West Side Spirit, May 25, 2006, p. 22
POLS, RESIDENTS GLIMPSE FUTURE
Park West Village project inspires fresh debate
By Charlotte Eichna
A picture of the future has surfaced at last.
And residents, for the most part, aren’t happy.
The image in question would be a rendering of what developers intend to build amidst a plot of land known as Park West Village, a planned middle class community on Columbus Avenue in the upper 90s that includes several apartment buildings, street-fronts and open space.
For months, neighbors speculated about what would appear in their backyards. A protest recently punctuated the closing of a C-Town supermarket, the last of the local merchants whose stores once populated the area. Developers said they intended to share their plans with the community, but nothing concrete had been made public.
Then a resident came across an advertisement for 808 Columbus Avenue in a real estate trade publication. There, laid out in color, was a rendering of the proposed building and commercial space.
“It’s totally out of place in the community. It’s a midtown [building]. The commercial stuff is like the Time Warner building – all glass,” said Vivian Dee, a Park West Village resident. “It’s alienating, it’s cold.”
She is particularly incensed that the residential tower would essentially block off half of Park West Village – the part that is mostly condominiums, between Columbus Avenue and Central Park West – from the other half of the community, which consists of rentals between Columbus and Amsterdam avenues.
“Columbus Avenue then becomes a barrier between the two parts of Park West Village,” she said.
Dee, who heads up the Preserve West Park North Coalition, the group that organized the protest in early May, said she is planning a June 1 town hall meeting to discuss the project.
Although the site’s owners and developers, the Chetrit Group and Stellar Management, haven’t finalized the design yet, they are currently planning a 29-story residential tower of market-rate rentals, according to a spokeswoman, Kathleen Cudahy, and new storefronts.
“There will be a lot of green space on top of the commercial space,” she said.
They also hope to turn the village’s parking lots into green space and move parking underground.
Developers ay the plans are as-of-right and don’t require community review and approval, an assertion that has been questioned by some.
Community meetings are still being planned, Cudahy said, so that residents can share their thoughts about what sort of businesses they’d like to see in the commercial space. “We know that they need a food store,” she said. “These are all things that we’d appreciate hearing from the community on.”
Whole Foods, she confirmed, had been discussed as a tenant, although there were concerns about it being too pricey.
A representative from Whole Foods said the company did not talk about potential locations except during quarterly earnings calls.
Both Borough President Scott Stringer and Assembly Member Daniel O’Donnell have met with developers to review the architectural renderings.
“I told them I thought they had to go back to the drawing board and come up with more than one potential option for them to present to the community,” O’Donnell said explaining that because it was a very articulate and involved community, the developers would be doing themselves a favor by seeking local input.
While saying he understands that real estate is a business, O’Donnell indicated he’d be happier if the proposed residential tower were more in line with its 16-story Park West Village neighbors.
“The community exists in a wonderful, harmonious way and we should do everything we can to protect that harmony and not have Midtown-like skyscrapers in the middle of our blocks,” he said.
Anthony Borelli, Stringer’s director of land use, planning and development, said the plans would have a significant impact on the community and stressed the importance of involving residents.
“The developer also has a responsibility to look out for the quality of life of the folks he collects rents from,” Borelli said.
Cudahy, the developers’ spokesperson, said designers did take into consideration what views might be blocked by new construction. At one point, they had discussed building two towers on either end of the plot.
“If you do that, you block the views of the people who are closer to the new proposed building,” she said. “Distance between the proposed tower and the existing tower to the west is in excess of 200 feet. That’s wider than any avenue in the city, it’s quite a distance. So in order to preserve as many views as possible, we felt that the single tower is a better way to go.”