Date: 1/15/2006 7:11:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: whitmananne@yahoo.com
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
COMMUNITY BOARD 7 Manhattan
December 29, 2005
Honorable Amanda Burden
Chairperson
New York City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, NewYork 10007
Re: Fordham University
Dear Chairperson Burden:
As you may know, Community Board 7 of Manhattan (as well as residents of several large apartment buildings surrounding Fordham University) has attempted to engage in a review of Fordham's proposed "master plan" for its Manhattan campus in advance of an anticipated ULURP. Board members have met several times with representatives of Fordham and have toured the area. We have not prejudged the issue, and any formal judgment will have to await certification, a public hearing and more formalized community input; but, at least at the Community Board level, we have formed reasonably strong preliminary views which we believe are appropriate to share with you even prior to certification.
While Fordham has available to it virtually the entire superblock site from Amsterdam to Columbus Avenues and West 60t" to West 62nd Streets, it has chosen to deacquisition for fund-raising purposes the Amsterdam Avenue comer sites and has chosen not to build on a large interior area which, although denominated "open space" is elevated at least 15 feet from grade and is therefore not practically accessible to the public, either visually or for actual use. These decisions, coupled with a refusal by Fordham to compromise on its goal of using all available FAR for the remaining footprint, would result in overly massive buildings on the periphery featuring nearly unbroken street fronts on three sides of the superblock.
Because Fordham has attempted to maximize the FAR which can be squeezed onto the site, it has proposed a development which, in its individual components, and more importantly, as an ensemble, is overwhelming in scale. The site simply will not accommodate what Fordham wishes to do.
With respect to design, we have concerns about each major aspect of the project:
1. Preserving the podium "quadrangle" benefits Fordham but not the community
In developing the plan, Fordham's architects have been constrained by a number of Fordham's nonnegotiable imperatives. For example, Fordham insists that it retain in substantially its present form a so called "podium" which currently covers the entire area between the Lowenstein building on West 60th Street and the Law School on West 62nd Street. Presently, the roof of the podium is used as a sculpture garden and is landscaped. The interior under the "podium" contains the Manhattan campus library and a warren of wide corridors, miscellaneous interior rooms and back stage facilities for the existing auditorium. Additionally, all of the utilities for the Manhattan campus are within the podium at the ceiling level (apparently because the site rests on bedrock at or just below grade and can be excavated only at great cost) .
We are sympathetic to Fordham's desire to retain the podium because of the costs involved in relocating the utilities, the need for library space and desire to have a "quadrangle" within the site. Nonetheless, the elevation of the podium, as a practical matter, means that it is and will be totally inaccessible from the street level. Although Fordham plans to provide staircases up to the podium, none of the plans that we have seen to date appear to embody an inviting entry into the interior of the site. The conclusion is inescapable, that the quadrangle is intended for and will be used by Fordham's students and faculty almost exclusively.
One consequence of keeping the open space on top of the podium is that in order to maximize the FAR available to the site, Fordham must build taller and wider buildings along West 62nd Street and Columbus Avenue. We believe that if Fordham is not willing to remove or reduce the height oft he podium, the "quadrangle" must be viewed solely as an amenity for Fordham's students and faculty and not as a community resource (even if it is nominally"open to the public"). From the community's perspective, it makes sense for Fordham to build lower buildings with a larger footprint even if the enlargement encroaches upon the quadrangle. Alternatively, Fordham could keep more interior open space and reduce the total floor area of the project.
In this connection, we note that Fordham has demonstrated a willingness to encroach on the open space when it suits Fordham's purpose. Thus, Fordham's plans call for a substantial portion of the library\chapel\law school\theater to be erected on the current open space.
We call upon Fordham to take a fresh look at its "podium problem". Of all possible solutions it seems to us that leaving the podium as is, fifteen feet above the nearest sidewalk and unusable by the public, is the worst.
2. The north-facing street walls are too massive: The West 62nd Street frontage is presented as a long and unarticulated wall of buildings stretching from the comer of Columbus Avenue to the proposed new residential tower at Amsterdam Avenue. For almost the entire distance, the wall will be more than 200 feet in height. While there will be marginal street level activity (e.g., a university store and. theater entrance), there will essentially be a fortress wall facing Lincoln Center and Damrosch Park virtually the entire length of the block.
3. The Columbus Avenue towers are too tall and too long: With respect to Columbus Avenue, Fordham proposes to build two block-long towers of 485' and 445' (plus elevator tower), stretching from West 62nd Street to West 60th Street, lot line to lot line, separated only by a staircase and connected by a bridge. These towers are unrelated to any context anywhere on Columbus Avenue.
4. The stairways are not designed to invite the community : As mentioned above, the access stairway to the podium on West 62nd Street and on Columbus Avenue do not appear to be suited to achieve their ostensible purpose of inviting the community up and in. While Fordham has compared the staircases to the Spanish Steps in Rome, any such comparison is ludicrous. The staircases as proposed by Fordham are unlikely to be areas of congregation and lounging (neither will be in the sunlight at any time) and appear more likely to act as barriers to anyone not having actual business at Fordham.
If Fordham truly were desirous of creating an invitation to use the podium (a goal which we believe is nearly impossible to achieve), it might consider designing a broad and pleasing gradual incline at the comer of West 60th Street and Columbus Avenue. Such a broad entryway (like the steps to the Metropolitan Museum of Art) might attract casual use and even increase use of the quadrangle by the community.
5. Fordham fails to address West 60th Street at all: Tellingly, Fordham's plan makes no effort whatsoever to address or ameliorate significant design flaws with respect to its existing structures. Most important of these is the West 60th Street wall forming the southern barrier of the podium. This wall is at least 15 feet in height and is unadorned by doors, windows, banners, artwork, or even graffiti . It deadens the entire northern side of West 6011' Street for the length of the podium. The space within the wall is currently in use, and it would require very little imagination to dedicate that space to uses for which windows and/or doors on West 60th Street would be appropriate. This minor amenity for the community has not even been considered by Fordham.
6. Development of design criteria would be a win-win for Fordham, the -private developer and the community:Many elements of design are not and can-not be governed by the Zoning Resolution. Nonetheless, good design is an important part of good planning. An excellent example of how good design ideas can create a positive impact is the Rose building, a few blocks north of Fordham. In approving various special permits for Lincoln Center, the City Planning Commission required that certain design parameters be adhered to, among them the chamfering of a corner of he building. The resulting project benefited immensely from the design guidelines. We believe that considering design features at an
early stage in connection with Fordham's application will benefit all involved -particularly the community. We urge City Planning, in conjunction with Fordham and with our participation to develop clear, mandatory design guidelines for all buildings (including the parcels being deacquisitioned) and streets with a view to promoting excellence in architecture, pedestrian circulation, animated facades, transparency. This is a great opportunity to create something special; no one should look back with regret.
7. Any approvals must be accompanied by use restrictions: We have a significant concern, which Fordham has been unwilling to address, that if the requested height and bulk restriction waivers are granted Fordham will at some future date sell off all or a portion of its remaining property for private use; that Fordham will never build or having built, will abandon the remaining structures on Columbus Avenue and West 62nd Street. Accordingly, as a minimum, any proposed waivers must be acknowledged by a firm and legally binding restriction as to use so that any structures built on the site would be dedicated to educational purposes.
8. The garage requires study: Fordham's plans are so problematic and create so many issues that Community Board 7 has not had time to consider what in any other project would be a huge red flag:- the creation of a massive parking, garage on a site which is supposed to provide an urban educational experience. Perhaps use of the floor area reserved for garage use can be used for more direct educational purposes, thereby reducing the size of the buildings being proposed.
This letter expresses some of our larger concerns. We have given some thought to other ideas but have not fully developed those ideas and will not do so unless Fordham is willing to consider radical departures from its plan. For example, we have imagined the creation of an arcade/passageway at grade level within the podium from West 60th Street through to West 62nd Street and from Columbus Avenue through to the cul de sac on west 61st Street. These intersecting arcades could be attractive for students and faculty alike and could be used during non-business hours and for motorized deliveries .
We have also imagined a design in which some or all of the buildings are not strictly rectangular but are angled on one or more sides to create more open space on the street frontages, rather than the interior.
Fordham's Public Trust
In the foregoing analysis we have refrained from commenting, for the present, on the underlying ethical issue about which many in the community have strong, feelings: Fordham acquired its site following the city's exercise of its powers of eminent domain. Construction on the site was dependent upon the eviction on thousands of tenants who resided there. The underlying rationale was that the educational goals of Fordhain justified the hardship entailed in clearing the site. For more than forty years a substantial portion of the site has been warehoused and has not been used for educational or any other purposes.
Fordham has apparently concluded that it will never need to use the sites it proposes to sell off. Many in the community believe that, if Fordham cannot use the land, it should be reacquired by the city and dedicated to educational use. Anything less, it is argued, would be a betrayal of those former residents who were forcibly dispossessed.
The ethical issue is compounded by the apparent fact that the only way Fordham can afford the overly massive structures it proposes for the remainder of the site is to sell off a portion of this land made available to it only through the draconian powers of eminent domain.
Conclusion
In general, Community Board 7 objects to a process which has required Fordham's architects to maximize the floor area, minimize the cost and disregard public amenities, Given that Fordham received this property at nominal cost to itself and at great cost to those who sacrificed their homes to make it possible, the very least Fordham can do is to attempt to be a good neighbor.
Community Board 7 respectfully suggests that this project is not ready for certification. To date, all of the thought-processes which have informed the plan have been to do the bidding of Fordham at the expense of the community. The time has come to re-order Fordham's priorities and to redesign a university campus that does not turn its back on the community.
Respectfully yours,
Sheldon J. Fine, Chairman
Richard Asche, Co-chair, Land Use Committee
Page Cowley, Co-chair, Land Use Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment