Paradise? (Steven Duffy)

The arguments for NYU’s, creatively named, “2031” expansion have been predictable in their rhetoric: You shouldn’t—and, frankly, can’t—stand in the way of change. The majority of press in the city has adopted this stance and backed the new proposals. Now Manhattan borough president, Scott Stringer, has given his approval, albeit with stipulations that reduce the build by some 20 percent.

Those who disagree with the 1.9 million square foot expansion have been cast as one-dimensional curmudgeons who are stuck in the past. “Change never comes easy to New York” read a Times op-ed. Really? In more polemic media, the anti-expansion crowd have even been accused of wanting to “steal” one of NYU’s buildings.

“I think they pretty much get what they want, I feel like they are a little principality,” Diane Peterson said of the university, sitting on a stone slab in La Guardia community gardens, the southern block of the two “Super Blocks” that most of the 2031 plan is based upon.

Ms. Peterson has maintained her plot, where she grows tomatoes and roses amongst other shrubs, for more than three decades. Although NYU does not own the land that La Guardia Gardens is situated on—it belongs to the Department of Transportation—if the planned expansion does go ahead the garden will be embedded in the midst of a construction site for some 20 years.

“When we first had this garden in 1981, there were people in building 505 that didn’t want the garden here,” Ms. Peterson said, referring to one of the Silver Towers while recalling the original birth of the garden, which may hold sway with the current conflict. “They were making a lot of noise at the community meetings, saying there wasn’t enough room for a garden—acting like it was a nuclear plant we wanted,” she said, leaning forward. “So we—the original people in the garden—went to the building, and it turned out most of the people were in favor of it, just they didn’t make any noise about it.”

The garden pops up out of nowhere, a little unexpected green retreat of solitude in the middle of the city. Indeed the scene on a recent Saturday, as three regulars kicked back in lounge chairs, made it seem like a Virginia shrub garden had been transposed to downtown Manhattan. But for the din of traffic from Houston, a viewer would be forgiven for thinking it wasn’t. Twenty-five people have their own plots, but the garden is open to the public, the gardeners grow everything from shrubs to roses, tomatoes to garlic. Situated where it is, in some of the most expensive real estate around, its existence really is an anomaly.

“I can’t tell you,” said a concerned Ellen Reznick, when trying to explain what the garden meant to her and the community. She has had her plot for 10 years. “We get a throng of visitors, people are in awe of this,” she continued. “It’s such a vitally important space. Not just for the neighborhood, but for visitors and tourists too.” Supporters of the planned expansion argue that it is nostalgia for an imagined old Village, and stubbornness to change, that stands in the way of progress. But is that always so bad? “I think about it all the time,” said Ms. Reznick, her expression almost pained, “I think about it and with great agitation.”

NYU Director of Public Affairs Phil Lentz said that the university is studying how to minimize any impact to La Guardia Gardens as much as they possibly can, although that’s being met with some skepticism.

“They believe that even though it’s city land, that they can go under or over,” said Gretchen Irwin a relative newcomer to the garden, maintaining a small plot with her husband since last summer. “It’s very sneaky, NYU is supposed to be a university, but they have a tax exempt status. They are actually one of the biggest real estate developers in the world. They’re not doing this for purely educational reasons.”

To the casual by-passer the gardeners could be accused of overstating their point, but NYU has bypassed zoning laws in the past. Ms. Peterson herself recalled a meeting at Cooper Union, when the plans where put forward for new dormitories on Third Avenue, between 11th and 12th streets. “There was a long table with all the NYU people at it, and they said ‘NYU has always had 30,000 students and it was not going to expand’, they have 44,000 students now and they want 60,000.”

Walk across the street. and you’ll find Washington Square Village, NYU’s faculty residence buildings, which is the second of the two “super blocks.” On weekends the playground is a clamor with the echo of children, many of them NYU offspring. Across the way, others read under trees and eat al fresco. Part of Borough President Stringer’s stipulations to NYU 2031 mandated that a temporary playground be operated throughout construction. However, that hasn’t been enough to calm some faculty members, who are concerned about what will happen to their neighborhood.

“My concern is that even after I’m not alive, they’re going to ruin this area in terms of density, there’s going to be so many buildings and people that it’s not going to be the Village anymore, its going to be like Midtown,” said retired professor Pat O’Hara, who has lived in her apartment in Washington Sq. Village for 25 years.

“We are in fear and dread, we’ve had to think of moving,” said another current faculty member, who didn’t want to be named (“not tenured, so…”). “We love our apartment, we love our community. The fear is the noise pollution, it will be unlivable having a construction site here.”

The lifeblood of any school is arguably the faculty, and the university has managed to take advantage of the strong New York allure, but **the advent of cranes and diggers may make some think twice. “They won’t attract quality, they’ll attract adjuncts,” said the anonymous professor. “I mean, they always attract adjuncts! But they won’t attract quality.”

“The University could really decline,” Ms. O’Hara agreed, “they are not looking at that issue, and it’s a really important one.

“We think the reverse is true,” NYU’s Mr. Lentz countered. “NYU’s lack of academic faculty and lab space has been an impediment to attracting the type of faculty members that we want, and without more space we are not going contribute to greater faculty at NYU.”

The fact is the plans are going to the City Council this summer, and with the backing of the current mayor—and the prospective ones—all points towards NYU’s expansion happening, with the likely possibility of a few more concessions.

For Diane Peterson and her friends at La Guardia, they will continue to go about their business, toiling their small patch of land, until told otherwise. If worst comes to worst for Ms. Peterson, she’ll have to adapt. “Window boxes” she said, laughing candidly, “Window boxes… that’s it. Window boxes are all I’m going to be gardening!”

realestate@observer.com

Fixing homes from the bully pulpit. (William Alatriste/City Council)

In between heavy dollops of sentiment, Christine Quinn cemented some specific plans to combat the affordable housing problem and the facilitation of upgrading the City’s landlord maintenance code in her State of the City address last week.

Ms. Quinn outlined how the Housing Preservation and Development Department is extending affordability to 60 years for some of the biggest developments. Affordability agreements currently stand at just the 30-year mark.

How affordability agreements work is, the City provides incentives to developers and in exchange they make units affordable, but the current 30-year watermark is seen as too short in the face of the steady march to urban gentrification and the unceremonious shoving out of decade-long residents. The issue of affordable housing has turned into a weighty one recently, becoming a go-to subject for many would-be Mayoral candidates.

“Sixty years isn’t permanent,” said Ms. Quinn, “but it’s a critical first step”. She is championing a move toward what she called "permanent affordability." She is going to work on correcting what she finds as archaic legislation, which sees veterans' tax exemptions inexplicably linked to how much the City spends on schools. “Is that a classic government kick in the pants, or what?” Ms. Quinn said.

In a speech that was laden with wistful recollections of a New York of days of yore, full of kinship and camaraderie, Ms. Quinn also urged the City to create a new program to help get the some 10,000 homeless families into long-term housing. She wants to prioritize homeless families for NYCHA apartments. “This isn’t just the right thing to do,” said Ms. Quinn, “it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do. The average cost of a rental subsidy for a family of four is $800 a month. To house that same family in a shelter? $3,000.”

The theme of rehousing the homeless offered a nice segue into her next topic: the state of housing maintenance. She criticized landlords at large, and the City’s own NYCHA, for taking “years for repairs that take less than an hour to make.” Ms. Quinn called for modifications to be made to the City’s housing maintenance code that would compel landlords to fix the root cause of building problems, and not just the short-term issue.

“Instead of just fixing water damage, landlords will have to repair the hole in the roof that's causing it,” Ms. Quinn said. “Slumlords will have to spend real money and fix the real problem or we’ll haul them into housing court.” She reiterated her urgency on the timeliness of repairs: “Not in a year. Not in a month. Today”.

"'How will the NYCHA be able to scale to this level of productivity,' you say? Well funnily enough the Council are upping the funding for NYCHA for this year and in doing so creating 175 new jobs."

Yes, before you know Ms. Quinn will have us back to those glory years she speaks of: Kick the can games on every street, suffocating smell of cabbage from every kitchen and the hanging of laundry out every window.

sduffy@observer.com

Nicer than a gold course, non?

Looks like the recession has born some green shoots, after all—for green groupies.

Nonprofit land trusts, who buy up swathes of empty land for preservation purposes, are reaping the benefits of the tumbled real estate market in New York and New Jersey, according to the Journal. Developers are finding themselves in the less than ideal position, of making a reluctant call to a land trust and offering them hundreds of acres, at up to 90 percent discounts.

In New York nearly one million acres have been bought up by land trusts. The national figure of preserved acreage has shot up from 10.9 million in 2005, to 16 million today, according to a census by the Land Trust Alliance.

One, freshly acquired 185-acre plot, in Dutchess County was bought by The Scenic Hudson Land Trust Inc. The site was originally earmarked for a shopping center and some 175 homes by the developer, United Realty Partners and was valued at 10 million, after the crash Scenic Hudson bought it for an eye watering two million. Ouch.

Despite these opportunities that have been afforded to the land trusts, their own downward systems of funding, is hampering their ability to make the most of it. Both Government grants and private donations have been drying up.

"It's a shame,” Kim Elliman, chief executive of the Open Space Institute trust, told the Journal, “because there are so many properties that are now for sale that have long been targets for biologic corridors or land protection or public access for hunters and fishermen".

Those commuters from upstate may not have the convenience of an extra golf course or, god forbid, another Walmart. On the flip side, they may save money and have something prettier to look at.

sduffy@observer.com

The Studio apartment, an extinct species?

“This is an incredible thing. It’s new. No human society in all of history has organized life in this way,” enthused NYU sociology professor Eric Klinenberg. He had met The Observer at Jacques Torres in Hudson Square to discuss his new book, Going Solo, which investigates what Mr. Klinenberg sees as a desire of a large number of people to live alone. In the book he coins the term “singleton” for this supposed emerging group—take that, BoBos!—and he calls Manhattan “the capital of singletons.”

“The typical New Yorker gets married after 30 these days,” said Mr. Klinenberg, “and they have children even later. We had a huge number of years where we used to live with other people. Now we’re free to do what we want to do.” In his book, Mr. Klinenberg cites numerous statistics over the past 50 years that do show a gradual shift in this direction, from the standard (expected) nuclear family to the rise of what he calls “the cult of the individual.”

“Most people we interviewed said that after a few years of living with roommates they are ready for a place of their own.” Mr. Klinenberg said. He has a whole host of reasons why: “Roommates who don’t pay rent on time, roommates who don’t like the person you are dating …” etc., etc.

The idea of the New York loner is as old as the city itself. Look no further than the solemn, solitary Statue of Liberty. But recent trends actually point away from a city of “singletons,” not toward one.

In recent years, as housing prices have skyrocketed, it has made it harder and harder for singletons to afford their own space. Meanwhile, gentrification and reverse white flight have made more and more middle class couples decide to start families in the city. This has led to a concerted trend on the part of developers to build bigger apartments and more of them, often with two to four bedrooms, rather than the one-bedrooms and studios that used to dominate. The trend is the same for poorer New Yorkers, be they multigenerational minorities in the South Bronx or struggling creative types in Greenpoint who must double- and triple-up just to find space in the city’s outer-lying districts.

Consider the example of 607 Hudson Street, a former senior center in Greenwich Village. Once home to 200 rooms for the elderly, it is undergoing conversion into 10 massive multiroom condos, all costing millions of dollars—perfect for a banker or actor and his burgeoning brood.

“I know that development,” Mr. Klinenberg said of 607 Hudson. “You’re saying they are family housing, but I think some singles will move into them.” Really? “This is a city of incredible concentrated wealth, so people who can afford to live alone here are people who are doing well in the marketplace.” But this is just his hunch.

“There are a lot of people trying to find that trophy apartment, but I personally don’t get the sense that people have a desire to live alone,” said Gary Malin, president of brokerage Citi Habitat. He did say it was possible particular kinds of clients might be buying these apartments for themselves, thought it was not whom Mr. Klinenberg might have in mind. “A lot of overseas people buy a property as a stop-off place,” he said.

That’s Mr. or Ms. Russian oil-rich czar, but what about Mr. or Ms. 30-something professional? “There has been a trend that people no longer want to move to the suburbs like they used to,” Mr. Malin said, “people who were living in Manhattan and single now aren’t as willing to move to the suburbs like before, and developers are trying to cater to these, and trying to find them bigger places.”

The U.S. Census Bureau shows an almost insignificant increase of 0.1 percent, from 2000 to 2010, of those living on their own in New York City. This is not to say that Mr. Klinenberg is wrong, just that he is not right right now: from 1980 to 1990, the rate of singletons grew 6.5 percent. Things are disproportionately female, as any Sex in the City fan could tell you, where women (18.5 percent) out number men (13.5 percent) living alone in New York.

“If personal income was flat over the decade, and housing prices, adjusted for inflation, were not flat, that means affordability went down, so you likely have fewer people living alone,” said Jonathan Miller, the real estate state guru behind appraisal firm Miller Samuel. “It’s not uncommon, but as it gets more expensive, you have more doubling up.”

According to Mr. Miller’s statistics, the number of one-bedroom apartments has held steady for the past decade, falling from 36 to 35 percent of Manhattan’s housing stock. Studios, however, a product of the 1980s and ’90s booms, have fallen from 18 percent to 15 percent of the housing stock. Two-bedrooms have dipped, from 41 percent to about 36 percent in the past few years, perhaps underscoring Mr. Klinenberg’s point. But the really hot properties are the biggest. Three bedrooms have gone from 4 percent a decade ago to 10 percent and four bedrooms from 1.5 percent to 3 percent.

Just look at all the townhouses that had been cut up after World War II, with eight studios, two to a floor. They have since been converted by the wealthy back into expansive single-family homes, full of boarding school-bound youths.

“There is a huge mismatch between how people are living and what types of housing are available,” said Sarah Watson, an analyst at the Citizens Housing and Planning Commission. She cites developers, building to match what government regulations urge, as the reason for a big housing discrepancy. “It’s not necessarily the market’s fault. Look at the government—it clearly prioritizes the 1950’s idea of the family.”

So, are the days of the bachelor pad over? Mr. Klinenberg remained adamant that they are not. “Developers are continuing to build for singles,” said Mr. Klinenberg, ignoring the fact that they are doing so less frequently. “The new Related building, MiMA at 42^nd and 10^th, is disproportionately single—around the 55 percent mark for single occupants.” Mr. Klinenberg also cited the Frank Gehry tower on Spruce Street as an enclave of singles. But might there have been even more single units in the past? He could not say.

“I don’t think it’s about people having a right to live alone,” Mr. Klinenberg continued, “but developers are not turning away singles, singles who are willing to pay the rent. These people exist and the city is not discriminating against them.”

If only you can afford it, that 10-by-10 urban oasis is still within reach.

sduffy@observer.com

Victory tastes so good. (Stephen Duffy)

“Accessible taxi’s is happening, it’s happening in Washington D.C., it’s happening in Chicago, it’s happening Philadelphia and it’s happening because we've done it in New York,” said a contented James Weisman, his words accompanied by warm applause.

Mr. Weisman, senior counsel to the United Spinal Association, was speaking at a party for those involved in the Taxis For All campaign on Friday. The reason for the celebration was the Disability Rights Advocates landmark judicial victory against the city in December, when they successfully argued that any future New York taxicab that was not wheelchair accessible violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“The same way we made the buses accessible and the whole country followed, the same thing is going to happen here with the taxis.” Mr. Weisman said, speaking in front of a yellow cake that had a model taxi with a ramp as decoration, the word ‘Congratulations’ was poured across in icing. “It’s going to be as profound a change as the buses, I’m sure,” he said, alluding to the ripple effect that occurred after  the adoption of accessible buses in New York.

Someone in the crowd got a tad excited and shouted, "And if it doesn't happen, we'll sue!".

"Right!" responded Mr. Weisman, with a nod of his head and shrug of his shoulders. The party was thrown by Anne Davis, former chair of the Taxi For All steering committee. "We’ve been working for 15 years towards this legislation," Ms. Davis said, "and I thought we should celebrate it so I offered to throw the party.”

Those at the party who used a wheelchair were in top spirits. Considering they had spent 15 winters (or more) wheeling around Manhattan, waiting at various bus stops with frost bitten fingers, one could understand their glee.

Major cities like London have had a 100% accessible taxicab fleet for a long time, so why has it taken New York this long? "Well, we didn't get the cooperation," Ms. Davis said. Mayor Bloomberg "didn't even think people in wheelchairs should be out on the streets hailing cabs."

Indeed, it would appear for long periods that Mayor Bloomberg was steadfast against any agreement on accessible cabs. At one stage, answering why the 'Taxi of Tomorrow' wasn't accessible, he the bizarrely stated that "wheelchair users don't tip well." The ruling last December was viewed by some in the political world as a victory for Governor Andrew Cuomo, who consistently reiterated his refusal to sign any bill that did not include accessible cabs.

Joe Rappaport, ex-Transportation Analyst at the State Senate who was deeply involved in the Taxi For All movement, was there, as was  Julie Pinover, one of the attorneys who represented the Disability Rights Advocates.

The next step in this story will see the Bloomberg administration present a extensive report to Judge Daniels, which outlines the plan for increasing the availability of wheelchair-accessible taxis. Until this report is produced, and approved, the City can only issue permits to cabs that are accessible.

For at least one group of New Yorkers, they can have their cake and eat it, too.

sduffy@observer.com

Green giant. (AP/NYM)

The current mild winter, without the habitual annoyance of your feet tracking  snow all over the apartment, could excuse some hard-nosed New Yorkers for not giving two hoots about global warming.

However today, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced that 29 recommendations aimed at making the city's buildings more sustainable have been drafted into law. Eight more recommendations are currently being codified.

The initial green building report–commissioned by the Mayor’s office–was published all of two years ago by the Urban Green Council, a nonprofit whose goal is to lead sustainable urban design. The report contained 111 recommendations. The city claims that the implementation of the new laws will reduce those pesky greenhouse emissions by 5 percent citywide, making for a $400 million saving by the year 2030.

It is all part of the Mayor’s PlaNYC sustainability initiative. “When we launched PlaNYC five years ago, we put forward a bold vision to make our City more sustainable, and meeting those goals is now a part of how our city develops,” the mayor said in a statement.

Some of the laws include no use of artificial lighting where natural lighting is efficient, water fountains instead of vending machines and white roofs that reflect the suns heat, instead of those nasty heat gathering black ones. The city is also working on removing old red tape that used to impede green design.

“These simple changes are just the beginning of making our buildings more environmentally friendly and making New York one of the world’s greenest cities,” Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri said.

Challenges remain. With only two years left for the administration and the current council class, how many more of these initiatives will be passed? After all, much of what has been tackled so far is the low-hanging fruit—CFLs, anyone?—meaning that the road ahead will be a little rougher.

realestate@observer.com

Transportation Alternatives is putting out another call for neighborhoods to apply to make their street a "Play Street," where communities can close off blocks of New York to traffic. This allows children a safe environment to play in while tackling the childhood obesity problem.

The program is administered by the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, with TA and the Strategic Alliance for Health offering assistance to those who wish to go through the Play Street application process. The deadline for submitting an application to the Department of Health is February 21.

Last summer, 15 streets participated in the program, and Transportation Alternatives has written to the Mayor asking him to commit to raising this number to 66 by the year 2030. The proposal could actually help the Mayor in his quest to reach the goal of having every New York child live within a ten minute walk of the nearest playground, which has lead him to extend the opening hours of school playgrounds.

"Play Street was a great way to get them active in the community," Ciara Ginyard of the East Harlem Tutorial Program said if her kids. "It involved community organizations that facilitated types of activities that our participants aren't normally exposed to, like karate and yoga."

"Our city’s streets offered kids of all ages endless opportunities for active play," said TA executive director Paul Steeley White of times gone by.

It remains unknown yet whether today's children will be searched for iPod's and Nintendo DSes, upon entering a designated Play Street.

sduffy@observer.com

(Planetizan)

Conventional wisdom—and most public policy—says that sprawling developments garner more property tax revenue for local city and country coffers. That view however, has been thrown wide open in a recent study conducted by Public Interest Projects (PIP), as reported by Planetizen. And the results won't please sprawl-loving WalMart, who have been banging down the Cities door, trying to curry favor since 2005.

PIP's study concentrated on Ashville, North Carolina, where they were trying to develop a downtown building, one which the local county was planning on turning into a 24-hour center for emergency vehicles.

Acting on a hunch, PIP crunched the numbers and found that, astonishingly, the downtown buildings yield was $250,000 per acre in county property tax. This differed with the county's WalMart, which yielded just $8,000an acre  in comparison. The figures take on an even more bizarre meaning when you consider the space each one takes up: 34 acres at the WalMart and just 0.2 acres at the downtown site.

What gives? Well, in this scenario it seems that looking at the bigger picture is a mistake. "The point is that we have been perpetuating an error when it comes to how we think about real estate," writes former PIP analyst Joseph Minicozzi, "Our mistake has been looking at the overall value of a development project rather than its per unit productivity."

Exulting the virtues of mixed-use urbanism, Mr. Minicozzi said, "every city should be thinking long and hard about encouraging, and not accidentally discouraging, the property tax bonus that comes with mixed-use urbanism."

The study suggests that policy makers learn a lesson of shifting importanc:; from how much tax a property owes to how much the land it is built on is worth. A lesson, you feel, that most in the New York real estate already know all too well.

sduffy@observer.com

The real science fiction is that fish swimming in the river. (Popular Mechanics)

Those who rage about the underused bounty of natural energy that surrounds New York City, rage no more. As the 10-year journey to get the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy project (RITE) up and running has finally been sunk. To the bottom of the East River, that is.

According to The Roosevelt Island blog, work will now begin on the RITE project, owned by Verdant Power,  after the renewable energy company gained a license from The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The project will do more than just help clean up the environment but also also help people keep their houses, with Verdant allowed to sell the energy generated, to local customers.

"A long-term affordable housing plan will not be able to overcome the reality that we heat, cool, and power our homes in an inefficient way," Jonathan Kalkin, former Roosevelt Island Operating Corp Board Director, told The Roosevelt Islander, "This creates the scenario of an affordable home without affordable power. A person should not lose their home because they can’t afford their electric bill."

Under the license Verdant will build 30 turbines on the East River bed, using tidal currents to generate electricity. During previous prototype testing, six turbines operated for 9,000 hours with complete success, delivering 70 megawatt-hours of energy.

“FERC’s pilot process is doing what it should: allow for exploration of new renewable technologies while protecting the environment,” said Jon Wellinghoff, FERC Chairman.

sduffy@observer.com

Show me the money! (Getty)

As Republican and Democrats gear up for what increasingly seems likely to be one of the dirtiest presidential elections in memory, eyes are turning to the grandest and most welcome endorsement of all: cold hard cash.

In the real estate bubble of New York, views vary on how vocal your support of any one candidate should be, or at least that is what the builder-donors are telling The Real Deal.

There are those who make their feelings well know. Last year, The Related Companies gave a total of $25,000 in donations to Mitt Romney, and most recently Related CEO Stephen Ross openly hosted a fundraiser last Thursday for Mr. Romney in Florida.

Another Romney supporter to come out of the shadows is Philip Rosen, co-chair of the real estate practice at Weil, Gotshal and Manges. Mr. Rosen claims his two events so far—breakfast at Cipriani and a party at the Union League Club—each raised more than $1 million for Mr. Romeny. Rosen himself stumped up $2,450 of his own funds, according to the FEC.

Mr. Rosen is content with people knowing where his political feelings lie, and he even invites clients to the fundraisers. It does of course, leave him open to the ignominy of defeat, should his candidate fail. Possibly a reason why other realtors and developers keep their political cards close to their chest, like Bob Knakal the Massey Knakal chairman (and Commercial Observer columnist) who hedges his bets—he hosts fundraisers for candidates of both parties.

And then there's the great big elephant in the room: Donald Trump. Mr. Trump (the father-in-law of Observer publisher Jared Kushner) has donated $30,000 in January alone to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. However he still hasn't officially endorsed any one Republican candidate, perhaps because he has not given up the ghost himself. Consider this tweet from earlier today: "@realdonaldtrump My daughter Ivanka thinks I should run for President. Maybe I should listen."

sduffy@observer.com