Mr. Stringer's recommendation was critical of Extell for essentially seeking more density than it should be entitled to, given that Extell is leaving 60^th Street closed off, getting more development rights as a result (allowable density is based on the size of the site; with a street closed off, the site is significantly larger)."

• NYS Senator Tom Duane rejected the proposal.

"As CB7 notes, the current proposal not only fails to mitigate some of the most troubling negative impacts identified in the project’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), but it also fails to remedy the existing Riverside South development's enduring adverse impacts. Furthermore, certain aspects of the proposal violate the community's Core Principles as expressed by CB7 and must be modified accordingly."

• NYS Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal rejected the proposal.

"When Donald Trump gained control of the entire site in 1992, he signed a Restrictive Declaration to build 5,700 apartments. The new developer has proposed to build an extra 1,292 residential units, which I believe would make this site too dense."

• NYC Councilwoman Gale Brewer has been very active, and is resisting Extell.

"Council Member Gale Brewer reiterated her strong support of changing the Riverside Center development at the City Planning Commission’s Sept. 15 public meeting.

Brewer testified that the commission should heed the recommendations offered in a comprehensive report that Community Board 7 issued in July.

“They heard me loud and clear,” Brewer said of the commission. “I usually don’t go to the mat, but this time I’m going to.”

During the last major development on the Upper West Side to go through a public review process—the expansion of Fordham University’s Lincoln Center campus—Brewer was more cautious in comments about changes she wanted to see in that project.

This time, the community board issued a 47-page report that recommends greatly scaling Riverside Center down. The breadth and detail of the report earned Brewer’s support, which she is voicing throughout the land use review process.

“To be honest with you, most community boards don’t put this much effort into a document,” she said. “They thought of everything, that’s why I support it.”

• The above officials and US Representative Jerrold Nadler signed a letter declaring that the Restrictive Declaration remains in force and should be enforced, having the effect of substantially reducing the density of the development.
• After extensive hearings and public meetings, Community Board 7 rejected the proposal.

"After more than two years of careful analysis, and scores of community meetings, Manhattan Community Board 7 voted on July 22, 2010 to disapprove Extell Development Company’s proposal for Riverside Center"

• Community groups speak out against the proposal:
  • Straphanger's Campaign and NYPIRG

  "…no persuasive argument has been made for why Riverside Center should add any additional parking to the current commercial supply." 

  • The Coalition for A Liveable West Side

  The City Planning Commission must insist that Extell adhere to the maximum density in the 1992 Restrictive Declaration for this site (59th -61st Street). The City Planning Commission must deny the increase in zoning that Extell has asked for.
  In addition:
  There must be a Public Park and all the streets built upfront by the developer;
  the entire Public School, not just the shell of the school must be built by the developer;
  there must be a minimum of 20% affordable housing units; and parking spaces must be limited to 743 parking spaces as per the 1992 Restrictive Declaration.  

  • The Community District Education Council 3
  • The 10WEA Riverside Center Committee
  • The Committee for Environmentally Sound Development

• Community groups propose alternatives:
  • A meeting to propose and discuss alternatives.
  • Coalition for a Liveable West Side alternative plan.
  • RSPC alternative plan
  • CB7/Kwarter analysis and plan.
• Extell's partner Carlyle Group settles for $20 million AG Cuomo's influence-peddling suit.
• Courts ruled that the Restrictive Declaration governing Extell site remains in force, and that it has violated its contracts for its development next door.
• The Times has a history of ignoring the exploits of Barnett, Extell and his financial partners, the Carlyle Group, as previously documented here.
• This blog blasted holes in Extell's arguments in favor of its proposals.

"The Barnett/Extell/Carlyle strategy is now clear: assume you will get the variances you need to vastly exceed previously-agreed-to, legally binding limits; poor-mouth and threaten shut-down when any reductions, however minor, are suggested; and refuse to disclose the vast additional profits you stand to make by getting approval. The reason is simple. If people knew how much money Extell & co really stand to make from this project, they would first laugh, then get mad, and finally make Extell act like a responsible organization."

The New York Times likes to sound like they're against big money and big power. They write editorials about abuses in the financial system, and feature stories about how big institutions have abused normal people with sleazy mortgage practices. This is nothing but propaganda. The reality is that when big money is involved, as it is with Gary Barnett, Extell, the Carlyle Group and Riverside Center vs. the citizens and elected officials of New York, The New York Times is squarely on the side of the money.

At this point, our last defender is the wonderful Councilmember Gale Brewer and the City Council. We can only hope that she and the Council will stand up against the billion-dollar interests. No one, by the way, is against development here; we just want development that adheres to sensible policies, past agreements, and the united will of the citizens, elected officials and community groups that have looked at the plans.

Update:

How much pressure and influence is Extell exercising behind the scenes to smooth the way to their billion dollar profit here? I suppose we'll never know, but it seems to say something when:

• "Lela Goren, a business partner of Extell's who does extensive work with the company, held a fundraiser ... for Council Speaker Quinn...," and
• "A spokesperson for Extell, George Artz," while claiming that it "...wasn't an Extell event," has to admit that "...numerous Extell executives...attended."

The excellent article that reports the event points out:

"Real estate donations are nothing novel in campaigns, but this fundraiser happened at the very time that Extell is seeking zoning approval from the City Council for its mega-Riverside Center residential development..."

Speaker Quinn, this is an excellent opportunity for you to demonstrate your commitment to campaign finance reform. Councilmember Brewer, we're confident that you'll do your best!

 

Extell's Gary Barnett: Without a Billion Dollars of EXTRA profit, Riverside Center isn't "Economically Viable"

The Barnett/Extell/Carlyle strategy is now clear: assume you will get the variances you need to vastly exceed previously-agreed-to, legally binding limits; poor-mouth and threaten shut-down when any reductions, however minor, are suggested; and refuse to disclose the vast additional profits you stand to make by getting approval. The reason is simple. If people knew how much money Extell & co really stand to make from this project, they would first laugh, then get mad, and finally make Extell act like a responsible organization.

Assume

The starting point of this project is the Restrictive Declaration, which calls for 2.37 million square feet instead of Extell's demand for 3.1 million, etc. The courts and various officials have all affirmed that the terms of the Declaration remain in effect. When Extell bought the land, the limits to development were recorded with the deeds; no mysteries, no surprises. It's like walking into a restaurant and ordering a 12 ounce steak; when the kitchen delivers a 12 ounce steak, you've gotten exactly what you ordered and should have expected.

Suppose you look at the 12 ounce steak you ordered and send it back to the kitchen, demanding a 16 ounce steak instead! How do you think the restaurant would respond? Would you expect any sympathy from your fellow diners?

Now suppose that, against all logic, the restaurant actually agrees to take your demand seriously. The waiter proposes to give you, for the same price, a 15 ounce steak instead of the 12 ounce steak you ordered, a huge concession by any standard. If you're Gary Barnett, your response is outrage -- at the one ounce reduction in the steak you want to have! In fact, you're so annoyed at not having your demands fully met that you claim that 15 ounces is simply not "nutritionally viable." You only speak in terms of reductions from what you demand instead of the reality, which is just how huge the additions will be to what you purchased.

Linchpin #1 of the Extell/Barnett/Carlyle strategy: make your outrageous demands the standard by which any changes are measured; talk in terms of objectively tiny reductions instead of the reality, which is HUGE ADDITIONS to the development rights you purchased.

Poor-mouth

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard him say it, but fortunately others also attended the same meetings I did, and quoted Gary Barnett's poor-mouthing about the project.

In response to a suggestion like affordable housing that's actually substantial and permanent: "There's only so much we can give up."

In response to a suggestion that Extell actually build enough schools and provide playgrounds to accommodate the additional population: "Putting too much burden on the project will cause nothing to move forward."

In response to almost any demand for changes to the "16 ounce steak" that Barnett REALLY wants to have: this threatens the "economic viability" of the project and therefore can't be done.

Linchpin #2 of the Extell/Barnett/Carlyle strategy: complain vigorously and often about any demand, however small, to reduce your profits; imply that Riverside Center is practically a charity project you are conducting for the benefit of the community, and any further demands on you will push it into the red and force you to drop this virtuous undertaking.

Refuse to disclose financials

During his presentations, Gary Barnett met every objection and suggestion with the response that implementing it will kill the "economic viability" of the project. This is, of course, a relative concept. When I made a public request for the project's projected revenue and cost numbers, Paul Selver (Extell's lawyer) used a lot of words to say "no way."  Naturally, he refuses to disclose his numbers, but he depends on these undisclosed numbers to insist that the project is teetering at the edge of economic viability!

It's hard to believe that there's not good money to be made developing nearly 2.4 million square feet of space in a prime Manhattan location. What is the value of developing the additional 700,000 square feet of residential space and two or three floors of underground parking (at over 300,000 square feet per underground level)? In the absence of real information, all we can really do is guess, as I've already tried to do.

It appears that, even in a down market (and these units will come on-line in a couple years when the market is likely to have recovered), luxury condo sales are averaging over $1500 a square foot, while costs are down from $450 a square foot at the peak according to one developer. To make the math simple, I'll assume acquisition costs are covered by the 2.4 million square feet of permitted development. So we're looking at $1,000 a square foot of profit for the residential space. How much is the parking space worth? Probably less, but construction costs will also be way lower, so let's say "only" $800 per square foot for only two parking levels. Simple arithmetic yields a baseline for the profits on just the additional footage of $1,000 * 700,000 + $800 * 300,000 * 2 = $1,180,000,000. That is nearly $1.2 billion dollars. Of profit. Extra. No wonder they don't want to disclose financials. Suddenly the cost of submerging the West Side Highway seems like a manageable thing!

Linchpin #3 of the Extell/Barnett/Carlyle strategy: Do not disclose your costs, do not disclose your projected profits, do not disclose the true economic value of 1,800 parking spaces, do not disclose anything that would put your outrageous claims in the light of day and subject to examination. Respond with outrage at suggestions that might costs millions or tens of millions dollars, while you're looking at over a billion dollars of additional profit from the variances you are demanding.

Extell's Barnett Swats Off Concerns about Riverside Center Mega-Development

Extell is required to hold a series of "hearings" as part of the ULURP approval process for its Riverside Center Mega-Development. What has emerged clearly from the first two of these events is that the community has many concerns, and Extell treats the concerns like an elephant treats flies: it simply ignores most of them, and swats away the most persistent of them as it lumbers ahead with its plans that break legally-binding deals with the community and violate city planning standards.

This massive development, just blocks from Lincoln Center and the homes of many celebrities, is proceeding without any attention from major media outlets or from concerned local celebrities who often speak out on more abstract issues much farther from their homes.

During the first hearing, on June 3, attendees could once again view the models of the proposed development towering over the surrounding area and permanently killing the chances for sorely needed local parks and schools.

That's the Hudson River (IRT) Powerhouse in the foreground. Here you see some of the people lined up to ask questions and make comments at the first meeting:
The presenters included local parents concerned about schools, local residents concerned about violations of city planning policies, and others.

At the second hearing, on June 15, Gary Barnett made his typical presentation. As usual, he emphasized the massive "concessions" he has already made to community concerns. For example, he talked in detail about the building heights that have been reduced, while completely ignoring the fact that the heights of other buildings in the proposed mega-development have been substantially increased.

Meanwhile, you can see how:

Mr. Barnett paid close attention to Mel Wymore (the chair of Community Board 7), who made an eloquent presentation of the community's concerns:

I guess that's what "hearing" means to a rich, powerful organization like Extell: they speak and we do the listening. As you can see from their hard-nosed attitude towards safety issues for residents and children (providing traffic signals and speed bumps for their development), this is standard practice for Extell and their financial partners, the Carlyle Group. Why do city officials and our representatives allow this to go on?

Coalition: Express Your Concerns about Extell's Riverside Center Mega-Development

ALERT

  The Extell/Carlyle Group Proposed Mega-development Riverside Center

 
W. 59th to W. 61st Street - West End Avenue to Riverside Boulevard

 

EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS MEGA-DEVELOPMENT

AT FOUR IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD BY COMMUNITY BOARD 7.

 

• If you are concerned about 2,500 new luxury residential units in Riverside Center's Five Towers, come to the Public Hearings.
• If you are concerned about 1,800 parking spaces in Riverside Center and the appalling increase in traffic , come to the Public Hearings.
• If you are concerned about the devastating impact this mega-development will have on our infrastructure, come to the Public Hearings.

 

DO NOT REMAIN SILENT!

This mega-development will affect all of us who live on the Upper West Side.

YOUR VOICE MUST BE HEARD.

YOUR PRESENCE IS CRUCIAL AT THE FOUR COMMUNITY BOARD MEETINGS.

 

 

Thurs. June 3, 6:30-9:00 PM, - American Bible Society, 1865 Broadway (61st St.) Extell presents its plan. Opportunity  to ask questions.

Tues. June 15, 6:30 PM, at PS 191, 210 W. 61st St. (Amsterdam Ave.). Public Speak-out.

Tues. June 29, 6:30 PM  (site to be selected) Public  Speak-out continued.

Tues. July 6, 6:30 PM, Full Community Board 7 (CB7) meeting , Congregation Rodeph Sholom, 7 W. 83rd St.  Public can speak. CB7 votes. CB7 makes recommendations.

 

Please check www.nyc.gov/mcb7 for updates and documents.

Please post this flyer in your building and share with your friends

Coalition for a Livable West Side - Po Box 230078 - New York, NY 10023 - 212-580-9319

Extell's Riverside Center Certified by City Planning

As was anticipated, City Planning certified Extell's Riverside Center mega-project. Certification is not approval -- it is the start of the formal process towards approval, modification or denial, as explained here.

Although there are many grounds to object to the project as currently laid out (just scan through this blog), one issue that has come to prominence recently is parking. As noted earlier, NYPIRG and the Straphanger's Campaign have come out strongly on this point. Streetsblog.org has a good post laying out the parking issue, as well as a brief review of the meeting itself.

UPDATE:

The process rolls along. Here is the notice of the SEIS, with a link to the statement itself.

Riverside Center Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

On May 21, 2010, the New York City Department of City Planning, on behalf of the City Planning Commission as lead agency, issued a Notice of Completion for a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) for the Riverside Center project.

The Coalition's Alternative to Extell's Riverside Center Proposal

The Coalition for a Livable West Side has now made available their alternative to Extell's Riverside Center development plans.

Craig Whitaker made a formal presentation of those plans on behalf of the Coalition at a recent community meeting. The full presentation has lots of pictures, diagrams, facts and logic and is well worth reading. You can get a copy here:  Download The Coalition for a Livable West Side's Alternative Plan Final Version.

Here is the summary of the plan, taken from the title page:

The plan has astute analysis about parking, parking entrances, views of the river, angles for light entering the park, and breaking the land into separate parcels to enable flexibility for building and use.

For example, here is the page about parking entrances.

 
I hope City Planning will take this alternative proposal seriously.

Extell, Carlyle Group Sue AG Cuomo

There is an amazing development in the saga of Extell's Rushmore development in Riverside South and the buyers who exercised a clause in their contracts to back out of the deal. The Wall Street Journal has the story.

Here's a way to think about what happened. Suppose you and I made a deal. Suppose I was the one who wrote the contract that spelled out the terms of the deal. We both had every opportunity to review the contract before signing. Then we signed it.

Now let's imagine that I liked the deal I made with you so much that I made similar deals with dozens of other people, and I signed exactly the same contract each time.

Some time passes, and you and the dozens of other people like you exercise one of the plainly written terms of the contract and backed out -- as was your right, according to the contract we both signed. We all agree that the contract says what it says, and according to the undisputed language of the contract, you and the others all have the right to back out. Fine, no problem.

Here comes the twist: suppose that I then claim that the contract doesn't say what I meant it to say. I don't dispute the language and what it means; I assert that I meant it to say something else, and that YOU should be bound by what I NOW say I MEANT it to say, ignoring what the words of the contract IN FACT SAY!! How would you feel? How would you respond? Would you think I was an honorable person? Would you recommend me to any of your friends?

Now let's suppose that instead being little old me, I'm two giant, powerful organizations. Let's suppose I'm a partnership of a multi-billion-dollar developer and one of the world's largest and best-known private equity firms. I've got loads of staff people and a fancy law firm whose business it is to make the long gobbledy-gook contract be as much in my favor as possible. I've even filed the contract with the state AG and updated it a few times. In other words, all the power, brains and money are on my side. I've shoved the contract under your nose and said, in effect, if you want to do business with me, sign here. I'm not negotiating terms. Here it is, take it or leave it.

Time passes, and you exercise your right to back out, according to the terms of the contract I and my powerful partners and powerful lawyers wrote and reviewed. Instead of saying "you're right, that's what the contract says, here's your deposit back, have a nice life," I say: "no way! I MEANT something ELSE -- didn't you KNOW?? Contracts mean WHAT I SAY I MEANT when I wrote them! I didn't really mean what's in the contract that I wrote -- that was a "typo."

Again, how would you feel?

Here's the reality: Extell and the Carlyle did pretty much what I speculate above that I might have done, in the contracts they had buyers sign for the Rushmore condo in the Riverside South development. A number of buyers, who quite sensibly relied on the documents meaning what the words in the documents plainly say, exercised their right to back out of the commitment to buy at the Rushmore. Extell refused to give them their deposits back. The matter went to AG Cuomo, who ruled in favor of the buyers. I have written about this before.

Now there's a new development; the WSJ article about it is worth reading in its entirety. Here's another angle on the same situation. According to the Journal,

"Real-estate developers [Extell Development Co. and Carlyle Realty Partners] are suing Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in federal court, alleging that his office violated the U.S. Constitution when ordering a refund of $16 million to 41 condo owners at a West Side building.

...

"This case is challenging something that has been an accepted mechanism in New York state for decades," said Jay Neveloff, an attorney at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel. He said he couldn't recall another time when the attorney general's role has been challenged on constitutional grounds.

...

"Attorney Richard C. Cohen, who represented a group of Rushmore buyers, argued that his clients relied on the 2008 date. He said Extell changed its tune after the attorney general ruled against the developer. "Extell, having agreed in the offering plan to abide by an attorney general ruling on down payments, now claims that process is unconstitutional," he said.

Extell, supported every step of the way by the Carlyle Group, appears to have a challenging time abiding by agreements that they have made and/or that clearly bind them.

Straphanger’s Campaign, NYPIRG Nix Extell’s Riverside Center Parking Plans

In a letter to Borough President Stringer, the Straphanger’s Campaign and NYPIRG have urged a massive reduction – to zero!! -- in Extell’s plans for parking at the proposed Riverside Center. The full letter can be downloaded here.

The letter marshals the facts and logic against the proposed 1,800 spaces for the massive complex. Their conclusion is simple:

…no persuasive argument has been made for why Riverside Center should add any additional parking to the current commercial supply.

They point out the facts of the local parking supply that make this proposed increase massive and unnecessary. They also go into the side-effects of providing more parking, things that affect all of us:

It is well-documented that parking supply is directly related to the level of driving. Expanding the supply of available parking spaces only induces more travel by private automobile and discourages walking. At the same time, increased car use exacts a host of indirect costs that are especially damaging to a dense urban environment like New York City.

The letter makes a fascinating point, consistent with that of every community group, that the whole design of the project is sadly out of date – so out of date that it actually violates current City Planning policies:

As our awareness of the local and global harms produced by auto dependence grows, the current parking request for Riverside Center is a throwback to a 1960’s Tower in the Park design prized in a suburban and automotive-centric era of planning. Well-served as it is by public transit and within walking distance of many destinations, Riverside Center should be designed as a transit-oriented and Active Neighborhood which minimizes car trips and offers its residents and the surrounding community amenities that enrich rather than degrade the urban environment.

I’m really glad other groups are beginning to pay attention to the mis-guided hubris of the Extell/Carlyle Group’s plans for this prime real estate. The whole letter is worth reading.

Community Groups Present Alternatives to Extell's Riverside Center Plans

During a recent community meeting, several community groups presented compelling alternatives to Extell's plans for the last undeveloped portion of Riverside South, which they call Riverside Center.

The meeting was organized by the 10WEA Riverside Center committee and run by that committee's chair, Anne Weisberg. It was well-attended. Here is a picture of Mel Wymore (on the left) and Ms. Weisberg during Ms. Wymore's summary of the project and CB7's involvement. Mel presented the "core principals" of CB7's position on the project and other information.

Ethel Sheffer of CB7 presented information about the project, in particular the ULURP approval process. CB7 itself has done extensive analysis of the proposal and presented alternatives in the past.

The Coalition for a Livable West Side's consultant, Craig Whitaker, made a well-presented and well-reasoned analysis of the Extell plans and an alternative. His plans are similar in principle to ones he has presented in the past, but with a lot more detail and compelling facts and arguments. He reminded everyone of the power of getting the streets "mapped," and how the project can be controlled by more fine-grained zoning. Here is Craig answering a question from the audience.

Paul Elston, head of the RSPC, showed everyone a very detailed alternative that incorporates the highway and Con Ed's IRT Powerhouse. It sounds expensive to put the highway underground, for example, but once you realize the work is already partly done and how the potential profits from the project make the expense look small, it's not so daunting.

Finally, two distinguished architects (Paul Willen and Dan Gutman) presented a fine-tuning of the Extell plan that definitely makes it better. (Paul Willen is shown presenting below.)

NYC Councilwoman Gale Brewer attended part of the meeting and addressed a couple of issues; thanks, Ms. Brewer.

The Olive Freud, the head of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development also spoke after the main presentations.

One of the fascinating things about the meeting is that every single group and person who spoke endorsed CB7's "core principles" about the project. The community is truly united about what needs to change.

AG: Extell Guilty of Breaking Customer Contracts

We reported earlier about the trouble dozens of prospective buyers experienced at Extell’s Rushmore building in the Riverside South development, and about how various authorities were looking into the matter. Well, Attorney General Cuomo has now determined that the buyers were right, Extell was wrong, and ordered Extell to do the right thing. The head of Extell, Gary Barnett, was reported to have conceded defeat on the subject – but just a few days later, his lawyers told the judge they planned to appeal the ruling.

The issue for the 41 buyers in question was the date by which units were supposed to begin closing, September 1, 2008. After units did not start closing by that date, as their contract stated, they asked Extell to honor the contract and return their deposits. Extell simply refused! They claimed there was a “typo” in the documents, and what they really meant was September 1, 2009.

According to the assistant AG, "Sponsor has offered no evidence that the parties mutually intended a different date. After extensive submissions before this office and careful deliberation, the attorney general has concluded that the alleged error is not chargeable to the purchaser."

“[Assistant AG] Polishook also noted that Extell failed to present a single document that demonstrates that Sept. 1, 2009 was the intended date.”

If the market had gone up, would the 41 buyers tried to withdraw? I suspect not. On the other hand, these people put down their money based on Extell’s commitment to deliver their units by a given date, and when the date passes and the units aren’t delivered as promised, the buyers have every right to demand their money back, regardless of the reason. A deal’s a deal – they put down their money and Extell promised to perform by a given date. When the date passes and Extell hasn’t performed, it’s not real hard to figure out what the right thing to do, is it?

Apparently, it's hard for Extell.

There are nearly 60 comments on the article on the subject in the Real Deal, showing strong interest in the subject. A couple of the comments point to the clear point of view taken by the New York Times article on the subject, "N.Y. Backs Remorseful Buyers at Rushmore Tower." The title basically says, “the buyers want to get out of their obligation, and NY lets them.” What else could it have said? Well, for example: “N.Y. Forces Extell to Honor its Contract.” It’s all about your point of view, and Extell has a clear one: Extell first. Which point of view is echoed by the New York Times.

Where does Extell’s financial backer, the Carlyle Group, stand with this? Their opinion matters, because they are the majority owners of the legal entity doing the developing here. You might think they would be embarrassed, but of course not:

"Our strong partnership with Extell has produced several remarkable buildings in Riverside South," said Andrew Chung, a principal at Carlyle. "The Rushmore in particular is unaffected by the recent attorney general's decision because we have quality, location and momentum.

They also have money. Will their money enable them to get away with violating more long-standing commitments in the Riverside Center development next door?

Please Attend Community Meeting on Riverside Center

IMPORTANT COMMUNITY MEETING

Discuss Extell's Riverside Center Mega-Development

    59th-61st Street - West End Avenue to Riverside Boulevard

WHEN:  THURSDAY, APRIL 29th
TIME:    7:00 - 9:00 pm
WHERE: Annex of Church of St. Paul the Apostle
               405 West 59th Street (between Columbus and Amsterdam), Room 201-201


WHY YOU SHOULD ATTEND: It is extremely important that you attend this meeting to show Extell, our elected officials, and City Planning, that the neighborhood objects to the massive scale of the proposal -3 million square feet of development, 5 massive towers including a hotel (2,750 units), and 1,800 parking and the lack of public benefits. 

COME AND

* See a brief overview of Extell Proposal presented by Mel Wymore, Community Board 7 Chair

* Learn about CB7's Core Principles developed for this site in consultation with community groups.

* See, compare and discuss THREE community alternatives to the Extell proposal.

If you care about the outcome of this massive development in our neighborhood, your presence at this meeting is urgently needed. Numbers count.

For more information, go to Community Board 7's web site, www.nyc.gov/html/mancb7/html/home/home.shtml  and the blog site www.riversidecentric.com, both of which contain various informative posts about the Riverside Center project.

Contact the 10 WEA Riverside Center Committee at 10weariversideproject@gmail.com if you have any questions, suggestions, or comments.

Please let the Coalition know if you plan to attend. Just send this email back to livablenewyork@erols.com with the word Attend in the subject heading.

Share this with your friends and neighbors. Please post in your building.

Hope to see you on the 29th

Madeleine and Batya

This was sent by the Coalition for a Livable West Side to its members.

The Future of Con Ed's IRT Powerhouse

Anyone who goes to the area around 60th St. and West End Ave. in Manhattan immediately notices what's right in front of them: a big parking lot, a big pile of dirt, and a hole that lets you see the underground train tracks. This is the site owned by Extell and its backers (the Carlyle Group and now a mortgage from a group in Oman). The site is the last undeveloped part of the Riverside South development, and has been dubbed Riverside Center by Extell & Co. It is the site they plan to overbuild by a huge amount, blasting by prior agreements with the community, agreements they knowingly assumed when buying the property.

The next thing you are likely to notice is the amazing IRT Powerhouse building bordering the south edge of the property.

This historic building has been the focus of major preservation efforts. There is a group devoted to its preservation, the Hudson River Powerhouse Group, whose web site has a wealth of information, plus some new videos that are informative and entertaining. The Riverside South Planning Corporation has also devoted a lot of effort to the preservation of the building and in particular the way it could be integrated into a more community-friendly version of the plans for Riverside Center. The Coalition for a Livable Upper West Side has incorporated the building into their alternative proposals for the site.

Marta Hallowell has been paying attention to the building on her blog in the Huffington Post. Most recently, she has written about Mayor Bloomberg seeing the possibilities for the Powerhouse and joining the effort to preserve the building while making it into a cultural center and highly efficient energy plant to supply the area with steam and electricity.

Coalition Opposes Extell-Carlyle Group's Riverside Center Overdevelopment

Riverside Center - Battery Park City on the Upper West Side

 

We will aggressively fight the Extell proposed Riverside Center (West 59th-West 61st Street, West End Avenue to Riverside Boulevard) by hiring consultants (Traffic, Sewage, Urban Planner etc.) who will thoroughly examine Extell's Draft Environmental Statement.

We, the community are up against powerful forces - the Extell Development Corporation and its partner, the Carlyle Group now have Orange Sands LLC, an Oman limited liability company as investors with a $613 million loan to Extell for the Riverside Center project. Gary Barnett, President of Extell, would not disclose if the Oman investors are private or government-related.

In order to protect the health, environment and quality of life on the Upper West Side (because no development occurs in isolation) we must, with your help, fight this proposal. There will be important meetings to attend. We will notify you of dates, times and places.

7-month Public Review Process

We have heard that on April 26, 2010, the Department of City Planning (DCP) will "certify" the horrendous Extell proposal for the development of Riverside South between 59th and 61st Streets (Parcels L/M/N) for which special permits are needed. "Certification" begins the 7-month Public Review session

A few basic facts:
Residential units:
Extell proposes to build 2,500 residential. Adding an additional 2,500 units, as proposed, would bring the total number of residential units to 7,992, an increase of 2,292 units over the approved limit of 5,700 units in the 1992 Riverside South Restrictive Declaration.

Parking:
The 1992 Restrictive Declaration provided for a total of 3,500 parking spaces in Riverside South from 59th to 72nd Streets. Extell is requesting 1,800 parking spaces in Riverside Center (59th-61st Street). The 1992 Restrictive Declaration provided for a maximum of 743 parking spaces on this site. Extell's proposal adds a total of 1,057 additional parking spaces to the maximum number set forth in the 1992 Restrictive Declaration.

Extell's proposed garage would cover over thirteen acres and would be the largest in Manhattan.

Proposed Out-of-Scale Towers on West End Avenue:
Extell's planned building for West 61st Street and West End Avenue has been increased in height to 53 stories and its planned building on West 59th Street and West End Avenue has been increased to 54 stories.

Coalition's position:
The City Planning Commission must insist that Extell adhere to the maximum density in the 1992 Restrictive Declaration for this site (59th -61st Street). The City Planning Commission must deny the increase in zoning that Extell has asked for.

In addition:
There must be a Public Park and all the streets built upfront by the developer;
the entire Public School, not just the shell of the school must be built by the developer;
there must be a minimum of 20% affordable housing units;

and parking spaces must be limited to 743 parking spaces as per the 1992 Restrictive Declaration. Since parking is in part a function of density, limiting spaces is one indirect way of reducing density and reducing traffic.

The Coalition submitted a plan to Community Board 7 which: adheres to the 1992 Restrictive Declaration allowable square footage; does not require excavation beneath the park; gives the community a park at the beginning; and eliminates over six acres of potential parking.

We thank you for your membership and support.

Many, many thanks.

Madeleine Polayes and Batya Lewton, on behalf of CLW and the residents of the Upper West Side

--This was sent by the Coalition for a Livable West Side to its members.

New York Times & Co Snooze while Extell Advances

A new post has appeared on Marta Hallowell's Huffington Post blog pointing out the massive silence accompanying the massive Riverside South/Riverside Center on Manhattan's West Side. 

A simple layperson might think the subject would merit some interest from the mainstream media. It's got all the elements, including:

• Financing from the Carlyle Group, the prominent private equity firm involved in the New York State Pension Fund influence-buying scandal.
• A developer, Extell Development Corp., which is trying to build way more than the legally binding limits attached to the property permit.
• A plan by a starchitect that violates long-standing City Planning guidelines.

• The opposition of numerous community groups, Community Board 7, and various elected officials.

But what do I know? I'm just a layperson...

UPDATE: Other stories in local on-line media:

dnainfo.com

Curbed

WestSide Independent

West Side Spirit

Green Building NYC

Extell, Riverside Center Revisions and Plumes

As we have heard, Extell is revising their plans to account for the plume of exhaust coming from the adjacent IRT Powerhouse, currently owned and operated by Con Ed as a steam generating plant. But something is wrong. There must be something else going on here. The revisions they made supposedly to account for exhaust plumes don’t make any kind of sense. They don’t avoid the plumes you actually see coming out of the smokestacks.

The Powerhouse has one giant, highly visible exhaust stack. It also has several short exhaust stacks, extending just a story or so above the roof line of the building, which is less than ten stories tall. Here is the problem, which anyone who visits the area can see for themselves:

The giant stack almost never has anything coming out of it, while the short stacks frequently have lots of visible exhaust coming out of them.

Here you can see a picture of the Powerhouse that shows its single massive tower (click on the picture to enlarge it):

If you look at this picture, you will notice nothing coming out of the top of the big smokestack, but if you follow it down to the base of the tower, you will notice a short smokestack silhouetted against it with a clear, wind-driven plume going up and to the left.

There are also a handful of short smokestacks along the valley in the center of the building, not visible in the above picture. They are just past the roof line you can see. They also emit visible exhaust.

If Extell were required to re-design their buildings to account for plumes coming from the Powerhouse, wouldn’t it make sense for the adjustment to account for the smokestacks that actually have smoke coming out of them? Wouldn’t you think they would put a park between the Powerhouse and the new buildings, as RSPC has proposed, or at least a smaller, truly public park next to the Powerhouse as proposed (separately, and with differences) by the Coalition for a Livable West Side and the consultants to CB7? How exactly is making giant buildings immediately next to the short smokestacks of the Powerhouse supposed to be protecting the public?

Do I know exactly what is coming out of those smokestacks? Of course not. It could be anything, including something completely innocent. If you think it's easy to just ask Con Ed and they'll tell you, I suggest you try it and see if you have better luck than I did. It would sure be nice if there were some transparency here, on all fronts.

Extell's Revised Plans for Riverside Center

Extell presented their revised plans for their massive Riverside Center development (on the southern end of the Riverside South development in Manhattan) at yesterday's Community Board 7 meeting.

Extell showed a new model of the planned development. The new plans fail to address any of the outstanding issues with the prior plans. The new model is just as massive as the old one, with the same number of residential units and the same trampling on the legally binding Restrictive Declaration.

As I speculated prior to the plans being unveiled, Extell simply re-arranged the space allocation on the existing footprint, making the buildings more squat (and in the opinion of several attendees, more ugly), reducing the height of the buildings on the riverfront side while increasing the height along West End Avenue.

It was announced that the ULURP process would begin in April.

CB7 has done some more work on this project, and you can see the results on the relevant part of the CB7 website. The key new items (listed on the site) are

• Core Principles and Key Recommendations, Feb 4, 2010.
• Letter to City Planning, Feb 7, 2010.

The recommendations are generally consistent with prior views of CB7, including:

• Reducing overall density by at least 20%
• Reducing the height of the buildings
• Increase public open space
• A variety of suggestions to improve environmental impact and human usability

Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer attended most of the meeting. Thank you for attending, Ms. Brewer.

RSPC: Great New Info about Riverside South and Extell

We have written about the Riverside South Planning Corporation before, most recently about how the courts have recently upheld their role (or at least someone's role) in overseeing the Riverside South Development, and assuring that the developer meets its obligations.

They have made excellent proposals about developing the site. Here's a sample:

Now, they have dramatically enhanced their site, putting up a real treasure trove of relevant documents about the whole project. This is a real public service!

The current developer, Extell, is simply ignoring the relevant legal agreements. Now anyone can see the history for themselves, thanks to RSPC. There is no excuse for this project proceeding unchecked. Where are the public agencies and officials who are supposed to protect our interests, not to mention enforce the law? I can only hope that they are waiting for the right time, before the project gets underway.

Extell's Partner Carlyle Group Part of $120M of I'm Sorry to NY

The guilty pleas continue to dribble out about influence peddling at the $129 Billion New York State Pension Fund. You remember -- that's the scandal in which "Investment companies, including prominent firms like the Carlyle Group, have paid $120 million in settlements with Mr. Cuomo’s office and agreed to change their practices."

"In State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Loglisci described a “culture of corruption”...

"When Mr. Morris and Mr. Loglisci were indicted nearly a year ago, Mr. Cuomo’s office accused Mr. Morris of having positioned himself as a gatekeeper, controlling access to about $10 billion in pension assets that were to be invested in hedge funds and private equity firms. Mr. Loglisci said Wednesday in court that Mr. Morris used his control over the pension fund to secure campaign contributions from investment firms."

The story is simple: private equity funds, Carlyle Group among them, made campaign contributions in exchange for the State Pension Fund making investments in the funds, investments which are lucrative to the funds regardless of how things turn out for the State of New York and its pensioners.

That's the way the Carlyle Group acted, and the tens of millions they paid to say "I'm sorry" confirms their role in what a participant described as a "culture of corruption." They get what they want, and they're used to paying for it.

Extell isn't exactly shy about getting what it wants either. It has quite a staff of lobbyists and others to help clear the way for them. Is everything on the up-and-up about Riverside Center?

• Why are things going ahead when Extell is being probed over their conduct at other buildings in the same Riverside South development?
• Why is Extell being permitted to proceed with plans that so clearly violate earlier legal agreements, agreements whose validity has been upheld by the courts and affirmed by public officials?
• Why is Extell being permitted to proceed with plans that are clearly in violation of City policies and based on bogus calculations?

While it's nice that the buildings may be a little less high, it really is a minor accommodation. It doesn't make a dent in the potential huge profits, or constitute a real re-design.

Extell Revises Plans for Riverside Center

We had heard rumors for some time that Extell's plans for gigantic buildings in its planned Riverside Center development were threatened by the plumes from the Con Edison steam plant that is adjacent to the site. Now we know that there was something to the rumors.

I'm no expert in building, but anyone who looks at the site with the tall smokestack right next door ... why would you even think of building really tall buildings right next to the smoke stack of a working power plant? I guess that's what happens when you're Extell and used to getting your way, and you're backed by the Carlyle Group's billions of dollars. You just plow ahead and assume that the "common people" will make way; after all, they usually do.

The wonderful people at the Coalition for a Livable West Side put out a notice saying that, prodded by the Coalition, City Planning talked with Extell about the plume problem, and Extell has actually responded by revising their plans, reducing (so it is said) the planned height of some of the buildings!

Based on Extell's track record of building as much as they possibly can, it's hard to believe that they will actually reduce the total planned floor space. The space chopped off from the tops of buildings may well show up again lower down.

That is the purpose of a meeting at 6:30pm on Wednesday March 17 at Community Board 7, 250 West 87th St (between Broadway and WEA). Extell will be there, and will show its revised plan. The public (that means you!) is welcome to attend. Please do, and post your reactions as comments.

HUD Probes Extell: the Comments

My previous post describes a HUD probe (finally!) into Extell's truly outrageous behavior regarding the Rushmore development in Riverside South, the same general area in which they currently are seeking City permission to build Riverside Center.

The original article on which the post was based appeared in the Real Deal on Feb 4. Last time I looked, a total of 42 comments had already been made, a HUGE number on an article of such narrow interest. Apparently there is a deep vein of feeling on this subject, which under the circumstances is completely understandable. Many of the comments are understandably cynical and negative, and a few are obvious, pathetic attempts to cover itself by Extell. Here are a couple samples, but by all means, scan them all yourself:

If you take a close look at Extell and the people that run the place ------Gary Barnett, Raizy Haas (preceded by Lela Goren), is it any wonder that an underhanded event took place...

Can anyone say tip of the iceberg?

I wonder how long it will take the AG to fail a decision. So far they have been very lenient with Extell....

Andrew Cuomo gets over $100K for his political campaign from Extel, of course he is going to be lenient.

How come The Carlyle Group was left out of all this? They're the co-sponsor and big money behind everything, right?

HUD Probes Extell over Riverside South Development

Gary Barnett's Extell Development Corporation (with their backers, the Carlyle Group) are in the middle of a major push to develop two whole blocks of prime land adjacent to the Hudson River. It is the last major undeveloped portion of the Riverside South tract. They call their development Riverside Center. While the design has some attractive aspects, it violates basic tenets adhered to by City Planning and the terms of the agreement with the community that is legally attached to the land.

Before New York officials cave in to the pressure that Extell must be exerting on them to break the rules and let Extell build the development as proposed, wouldn't it be wise to consider what kind of developer Extell is? How have their other developments worked out? Do they play by the rules, or do they throw money around to persuade officials to violate them for the benefit of Extell and its investors?

An amazing article appeared a couple days ago that reveals that HUD is probing Extell's handling of one of their other buildings on the RIverside South site, the Rushmore.

(Pictured above are AG Andrew Cuomo, HUD Sec'y Donovan, and the Rushmore.)

Here is the opening of the article:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has launched an investigation into the Rushmore condominium, amid allegations that the lawyers for the developer, Extell Development, held previously undisclosed meetings with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office to prevent existing buyers from backing out of their apartment contracts.

Please read the whole article. Before you make any decisions permitting Extell to start a new development that, even from the beginning, violates many agreements and principles, please, NYC officials, consider the whole picture!

Elected Officials Attend CB 7 Meeting on Riverside Center

We were pleased to see that time and attention that key elected officials are giving to Extell's Riverside Center project.

Councilwoman Gale Brewer attended most of the meeting, and paid close attention to the many views expressed.

NYS Senator Tom Duane attended, in spite of a very bandaged thumb. He had to leave after awhile, but a couple of his assistants stayed for the meeting, paying attention and taking notes.

While NYS Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal couldn't attend personally, I met Lindsey Allison, her chief of staff, who attended most of the meeting with another member of staff.

The issues with this development are plain, and laid out in earlier posts in this blog. They include:

• Keeping to the density limits of the Restrictive Declaration, which is still in force.
• Extell plays games with density calculation.
• The plans violate long-standing city policies.
• Extell plans a discredited towers-in-a-park design concept by a celebrity architect.

Thank you! We appreciate it! We'll remember!

A Sanitation Garage (and Park) for Riverside Center

Michael Kramer came to the recent CB 7 meeting on Riverside Center and made a compelling presentation for an underground sanitation garage. Here is the main part of his presentation (click to enlarge):

For more information, please contact Michael Kramer, CB7garage@earthlink.net.

Meeting about Extell's Riverside Center

Park River Independent Democrats Presents

Riverside Center

(59^th to 61^st Streets at the Westside Highway)

 

Another Mega-Development Proposed for the Westside

What can the community do about it?

Meeting: January 21, 2010, 7 PM

Speakers:

Shelly Fine, former Chair of Community Board 7

Ethel Sheffer, former Chair of Community Board 7

 

Schwab House, 258 West End Avenue, (73^rd and 74^th Streets)

Refreshments to be served

Extell Breaks its Deal with the Upper West Side

A wonderful post appeared in Marta Hallowell's Huffington Post blog concerning Extell and the Riverside South/Center project.

The post is here -- please read it!

Among the things she talks about are:

The developer Extell is quietly pushing for big changes to its Riverside Center project ... any future construction was bound by a Restrictive Declaration ...  Now, after half the project is already built, Extell is trying to get out of the Restrictive Declaration. ... the Restrictive Declaration limits the developer to build no more than an additional 2.4 million sq. ft. But Extell is pushing for a variance to increase that amount to 3.1 million sq. ft.

Read her blog to understand where the above picture comes in!

CB 7 Riverside Center Meeting on Extell

There will be a meeting of CB 7's Riverside Center Working Group this Wednesday, January 13, at 6:30pm at their offices, 250 West 87th St, Manhattan, second floor. It's easy to get to, right by the stop of the #1 subway.

Please come! Why? If you're interested in Extell's plans for what they call Riverside Center, that's what the meeting is all about.

According to an e-mail I got from the Coalition for a Livable West Side, here is the meeting agenda:

1.      Anticipated certification and ULURP schedule

 

2.      Follow-up on CB7 consultants' report and meetings with Extell

 

3.      Review of major recommendations and priorities  on density, zoning, open space, site plan

 

4.      CB7 Committee assignments on housing, school, transportation

 

5.      Retail survey report

Hope to see you there!

Where is the Riverside South Implementation Task Force?

In a previous post, I referred to a decision issued November 24, 2009 by the New York court of appeals affirming that Extell and all its successors are bound by the terms of the 1992 Restrictive declaration. This decision also provided for monitoring compliance by the developer (in this case Extell), but there is no body that is currently empowered to perform this essential function!

The body that had been performing the monitoring and compliance function was the Riverside South Planning Corporation, RSPC. This role of RSPC was established in a four page Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was not part of the Restrictive Declaration. The MOU had a sunset clause, and the court ruled that the MOU has expired, and that therefore Extell has no obligation to RSPC.

The court went out of its way to explicitly affirm the fact that the Restrictive Declaration remains in force without sunset and without limit, "binding all successors for all time -- including Extell."

In a footnote, the court describes how the Declaration would be monitored:

Under the Restrictive Declaration, the developer's
compliance with the plan is monitored by the Riverside South
Implementation Task Force, which consists of a representative of
the Mayor's office of Construction, the Director of the
Department of City Planning, another Mayoral appointee (a
Commissioner of an agency, at the election of the Mayor) and two
appointees of the Speaker of the State Assembly.

Where is the "Riverside South Implementation Task Force" today?

It appears that the RSPC was intended to play that role, but now that the court has ruled the original agreement empowering it is no longer in force, some entity (perhaps a revised or reconstituted RSPC!) needs to be empowered to play the role of monitoring Riverside South implementation.

Extell, the Carlyle Group and their lawyers know all this, of course. They know the terms of the Restrictive Declaration. They know it calls for oversight. They know the RSPC was set up to provide that oversight. When they discovered that the side letter establishing RSPC as the entity to provide that oversight had expired, the right thing to do is simple -- sign a new letter with RSPC. Instead, they shut out RSPC and said, in effect, that they could live without oversight just fine, thank you.

What they're banking on is that the Mayor and everyone else empowered by the document to appoint the overseeing Task Force will simply let the matter slide. And so far, they're getting away with it. 

Mr. Mayor? Director of City Planning? Speaker of the State Assembly? Will you please remedy this situation?