Senator Schumer (far left) and Congressman Nadler (far right) at the mouth of a flooded Brooklyn Battery Tunnel—the kind of damage both hope to prevent. (Jay Fine/MTA)

There has been a big debate in (local) government about how best to respond to Hurricane Sandy going forward. There is the governor's camp, which argues for redesigning great swaths of the city and state's built environment; and the mayor's camp, which both before the storm and after, argued that the city could never really protect itself from these kinds of disasters, so it was up to citizenry to protect themselves. The city would help with evacuations and the like, but really, don't build near the sea or count of some fancy new sea gates to protect you, the mayor insisted.

During the recovery, The Observer would ask major officials into which camp they fell. Both Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Jerry Nadler (who represents much of the formerly flooded downtown Manhattan) put themselves in the camp of doing more, building more, protecting more.

"For the future, we have to look into it," Senator Schumer said.

He stressed that if anything, the storm serves as a wake-up call to action for investments and practices the city should have been undertaking already anyway because of sea rise due to climate change. "We were going to have look into it anyway, with the waters rising and climate change," the senator said. If anything, Sandy may have saved us from something far worse in the future, the quiet, creeping tides that go largely unnoticed.

The senator did not have any specific ideas on what might be good measures to undertake, but he seemed eager to get into the discussion. "We’re just at the beginning of thinking about it," the senator said, saying that the clean-up efforts would have to come first. He did say he would work to wrangle money from the federal government to help pay for any solutions the city comes up with. After all, if the Army Corps and the treasury help keep up the flood protections surrounding New Orleans and the rest of the Mississippi Delta, why not do the same for new York Harbor?

Congressman Nadler, on the other hand, had plenty of recommendations. He is a bit of a waterfront infrastructure wonk, after all, having called for trans-harbor freight rail and other interesting investments in the past.

"Certainly Lower Manhattan, we should have much higher seawalls," Mr. Nadler said. "We had a 14-foot surge. Why couldn’t you have a wall around Lower Manhattan that went up 14 feet? I don’t know how much it would cost, but it would be a heck of a lot cheaper than the cost of a flood." He said the gates could even be retractable, but something like them seemed prudent.

Utilities were another major concern. "The Con Ed station at 14th Street, that cut off a quarter of a million people," the congressman said. "That, and other facilities like it, should be waterproof. They should not be flood-able. You could insulate them. They could be made like fortresses. Given how valuable they are, how crucial they are to lives and fortunes, they should be."

Mr. Nadler also echoed a now-familiar recommendation, to build some serious infrastructure around the harbor to help protect from other storms. "To me, we should consider to protect the city through the kinds of storm gates that Rotterdam and London have," he said. The congressman even rattled of what should be built where, such as gates and sluices at Perth Amboy, Hell's Gate and the Verrazano Narrows, thus cutting off much of the harbor from a storm surge.

"It's big, but you could do it," Mr. Nadler said. He also acknowledged the considerable, but worthwhile costs of such an investment. "The cost estimate for that is 10, 12 billion dollars, but to two or three of these storms, even one of them, is more than that," he said. Indeed, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli calculated an $18 million cost to the city as a result of the storm, but that includes the entire five boroughs, much of which would not be protected by these fancy new sea gates.

This is a problem Mr. Nadler fully acknowledges. "The problem is it wouldn’t protect Coney Island, Sea Gate or Jamaica Bay," he said. "It would protect downtown, Brooklyn, Hoboken and Jersey, but it’s not the answer to everything. It’s something to consider seriously, but unfortunately, given the geography of the city, there’s no way you do a storm gate that would give you broader protection.

But he still thinks it would be worth pursuing. "I don’t think it’s right to dismiss these proposals off hand," Mr. Nadler said. "They should be studied carefully, and a lot of them should be done. Maybe the storm gates, maybe not, but certainly Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn would be much better protected. And our electrical facilities. Also our subways." By protecting these critical pieces of infrastructure through a large project like sea gates, it might save the government money on other, smaller investments that would then not be necessary.

Whatever winds up being the appropriate solution, big or small, Mr. Nadler agreed with Mr. Schumer that something must be done.

"People say the worst case scenario could happen—it just did, almost," the congressman said. "It could have been a little worse. But people after Irene said, oh, all the hype, it didn’t happen. It just did. Now you have to look at all these proposals and realize these kinds of things can happen, especially with climate changes, the seas are getting warmer, it means there’s more energy for these, there’s going to be higher waves, harsher storms, more often.

:We have to protect ourselves. Things that weren’t practical in terms of the investment, now they will be."

Silver Towers from Soho, with 505 LaGuardia at left. (Fuck Yeah Brutalism)

One of the lingering concerns over the NYU rezoning of its two superblocks—besides whether it not it was The Final Nail in the Village's coffin—was the fate of 505 LaGuardia Place, one of the three 30-story concrete sentinels that makes up the I.M. Pei-designed Silver Towers.

The other two are faculty apartments, but this one is Mitchell Llama public housing, and the lease with NYU was set to expire in 2014, at which point rents could jump to market rates, possibly driving out long-time residents, many of them elderly. According to local Councilwoman Margaret Chin's office, NYU has agreed to provide 505 LaGuardia with the old lease agreement in perpetuity. The pols who fought for this agreement, along with the tenants  benefiting from it, are naturally ecstatic, as made clear in their quotes below.

“I am overjoyed that 505 LaGuardia will have a new lease that will finally ensure long-term affordability for residents and prevent uncertainty about future rent increases,” Congressman Jerold Nadler said.  “In a neighborhood with shrinking affordable options, it is essential to protect the housing stock that we do have from the powerful forces of the market.  I am gratified that NYU has been a true partner with the tenants, working with 505 LaGuardia to preserve affordable housing, and I am proud to have played a role in achieving this goal.  This deal will help preserve a balance between old and new in the Village and, as NYU moves forward with its development of the adjacent land, 505 LaGuardia will remain an important fixture of the neighborhood, helping to sustain the economic diversity that is a critical part of this community.”

"The importance of protecting and preserving affordable housing cannot be underestimated," Council Member Margaret Chin,who represents the Village, said. "It is not just a valuable public policy, but is integral to the long-term health and stability of our communities. New York University understands this. I want to thank the University and 505 LaGuardia for reaching a deal that ensures that this Mitchell-Lama building remains affordable in perpetuity. This is a huge victory for Greenwich Village. It guarantees, for all of our lifetimes, that working families and the middle class will have a place to call home in this community. Greenwich Village is changing. There is a large population that is aging in place and affordable housing in is short supply. We must ensure that the long-time residents who built this community have the services and the housing options that meet their needs. I want to thank New York University and the leadership at 505 LaGuardia for all the hard work, time, and effort that went in to crafting this arrangement. This is a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when we work together; and it is truly a day for NYU and the Greenwich Village community to stand tall and be recognized for this substantial achievement. I also want to recognize all my colleagues on the City Council for their support on this issue.”

"505 LaGuardia is one of the last bastions of middle-class housing in the Village,” Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said.  “I am pleased that the residents of 505 LaGuardia have reached a deal on extending their land lease and hope this deal will ensure their continued affordability in perpetuity."

"I am pleased a deal has been reached and much needed affordable housing has been preserved in Greenwich Village," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said. "This agreement guarantees that 505 LaGuardia can maintain affordability and that the working class families who currently reside there will be able to continue to live in the neighborhood they have long called home."

"I applaud Councilmember Chin for negotiating this commitment," New York State Senator Thomas Duane said.  "I have long held that NYU must help preserve 505 LaGuardia Place as affordable housing both for the current residents and future generations because of the significant contributions that economic diversity has made to the fabric of the Village and New York City as a whole.  I appreciate the University’s decision to ensure that future lease terms with the cooperative, a state-sponsored Mitchell-Lama development, are such that affordability may be preserved.

"The Board and cooperators of 505 LaGuardia are delighted to have reached an agreement with NYU that insures our permanent affordability, protects our most vulnerable neighbors and is consistent with the historic aims of Mitchell-Lama housing,” Patricia Albin, President of the Board, 505 LaGuardia Place, said. “Arriving at such a favorable outcome involved a long and difficult struggle, and thanks for this achievement must be given to our outstanding, skillful negotiators and to the dedicated elected officials who are steadfast in supporting and protecting affordable housing now and in the future.  We are deeply grateful to all who have worked so hard to make this accomplishment possible."

"We have reached agreement with NYU on a revised lease that guarantees 505's permanent affordability,” Peter Liberman, Board Member, 505 LaGuardia Place, said. “Over 40 years ago, New York City and NYU agreed that the University's development of the south super block was contingent on providing long-term affordable housing for the community, namely: 505 LaGuardia Place.  This lease secures that original promise for generations to come."

According to an email sent on Wednesday night to The Real Estate by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's office, it was the Beep who called Trump out on the questionnaire. (If Trump is, indeed, building a condo-hotel, he can't sell the units as primary residences, and probably shouldn't be touting them as secondary or as investment residences.)

Trump's people took the questionnaire down on Wednesday afternoon.

After the jump, Stringer's stern Wednesday letter to the city Department of Buildings, which has yet to grant Trump a permit for the condo-hotel (but probably will soon). It's signed by other notables, including U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, whose name on the letter is misspelled.

UPDATE: Stringer's office tells The Real Estate on Thursday morning that it caught the Nadler misspelling before the final letter went to the Buildings Department. The one after the jump is an earlier, uncorrected version. Whew!

UPDATE 2: Stringer's office also tells The Real Estate that City Council Speaker Christine Quinn "wrote her own strong letter" to the department regarding Trump's questionnaire.

- Tom Acitelli

THE CITY OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN

December 06, 2006

Commissioner Patricia Lancaster
Department of Buildings
780 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007

Dear Commissioner Lancaster:

As you know, we are very concerned about the proposed condo-hotel at 246 Spring Street. This
is the first time that a condo-hotel has been proposed in a New York City manufacturing zoning
district - in this case, a district that permits transient hotels but prohibits residential development.

Although we understand that the City's zoning does not, and cannot, regulate based on
ownership structure, it is very important to find some way within existing zoning to ensure that
this building operate as a hotel rather than as a residential building. Allowing development in
manufacturing zones that is effectively residential in nature would have a dramatic impact on our
neighborhoods and on the City's economy, letting loose a wave of luxury residential
development in areas that are supposed to be reserved for commercial and light manufacturing
uses.

The developer has consistently assured City government officials, and said publicly, that the
project would be a transient hotel that is as-of-right and therefore permitted by the City's zoning.
As you know, we have urged you to explore every option available to ensure that this project
operate as a short-stay, transient occupancy hotel, and have urged that any restrictions on the
property's use be enforced as tightly as possible. We understand that you are currently
discussing with the developer how this might be achieved.

So it is very important to note that on its web site, www.trumpsoho.com, the developer asks
potential condo unit buyers to answer the question, "What will the property be used for?" and
offers a drop-down menu of three options: "Primary Residence," "Secondary Residence," or
"Investment Property," (see enclosed, current as of the writing of this letter, emphasis added)! In
addition, the brochure the developer is distributing to interested potential buyers (enclosed)
features kitchenettes in the units, a clearly residential amenity that DOB already told the
developer was impermissible at this site.

As you know, residential use is clearly prohibited by the City's zoning for this site. It is
outrageous and disingenuous for the developer to assure the City that it will be operating a
transient hotel while openly advertising the building's availability as a primary and secondary
residence. Unfortunately, this behavior entirely validates our feeling that this project, if regulated too loosely, could be an "end-run" around the City's zoning, and that extraordinary steps must be taken to ensure that this purportedly "transient hotel" really operates as such.

Before continuing any discussions with the developer, we ask that you please confirm with the
developer that the website and brochure have been corrected, and that potential buyers are being, and will be, explicitly informed that units at 246 Spring Street are not available for residential use, but only for transient occupancy. We also request an explanation as to how the developer's website and brochure could have come to contain this inaccurate information, since the developer has known since the inception of this project that only transient uses would be
permitted at the site. Until these requests have been met satisfactorily, it is hard to see how the
City can have a good-faith negotiation with--and, indeed, approve permits for--a party that
publicly indicates it will abide by the law, while its actions indicate otherwise. Even after the
requested explanation and requests are provided, future discussions should only proceed with a
dose of heavy skepticism about the developer's intentions to operate this project as a transient
hotel.

We look forward to working with you on this important matter.

Sincerely,
Scott M. Stringer
Manhattan Borough President

Jerold Nadler
Member of Congress

Tom Duane
State Senator

Deborah Glick
Assembly Member

cc: Department of City Planning
Community Board Two
Bayrock/Sapir LLC
Soho Alliance
Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation