City Council Not in Favor of Landmarking 135 Bowery

Posted on: September 16th, 2011 by

It’s not looking good for the 200-year-old federal building at 135 Bowery, which had already received landmark status back in June.  A Boogie correspondent attended the City Council Land Use Sub-Committee Hearing yesterday and filed the following notes.  By the end of this year, the neighborhood will likely have lost two important historical sites, 35 Cooper Square included.

There were 5 items on the agenda. 135 Bowery was the last item, and it was taken separately with a short break beforehand.

The first 4 items sailed through with nice words from the council members who represented those districts. One vote on all 4 passed with just one angry guy, Halloran, voting no cuz he said he was mad at the LPC because they will not consider any buildings in his district.

The nice woman from the LPC spoke first to recap all that had been done to analyze 135, then I think Margaret Chin spoke next. She confirmed what the LPC woman said: that she had spoken in favor of landmarking the building at the LPC hearing, but now she had changed her mind, because the bank-owner is promising affordable space in the new building.

Then a lawyer, architect and bank rep’ spoke against the landmarking. They claimed it was too deteriorated, would cost too much, they had spent so much already to buy the building, and a bunch of other crap. A lot about the interior, but the landmarking has nothing to do with the inside.

The council members asked some questions that showed how little they know about landmarking, and then several of them left, excusing themselves for one reason or another, so that the “in favor” speakers were talking to just a couple of council members.

Then 2 dozen people spoke in favor of upholding the LPC’s designation. Several in the beginning from organizations, then individuals spoke. It was a really terrific turnout. But you could see that it was not going to do any good. They all follow the representing council member’s lead. It was really sad compared to how upbeat the first 4 items and their council members were.

After I spoke, I had to go back to my day-gig. So I don’t know what else happened, but by the time I got back to work, my radio was playing a news segment covering the event, complete with an audio clip of Chin’s remarks. Their angle was her reversal.

So that’s the upshot of it. Just seems like it all went according to a rigged system where public input is made to make us all feel better, but rarely is taken into account in any changes.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

  • Newbowery

    Councilmember Chin believes that China Town desperately needs an economic booster shot and erroneously believes (or at least says), that the office tower the owner wants to build here will help China Town’s economy.
    She is dead wrong. Soho, NOLITA, Greenwich Village, South St. Seaport, are busting at the seams with tourists pumping cash into the local economies. They go there to experience an authentic slice of New York City. NO ONE ever
    went anywhere to see an affordable rent office building. This argument is SO insane and shortsighted that one has to believe that MRS. Chin is voting on behalf of this banks interest soley because her community members are dependent on said bank. If the bank gets screwed on this investment they will certainly be weary of future deals in this community and the Chinese residents who elected Mrs. Chin are limited to and dependent on the few community banks in China Town. She and her constituents can not afford to burn any bridges so they think.
    Office towers will not revitalize the zenophobic and insular community of china town. Embracing their most valuable asset, their cultural and material history and reaching outside of their immigrant population (and maybe hosing down their rank streets and embracing global sanitary standards) will.

    • anonymous

      let us not descend into disparaging racial comments.   

    • anonymous

      let us not descend into disparaging racial comments.   

    • anonymous

      let us not descend into disparaging racial comments.   

    • anonymous

      let us not descend into disparaging racial comments.   

    • anonymous

      let us not descend into disparaging racial comments.   

    • anonymous

      let us not descend into disparaging racial comments.   

      • Inarmsway

        there is a vast difference between a “racial” comment and a cultural comment. however, i would agree that speaking objectively most of chinatown smells like hell and that has nothing to do with race. if i said the meat packing district smelled like a cesspool in 1986 would that be racist? 

      • Inarmsway

        there is a vast difference between a “racial” comment and a cultural comment. however, i would agree that speaking objectively most of chinatown smells like hell and that has nothing to do with race. if i said the meat packing district smelled like a cesspool in 1986 would that be racist? 

  • ————m

    CM ChinIn my testimony at the land-use subcommittee hearing yesterday I stated that I am a native New Yorker, long time resident of The Bowery, property owner and voter.  I am, as you may know, your constituent.
    What I neglected to point out at this hearing is that I was representing not only  
    myself, but many, many of my neighbors – also your constituent voters!.
    I have been a community organizer/activist for many years.  I am well known and respected in my community.  My neighbors tell me of their concerns and ask my advice on matters concerning local issues, including elections.  The matter of 135 Bowery has left us all not only disappointed, but disillusioned…………….and disgusted.My community feels extremely betrayed that a commercial venture (without any written agreement as to actual benefits to the community &/or written agreement not to resell/flip the propertyl!) was given preference over our desires and requests.  The discontent caused by your actions is quite palpable.  Notice is hereby given that you, Margaret, will have to do something quite remarkable to rectify this situation, and repair this disconnect.a return to ethics should be foremost.

  • ————m

    CM ChinIn my testimony at the land-use subcommittee hearing yesterday I stated that I am a native New Yorker, long time resident of The Bowery, property owner and voter.  I am, as you may know, your constituent.
    What I neglected to point out at this hearing is that I was representing not only  
    myself, but many, many of my neighbors – also your constituent voters!.
    I have been a community organizer/activist for many years.  I am well known and respected in my community.  My neighbors tell me of their concerns and ask my advice on matters concerning local issues, including elections.  The matter of 135 Bowery has left us all not only disappointed, but disillusioned…………….and disgusted.My community feels extremely betrayed that a commercial venture (without any written agreement as to actual benefits to the community &/or written agreement not to resell/flip the propertyl!) was given preference over our desires and requests.  The discontent caused by your actions is quite palpable.  Notice is hereby given that you, Margaret, will have to do something quite remarkable to rectify this situation, and repair this disconnect.a return to ethics should be foremost.

  • ————m

    CM ChinIn my testimony at the land-use subcommittee hearing yesterday I stated that I am a native New Yorker, long time resident of The Bowery, property owner and voter.  I am, as you may know, your constituent.
    What I neglected to point out at this hearing is that I was representing not only  
    myself, but many, many of my neighbors – also your constituent voters!.
    I have been a community organizer/activist for many years.  I am well known and respected in my community.  My neighbors tell me of their concerns and ask my advice on matters concerning local issues, including elections.  The matter of 135 Bowery has left us all not only disappointed, but disillusioned…………….and disgusted.My community feels extremely betrayed that a commercial venture (without any written agreement as to actual benefits to the community &/or written agreement not to resell/flip the propertyl!) was given preference over our desires and requests.  The discontent caused by your actions is quite palpable.  Notice is hereby given that you, Margaret, will have to do something quite remarkable to rectify this situation, and repair this disconnect.a return to ethics should be foremost.

  • Anonymous

    CM Chin is correct in saying that Chinatown has struggled since 9/11. It has not recovered well (due mostly to the closing of Park Row). The CM should fight for affordable office space – it’s the right thing to do by some of her constituents. 
    What isn’t right is bartering a one-of-a-kind slice of Bowery history. This office tower does not need to be built on this particular slice of land. We can’t move the building – we can find another location for the office building.The economically powerful move would be to create and maintain a district whose realism entices tourists and small businesses that could trade on the reputation of an authentic Bowery. We need the biggest possible vision for the entire neighborhood.Hey, and please don’t make disparaging comments about the Chinatown community. Generalities about members of the community aren’t accurate, nor helpful and it changes “the subject”. Last, the “global” community smells differently in different parts of the globe. Some “standards” can veer more to sanitizing (of reality) rather than sanitary.

  • rob

    The Councilmember accepted the bank’s offer without any binding agreement and, more important, without researching the options. A landmark can transfer its air rights by law further than a non landmark. But the Councilmember’s staff failed to investigate any of the adjacent lots on Chrystie Street, where there are, since the recent rezoning, much greater potentials for affordable development, and most of those sites have no historical value.

    If she’d tried, she could have brokered a deal for a much better solution. Instead, she accepted a smidgen of affordable business space — it won’t be all affordable, only a small portion; the bank will have its headquarters there (unless you count their own space as affordable) — for the sake of a bank that wanted it financially and that she has already worked with. This bank heads the Chinatown BID, the BID that the councilmember also promoted.

    Margaret has a long and distinguished career as a housing activist in her community. Affordable housing requires a lot of financial support. I don’t blame her for cultivating banks. They’re essential in a community. But in her dealings with them she has failed to exercise the kind of vision and big picture that Chinatown needs. At the very least, she should have compelled the bank to produce a written agreement — just to protect herself in the eyes of the public, for goodness sake!

    You will see this constellation of the banks, the BID and the councilmember continue in this same direction: development without vision of the consequences. Affordable development has extremely narrow parameters within the law and city policy. It is a crude, rational and inorganic instrument for community planning.

  • rob

    sorry — by “rational” I meant “rationalistic.” Affordable housing programs don’t respect culture, only numbers. They have to be integrated with a respect for the entire socio-economic and cultural context, otherwise they can do more harm than good.

  • Newbowery

    Gals.. You’re right, my comment about the “rank” streets was off topic and immature. It was not meant as a generalization about Chinese Americans or Chinese nationals who illegally reside in the U. S. I was stating a very oft heard observation made by locals and foreign visitors alike. Tourism by some accounts is China Towns largest legal industry and If one wishes to stimulate a local economy and attract those with capitol to spend it wouldn’t hurt to do a little house keeping, cultural standards aside.
    Lets be honest though, this whole issue really comes down to cultural differences. The Chinese community generally (and in my personal experience almost exclusively) perceive new things as better than old things. There is status associated with New as a simbol of success and wealth. Old things, old buildings are inferior and are associated with lack of wealth, lack of fortune, lack of power. There are no historic structures in Hong Kong, none. 5000 year old cities are razed with out objection or thought on the main land by the acre daily. I could trade a chinese villager a museum worthy piece of furniture that has been in his family for 400 years for a crap color TV tomorrow and you’ll never convince him I got the better end of it. Now how are you going to convince the Chinese community or their elected representatives that your crumbling old pile of bricks is worth saving? Your not. If you succede this time it’s a victory but how are you going to save that 1920′s 3 flat next door in 6 months when they want to build an office tower?
    I say this with out judgement. We have a different set of values just as you have stated. maybe one isn’t objectively better if you want be a cultural relativist about it, but I’m taking the position that MY position is better for my city and MY community so please me if I sound culturally insensitive.

    • Anonymous

      Well and honorably said. It’s fine to like what you like in a city (smells and all)! 
      Ironically, Peter Yau, the developer and bank head, is co-chair of the Chinatown BID whose focus is just that: to clean up Chinatown. Life is complicated.

      I argree with CM Chin that small businesses need help – lots of it. They are the economic engines that can be diverse enough to survive in economic hard times. And this bank caters to immigrants – a vital service in this neighborhood.

      The goals in wanting to save this building are very specific (for me): 

      Nurture the tremendous economic potential of the neighborhood. Protect its remaining authentic structures as magnets for a tourist industry that would help to fill the nearby restaurants and small businesses. This building and it’s neighbors are a potential goldmine for the former and current immigrant neighborhoods of Chinatown, Little Italy, and the LES. It could draw tourists from every ethnic community that came through here (Irish, Eastern European, etc.). It could be a gateway to point people to Chinatown (until Park Row is opened!) and the small museums that inhabit the neighborhood (Merchants House, Tenement Museum, Asian Arts Center, MOCA, Soto Clemente, St. Augustine’s Slave Gallery Museum, etc.).

      CM Chin can mediate these legitmate, strong, competing interests within the community that ultimately have the same goals: vibrant small businesses, affordable rents and office spaces, flourishing arts and historic places, and the tourist industry.

      We want to respect the work of an esteemed preservation community that knows what it is talking about.

      CM Chin could do this, as could the members of the Chinatown BID business community. It is in everyone’s best interests.
      K

      • newbowery

        Bowerygals, then you and I share the exact same vision!

      • newbowery

        Bowerygals, then you and I share the exact same vision!

      • newbowery

        Bowerygals, then you and I share the exact same vision!

      • newbowery

        Bowerygals, then you and I share the exact same vision!

    • rob

      There are no Dutch period buildings in Manhattan, none. Hong Kong has plenty of historic buildings from the colonial period. Why do you think there are no pre-colonial structures — because the Chinese character is to disrespect tradition? Or maybe it was the colonial intervention of the British. Sounds familiar, and close to home, another British colonial intervention.

      You think the people in 5,000-year-old cities (btw, besides the landscape, there is nothing Chinese from 5,000 years ago in China except a few carved cowry shells, and they date back only about 4,000 years) asked to be remodeled? Those villagers were removed by their goverment. Moreover, there are urban neighborhoods in the PRC that have resisted modernization. In fact, the PRC has sent a scholar to the US to study how to do slum clearance and mass eviction, because they’ve heard that we do it best!

      Evidently, we are the very people you accuse the Chinese of being.

      You write as if only Chinese banks resist landmarking. Yet I’m sure you know that 35 Cooper Square was just demolished, and not by a Chinese owner. It’s so easy to see ‘the other’ doing wrong and come to the conclusion that they do it because of who they are, ‘the other’. But we do it too. And not all of ‘the others’ do it.

      This landmarking denial does not reflect Chinese culture. Chin originally supported it. It reflects the collaboration between a councilmember and a community bank. The direction of that collaboration is clear. Yes, the BID intends to “clean up” Chinatown. But to understand the full significance of the BID, you have to listen to the primary promoter of the BID, CPLDC’s Exec Director Wellington Chen, explain his vision for the BID, which includes raising all the prices of Chinatown restaurants so that they no longer serve the local recent immigrants but tourists. I didn’t say this. Wellington Chen said so. And repeatedly. That is the vision. Look at 135 Bowery in a year. That’s the same vision. The writing is on the wall of 135. All you have to do is read it.

    • rob

      There are no Dutch period buildings in Manhattan, none. Hong Kong has plenty of historic buildings from the colonial period. Why do you think there are no pre-colonial structures — because the Chinese character is to disrespect tradition? Or maybe it was the colonial intervention of the British. Sounds familiar, and close to home, another British colonial intervention.

      You think the people in 5,000-year-old cities (btw, besides the landscape, there is nothing Chinese from 5,000 years ago in China except a few carved cowry shells, and they date back only about 4,000 years) asked to be remodeled? Those villagers were removed by their goverment. Moreover, there are urban neighborhoods in the PRC that have resisted modernization. In fact, the PRC has sent a scholar to the US to study how to do slum clearance and mass eviction, because they’ve heard that we do it best!

      Evidently, we are the very people you accuse the Chinese of being.

      You write as if only Chinese banks resist landmarking. Yet I’m sure you know that 35 Cooper Square was just demolished, and not by a Chinese owner. It’s so easy to see ‘the other’ doing wrong and come to the conclusion that they do it because of who they are, ‘the other’. But we do it too. And not all of ‘the others’ do it.

      This landmarking denial does not reflect Chinese culture. Chin originally supported it. It reflects the collaboration between a councilmember and a community bank. The direction of that collaboration is clear. Yes, the BID intends to “clean up” Chinatown. But to understand the full significance of the BID, you have to listen to the primary promoter of the BID, CPLDC’s Exec Director Wellington Chen, explain his vision for the BID, which includes raising all the prices of Chinatown restaurants so that they no longer serve the local recent immigrants but tourists. I didn’t say this. Wellington Chen said so. And repeatedly. That is the vision. Look at 135 Bowery in a year. That’s the same vision. The writing is on the wall of 135. All you have to do is read it.

    • rob

      There are no Dutch period buildings in Manhattan, none. Hong Kong has plenty of historic buildings from the colonial period. Why do you think there are no pre-colonial structures — because the Chinese character is to disrespect tradition? Or maybe it was the colonial intervention of the British. Sounds familiar, and close to home, another British colonial intervention.

      You think the people in 5,000-year-old cities (btw, besides the landscape, there is nothing Chinese from 5,000 years ago in China except a few carved cowry shells, and they date back only about 4,000 years) asked to be remodeled? Those villagers were removed by their goverment. Moreover, there are urban neighborhoods in the PRC that have resisted modernization. In fact, the PRC has sent a scholar to the US to study how to do slum clearance and mass eviction, because they’ve heard that we do it best!

      Evidently, we are the very people you accuse the Chinese of being.

      You write as if only Chinese banks resist landmarking. Yet I’m sure you know that 35 Cooper Square was just demolished, and not by a Chinese owner. It’s so easy to see ‘the other’ doing wrong and come to the conclusion that they do it because of who they are, ‘the other’. But we do it too. And not all of ‘the others’ do it.

      This landmarking denial does not reflect Chinese culture. Chin originally supported it. It reflects the collaboration between a councilmember and a community bank. The direction of that collaboration is clear. Yes, the BID intends to “clean up” Chinatown. But to understand the full significance of the BID, you have to listen to the primary promoter of the BID, CPLDC’s Exec Director Wellington Chen, explain his vision for the BID, which includes raising all the prices of Chinatown restaurants so that they no longer serve the local recent immigrants but tourists. I didn’t say this. Wellington Chen said so. And repeatedly. That is the vision. Look at 135 Bowery in a year. That’s the same vision. The writing is on the wall of 135. All you have to do is read it.

      • Newbowery

        >>”PRC has sent a scholar to the US to study how to do slum clearance and mass eviction, because they’ve heard that we do it best!” 
         
           Yes, of course they’ve heard we do it best. its called communist propaganda. Based on the PRC’s human rights record Im pretty sure they’re not going to learn anything from us about clearing people out of anywhere. id be happy to list examples of the good work they’ve done in that regard if you like..

        >>”Why do you think there are no pre-colonial structures — because the Chinese character is to disrespect tradition?”

           I KNOW the chinese had respect for tradition before the cultural revolution but Mao pretty much wiped it out. 

        >>”I’m sure you know that 35 Cooper Square was just demolished, and not by a Chinese owner.”

          True, the prick who demolished 35 cooper was not chinese but he is Asian. just saying…
        i respect your point of view but have to respectfully disagree about the general differences in our cultural values and thus aesthetic preferences. i have a file full of before and after pictures of wonderful prewar NYC buildings in the area that were absolutely ruined by being clad in pink marble, polished chrome with fedders AC units popping out like warts under every green reflective window. they are without exception chinese owned. they make my blood boil, call me a snob.i dont care one way or another about wellington chen’s agenda as it relates to the local recent immigrants. theres a chinatown in flushing with plenty of cheap restaurants. ive heard housing is cheaper too. if he wants to attract tourists he’s overlooking his biggest asset and sticking his tower in the middle of this block is going to undermine that objective. that building isnt a great one, not half the building 35 cooper was or 140 Bowery is but that block is greater than the sum of its parts. now its a great block, with out that building its a good block but is a good block really going to help his BID?

      • Newbowery

        >>”PRC has sent a scholar to the US to study how to do slum clearance and mass eviction, because they’ve heard that we do it best!” 
         
           Yes, of course they’ve heard we do it best. its called communist propaganda. Based on the PRC’s human rights record Im pretty sure they’re not going to learn anything from us about clearing people out of anywhere. id be happy to list examples of the good work they’ve done in that regard if you like..

        >>”Why do you think there are no pre-colonial structures — because the Chinese character is to disrespect tradition?”

           I KNOW the chinese had respect for tradition before the cultural revolution but Mao pretty much wiped it out. 

        >>”I’m sure you know that 35 Cooper Square was just demolished, and not by a Chinese owner.”

          True, the prick who demolished 35 cooper was not chinese but he is Asian. just saying…
        i respect your point of view but have to respectfully disagree about the general differences in our cultural values and thus aesthetic preferences. i have a file full of before and after pictures of wonderful prewar NYC buildings in the area that were absolutely ruined by being clad in pink marble, polished chrome with fedders AC units popping out like warts under every green reflective window. they are without exception chinese owned. they make my blood boil, call me a snob.i dont care one way or another about wellington chen’s agenda as it relates to the local recent immigrants. theres a chinatown in flushing with plenty of cheap restaurants. ive heard housing is cheaper too. if he wants to attract tourists he’s overlooking his biggest asset and sticking his tower in the middle of this block is going to undermine that objective. that building isnt a great one, not half the building 35 cooper was or 140 Bowery is but that block is greater than the sum of its parts. now its a great block, with out that building its a good block but is a good block really going to help his BID?

        • rob

          Do you need a list of white Americans who have destroyed some of the most beautiful and impressive buildings in New York, beginning with the old Penn Station (forgotten NewBowery?), the old Metropolitan Opera House (famed for its acooustics), the Singer Building (one of the great beauties of NYC), the Stewart Mansion (America’s most spectacular and splendid mansion), the old Post Office, most of Colonnade Row (to build a warehouse), Astor Opera House, the Vanderbilt houses, the ALUMINUM SIDING that was put up over the breathlessly amazing Bayrad-Condict Building (the only Sullivan in NYC, the most ornate, elaborate terra cotta façade in the city) …tell me when do I stop? These were some of the finest and greatest structures in the world.

          And what about the three townhouses that were just demolished in the East Village? None of those were Asian-owned. You are letting your anger get the better of your good judgment.

          Your anger over the Bowery is justified, but doesn’t justify distorting plain truth. The Chinese owners who remodeled the façades on the Bowery moved into the Bowery at a time when the Bowery was world-famous for what? Skid Row, remember? A place virtually no one wanted. And virtually no one thought about its history or conceived that anyone would ever want to preserve it. Preserve skid row? New Yorkers would have laughed at that. And if they thought you were serious, they’d think you were nuts. That’s when the Chinese bought it and remodeled it — when you and everyone else didn’t care about it, wrote about it, vaunted its history or defended it.

          One of the very few truly rare beauties on the Bowery was the first Germania Bank. When I first brought the architectural importance of the Bowery to the attention of CB3 some years ago, that building was my example of something exquisite and unique in all New York — not just another townhouse. It was recently demolished. That was the worst blow to the Bowery. Who demolished it? *Moshe Azogui*, Israeli. I guess he’s Asian too.

          Instead of looking immediately to “the other,” consider how economies work — anywhwere, whether it’s Pennsylvania Railroad or David Schwimmer who apparently owns one of the demolished EV townhouses. Oh right, David Schwimmer is Asian and so was Penn Railroad. Come on, now. It’s not just Chinese, not just Asians, not just Israelis, not just foreigners, not just bi-coastal celebrities.

          You argue that Chinese culture is less interested in history than we are, and so the Chinese in living 500-year-old villages welcomed modernization. But now you’ve shifted to blame their government, not the people (i.e., not their culture but their politics). Where is your shifting argument leading? Anywhere, as long as you can find your convenient scapegoat, the other, the Asian. That’s your scapegoat. Enjoy. I hope it makes you feel comfortable, justified and superior, and protects you from the truth about your own. Scapegoating the other has a long and distinguished history. The scapegoats? The Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, now the Chinese.

          Chinese culture lost its respect for the past because Mao wiped it out? If that were true, why use Hong Kong as your primary example of lack of respect for the past? Anger does not conduce to clarity. Mao led a reaction against the western-loving influence of Chiang Kai-Shek. Mao’s crazy relation to culture cannot be put into a sentence, but it is pretty clear that the wholesale demolition of historic places in China only came when China accepted western-style free-market capitalismus, America’s adopted ideology, pride and joy and victorious, triumphal gift to the world.

          The comments about Wellington were not addressed to you, NewBowery.

        • rob

          Do you need a list of white Americans who have destroyed some of the most beautiful and impressive buildings in New York, beginning with the old Penn Station (forgotten NewBowery?), the old Metropolitan Opera House (famed for its acooustics), the Singer Building (one of the great beauties of NYC), the Stewart Mansion (America’s most spectacular and splendid mansion), the old Post Office, most of Colonnade Row (to build a warehouse), Astor Opera House, the Vanderbilt houses, the ALUMINUM SIDING that was put up over the breathlessly amazing Bayrad-Condict Building (the only Sullivan in NYC, the most ornate, elaborate terra cotta façade in the city) …tell me when do I stop? These were some of the finest and greatest structures in the world.

          And what about the three townhouses that were just demolished in the East Village? None of those were Asian-owned. You are letting your anger get the better of your good judgment.

          Your anger over the Bowery is justified, but doesn’t justify distorting plain truth. The Chinese owners who remodeled the façades on the Bowery moved into the Bowery at a time when the Bowery was world-famous for what? Skid Row, remember? A place virtually no one wanted. And virtually no one thought about its history or conceived that anyone would ever want to preserve it. Preserve skid row? New Yorkers would have laughed at that. And if they thought you were serious, they’d think you were nuts. That’s when the Chinese bought it and remodeled it — when you and everyone else didn’t care about it, wrote about it, vaunted its history or defended it.

          One of the very few truly rare beauties on the Bowery was the first Germania Bank. When I first brought the architectural importance of the Bowery to the attention of CB3 some years ago, that building was my example of something exquisite and unique in all New York — not just another townhouse. It was recently demolished. That was the worst blow to the Bowery. Who demolished it? *Moshe Azogui*, Israeli. I guess he’s Asian too.

          Instead of looking immediately to “the other,” consider how economies work — anywhwere, whether it’s Pennsylvania Railroad or David Schwimmer who apparently owns one of the demolished EV townhouses. Oh right, David Schwimmer is Asian and so was Penn Railroad. Come on, now. It’s not just Chinese, not just Asians, not just Israelis, not just foreigners, not just bi-coastal celebrities.

          You argue that Chinese culture is less interested in history than we are, and so the Chinese in living 500-year-old villages welcomed modernization. But now you’ve shifted to blame their government, not the people (i.e., not their culture but their politics). Where is your shifting argument leading? Anywhere, as long as you can find your convenient scapegoat, the other, the Asian. That’s your scapegoat. Enjoy. I hope it makes you feel comfortable, justified and superior, and protects you from the truth about your own. Scapegoating the other has a long and distinguished history. The scapegoats? The Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, now the Chinese.

          Chinese culture lost its respect for the past because Mao wiped it out? If that were true, why use Hong Kong as your primary example of lack of respect for the past? Anger does not conduce to clarity. Mao led a reaction against the western-loving influence of Chiang Kai-Shek. Mao’s crazy relation to culture cannot be put into a sentence, but it is pretty clear that the wholesale demolition of historic places in China only came when China accepted western-style free-market capitalismus, America’s adopted ideology, pride and joy and victorious, triumphal gift to the world.

          The comments about Wellington were not addressed to you, NewBowery.

      • Newbowery

        sorry rob, i meant 500 year old cities.

    • rob

      There are no Dutch period buildings in Manhattan, none. Hong Kong has plenty of historic buildings from the colonial period. Why do you think there are no pre-colonial structures — because the Chinese character is to disrespect tradition? Or maybe it was the colonial intervention of the British. Sounds familiar, and close to home, another British colonial intervention.

      You think the people in 5,000-year-old cities (btw, besides the landscape, there is nothing Chinese from 5,000 years ago in China except a few carved cowry shells, and they date back only about 4,000 years) asked to be remodeled? Those villagers were removed by their goverment. Moreover, there are urban neighborhoods in the PRC that have resisted modernization. In fact, the PRC has sent a scholar to the US to study how to do slum clearance and mass eviction, because they’ve heard that we do it best!

      Evidently, we are the very people you accuse the Chinese of being.

      You write as if only Chinese banks resist landmarking. Yet I’m sure you know that 35 Cooper Square was just demolished, and not by a Chinese owner. It’s so easy to see ‘the other’ doing wrong and come to the conclusion that they do it because of who they are, ‘the other’. But we do it too. And not all of ‘the others’ do it.

      This landmarking denial does not reflect Chinese culture. Chin originally supported it. It reflects the collaboration between a councilmember and a community bank. The direction of that collaboration is clear. Yes, the BID intends to “clean up” Chinatown. But to understand the full significance of the BID, you have to listen to the primary promoter of the BID, CPLDC’s Exec Director Wellington Chen, explain his vision for the BID, which includes raising all the prices of Chinatown restaurants so that they no longer serve the local recent immigrants but tourists. I didn’t say this. Wellington Chen said so. And repeatedly. That is the vision. Look at 135 Bowery in a year. That’s the same vision. The writing is on the wall of 135. All you have to do is read it.

  • Bowery1840

    Tourism is chinatowns biggest legal industry. Tourists come to see the fabled and world renowned Bowery as it was when the likes of Samuel F. B. Morse,  John L. Sullivan the world champion bar knuckle pugilist, Edgar Allen Poe, Mose the Fireman,  Big Jim Sullivan, Brooklyn Bridge jumper Steve Brodie, east side tough guy chuck o’connor,  John McGurk,  tattoo OG Bowery Stan,  William Borough, Robert Frank,  Jackson Pollock, and F’ing Joey Ramone, ruled the streets. 
    Aint no one, and I mean NO ONE come to see no God damn affordable rent office tower. 

  • Newbowery

    rob. we are having a debate that i never intended to start and i guess i did not articulate my original point well enough. (i am well aware that the poorly planned and executed redevelopment  of the bowery is not the lone work of chinese americans. fred harris president of avalon bay, karl fischer the architect who “designed” 263 bowery which rivals the worst of the chinatown “fedders school” designs, greg peck of the cooper sq. hotel are all guilty, and lets not forget the great robert moses who if had succeeded in razing the bowery 50 years ago would have made the issue moot.)
    my original point was not that the chinese were to blame or are exclusively responsible for bad redevelopment but that there are differences in what the chinese community see as good development and what we who live in the same geographic community but outside of the asian community see as good. 
    “FAIB’s primary mission is the development of the Asian communities in which it conduct business and include the active participation in developing the communities’ basic economy, stimulating economic growth and promoting investment and job creation”- https://www.faib.com/
    that is the objective of the owner of 135 bowery in their own words. there is nothing in that mission statement about historic preservation, contextual development, working with the non-asian community or any of the other issues at play here. again, the point i was trying to make was that the actions of the bank are motivated by  what they see as beneficial to the ASIAN community and that if we who oppose their means of doing that sometimes may need to frame the argument in their terms if we hope to come to any mutually beneficial resolutions now or in the future. we both believe that what we want is best for our communities and according to the banks mission statement and what was said at the hearing, i think FAIB believes this office tower will be economically beneficial. in your previous post you said that mr. chin (?) intends to stimulate chinatowns economy by reaching out side of the low income residents of his neighborhood correct? maybe the powers that be in the asian community do not really  understand how to do this. maybe they don’t understand that the non-asian demographic they hope to draw is repulsed by this sort of building and that they are undermining their own objective. its hard enough to motivate native new yorkers to demand protection of our historic heritage so how are we going to convince a bank who’s goal is the “development of the asian community” to care? i think the best shot we have is right in their mission statement. make it an issue of economic growth. 
    every single speaker at the hearing had a good argument for landmarking the building but i think we all just sounded like the adults on the old peanuts cartoons, muffled trumpets. i wish i had brought an excel presentation on the financial benefits of historic adaptive reuse districts or    mocked up a panoramic photo of the block with their office tower at 135 and stood out front and asked 1000 european tourists what they preferred or talked about the potential  for long term service industry jobs VS. the 100 short term day labor jobs their tower will create. i think bankers only understand objective balance sheet jargon, asian bankers or otherwise.
    my last thought is this.. if they want to make this about their local economy fine. my small business pumped more cash into their economy last year than the average yearly wage of a chinatown resident (yes ive fact checked that). blueman hardware, miko lumber, various  lighting, electronic, and plumbing supplies, dim sum spots, delis, bakeries and a bar or two. i will be completely pulling my financial support out of mrs. chin’s community while she remains on the city council as a shill for any bank who ever loaned one of her constituents a buck. i will write every business i have shopped at over the last year letting them know the only way i can respond to a politician and a bank who have chosen to let economic growth guide their policy over the pleas of the best and brightest voices who share their geographic community  is by not contributing to that growth. and i would encourage anyone who doesn’t want to be a muffled trumpet voice to do the same. 

  • Newbowery

    rob. we are having a debate that i never intended to start and i guess i did not articulate my original point well enough. (i am well aware that the poorly planned and executed redevelopment  of the bowery is not the lone work of chinese americans. fred harris president of avalon bay, karl fischer the architect who “designed” 263 bowery which rivals the worst of the chinatown “fedders school” designs, greg peck of the cooper sq. hotel are all guilty, and lets not forget the great robert moses who if had succeeded in razing the bowery 50 years ago would have made the issue moot.)
    my original point was not that the chinese were to blame or are exclusively responsible for bad redevelopment but that there are differences in what the chinese community see as good development and what we who live in the same geographic community but outside of the asian community see as good. 
    “FAIB’s primary mission is the development of the Asian communities in which it conduct business and include the active participation in developing the communities’ basic economy, stimulating economic growth and promoting investment and job creation”- https://www.faib.com/
    that is the objective of the owner of 135 bowery in their own words. there is nothing in that mission statement about historic preservation, contextual development, working with the non-asian community or any of the other issues at play here. again, the point i was trying to make was that the actions of the bank are motivated by  what they see as beneficial to the ASIAN community and that if we who oppose their means of doing that sometimes may need to frame the argument in their terms if we hope to come to any mutually beneficial resolutions now or in the future. we both believe that what we want is best for our communities and according to the banks mission statement and what was said at the hearing, i think FAIB believes this office tower will be economically beneficial. in your previous post you said that mr. chin (?) intends to stimulate chinatowns economy by reaching out side of the low income residents of his neighborhood correct? maybe the powers that be in the asian community do not really  understand how to do this. maybe they don’t understand that the non-asian demographic they hope to draw is repulsed by this sort of building and that they are undermining their own objective. its hard enough to motivate native new yorkers to demand protection of our historic heritage so how are we going to convince a bank who’s goal is the “development of the asian community” to care? i think the best shot we have is right in their mission statement. make it an issue of economic growth. 
    every single speaker at the hearing had a good argument for landmarking the building but i think we all just sounded like the adults on the old peanuts cartoons, muffled trumpets. i wish i had brought an excel presentation on the financial benefits of historic adaptive reuse districts or    mocked up a panoramic photo of the block with their office tower at 135 and stood out front and asked 1000 european tourists what they preferred or talked about the potential  for long term service industry jobs VS. the 100 short term day labor jobs their tower will create. i think bankers only understand objective balance sheet jargon, asian bankers or otherwise.
    my last thought is this.. if they want to make this about their local economy fine. my small business pumped more cash into their economy last year than the average yearly wage of a chinatown resident (yes ive fact checked that). blueman hardware, miko lumber, various  lighting, electronic, and plumbing supplies, dim sum spots, delis, bakeries and a bar or two. i will be completely pulling my financial support out of mrs. chin’s community while she remains on the city council as a shill for any bank who ever loaned one of her constituents a buck. i will write every business i have shopped at over the last year letting them know the only way i can respond to a politician and a bank who have chosen to let economic growth guide their policy over the pleas of the best and brightest voices who share their geographic community  is by not contributing to that growth. and i would encourage anyone who doesn’t want to be a muffled trumpet voice to do the same. 

    • rob

      Thanks for this reply. I’d just amend it that it’s really the character of banks and developers that you have identified as the problem, not any cultural difference. Developers and banks are a breed apart, difficult to comprehend. The *day after* PS 164 was landmarked by the City Council, Gregg Singer began defacing it by removing its façade. With bankers you’re dealing with extremely narrow ideologues who are so convinced that money and development are the *only* solutions to *all* human problems, that they can’t imagine for a moment that they are doing anything but humanitarian good.

      In this case, Margaret showed her weakness as a politician. She didn’t get a written agreement, she didn’t wave it in the press proudly and take leadership and praise. She allowed herself to be led by the bank, which took all the credit for the affordable space.

      Chin showed her cards: she lacks the stature, dynamism, self-promotion, vision and leadership that could have gotten a much better deal than the one the bank dumped on her. As I repeated in my testimony on record, she could have coordinated the bank and local owners to shift 135 Bowery air rights onto Chrystie Street where they could have done far more benefit to affordable space than on the Bowery, and without harming any historical site. On record, I asked whether she even researched the options for development transfers. Lander admitted that she hadn’t.

      Consider also the specific conditions of Chinatown investment. Much of it is from Hong Kong investors, not local Chinatown Chinese-Americans. Non local investment and management is an added problem, whether it’s non local landlords in the East Village or non local hoteliers like Cooper Square Hotel. Their understanding of the local economy and culture are usually extremely coarse grained, and usually remain so, since they are preying on a location that they don’t themselves live in.

      Unfortunately, even the city wants to see development on the Bowery. DCP refused to include the Bowery in its EV/LES rezoning, specifically to encourage hotel development. My guess is that the city would prefer to preserve the LES for youth culture and nightlife, hotels on the Bowery facing upscale SoHo, and displace all of Chinatown to Sunset Park and Flushing, with a handful of upscale Chinese restaurants in and around the court houses. How they effect their goals in Chinatown will be left to future administrations.

    • rob

      Thanks for this reply. I’d just amend it that it’s really the character of banks and developers that you have identified as the problem, not any cultural difference. Developers and banks are a breed apart, difficult to comprehend. The *day after* PS 164 was landmarked by the City Council, Gregg Singer began defacing it by removing its façade. With bankers you’re dealing with extremely narrow ideologues who are so convinced that money and development are the *only* solutions to *all* human problems, that they can’t imagine for a moment that they are doing anything but humanitarian good.

      In this case, Margaret showed her weakness as a politician. She didn’t get a written agreement, she didn’t wave it in the press proudly and take leadership and praise. She allowed herself to be led by the bank, which took all the credit for the affordable space.

      Chin showed her cards: she lacks the stature, dynamism, self-promotion, vision and leadership that could have gotten a much better deal than the one the bank dumped on her. As I repeated in my testimony on record, she could have coordinated the bank and local owners to shift 135 Bowery air rights onto Chrystie Street where they could have done far more benefit to affordable space than on the Bowery, and without harming any historical site. On record, I asked whether she even researched the options for development transfers. Lander admitted that she hadn’t.

      Consider also the specific conditions of Chinatown investment. Much of it is from Hong Kong investors, not local Chinatown Chinese-Americans. Non local investment and management is an added problem, whether it’s non local landlords in the East Village or non local hoteliers like Cooper Square Hotel. Their understanding of the local economy and culture are usually extremely coarse grained, and usually remain so, since they are preying on a location that they don’t themselves live in.

      Unfortunately, even the city wants to see development on the Bowery. DCP refused to include the Bowery in its EV/LES rezoning, specifically to encourage hotel development. My guess is that the city would prefer to preserve the LES for youth culture and nightlife, hotels on the Bowery facing upscale SoHo, and displace all of Chinatown to Sunset Park and Flushing, with a handful of upscale Chinese restaurants in and around the court houses. How they effect their goals in Chinatown will be left to future administrations.

    • rob

      Thanks for this reply. I’d just amend it that it’s really the character of banks and developers that you have identified as the problem, not any cultural difference. Developers and banks are a breed apart, difficult to comprehend. The *day after* PS 164 was landmarked by the City Council, Gregg Singer began defacing it by removing its façade. With bankers you’re dealing with extremely narrow ideologues who are so convinced that money and development are the *only* solutions to *all* human problems, that they can’t imagine for a moment that they are doing anything but humanitarian good.

      In this case, Margaret showed her weakness as a politician. She didn’t get a written agreement, she didn’t wave it in the press proudly and take leadership and praise. She allowed herself to be led by the bank, which took all the credit for the affordable space.

      Chin showed her cards: she lacks the stature, dynamism, self-promotion, vision and leadership that could have gotten a much better deal than the one the bank dumped on her. As I repeated in my testimony on record, she could have coordinated the bank and local owners to shift 135 Bowery air rights onto Chrystie Street where they could have done far more benefit to affordable space than on the Bowery, and without harming any historical site. On record, I asked whether she even researched the options for development transfers. Lander admitted that she hadn’t.

      Consider also the specific conditions of Chinatown investment. Much of it is from Hong Kong investors, not local Chinatown Chinese-Americans. Non local investment and management is an added problem, whether it’s non local landlords in the East Village or non local hoteliers like Cooper Square Hotel. Their understanding of the local economy and culture are usually extremely coarse grained, and usually remain so, since they are preying on a location that they don’t themselves live in.

      Unfortunately, even the city wants to see development on the Bowery. DCP refused to include the Bowery in its EV/LES rezoning, specifically to encourage hotel development. My guess is that the city would prefer to preserve the LES for youth culture and nightlife, hotels on the Bowery facing upscale SoHo, and displace all of Chinatown to Sunset Park and Flushing, with a handful of upscale Chinese restaurants in and around the court houses. How they effect their goals in Chinatown will be left to future administrations.

    • rob

      Thanks for this reply. I’d just amend it that it’s really the character of banks and developers that you have identified as the problem, not any cultural difference. Developers and banks are a breed apart, difficult to comprehend. The *day after* PS 164 was landmarked by the City Council, Gregg Singer began defacing it by removing its façade. With bankers you’re dealing with extremely narrow ideologues who are so convinced that money and development are the *only* solutions to *all* human problems, that they can’t imagine for a moment that they are doing anything but humanitarian good.

      In this case, Margaret showed her weakness as a politician. She didn’t get a written agreement, she didn’t wave it in the press proudly and take leadership and praise. She allowed herself to be led by the bank, which took all the credit for the affordable space.

      Chin showed her cards: she lacks the stature, dynamism, self-promotion, vision and leadership that could have gotten a much better deal than the one the bank dumped on her. As I repeated in my testimony on record, she could have coordinated the bank and local owners to shift 135 Bowery air rights onto Chrystie Street where they could have done far more benefit to affordable space than on the Bowery, and without harming any historical site. On record, I asked whether she even researched the options for development transfers. Lander admitted that she hadn’t.

      Consider also the specific conditions of Chinatown investment. Much of it is from Hong Kong investors, not local Chinatown Chinese-Americans. Non local investment and management is an added problem, whether it’s non local landlords in the East Village or non local hoteliers like Cooper Square Hotel. Their understanding of the local economy and culture are usually extremely coarse grained, and usually remain so, since they are preying on a location that they don’t themselves live in.

      Unfortunately, even the city wants to see development on the Bowery. DCP refused to include the Bowery in its EV/LES rezoning, specifically to encourage hotel development. My guess is that the city would prefer to preserve the LES for youth culture and nightlife, hotels on the Bowery facing upscale SoHo, and displace all of Chinatown to Sunset Park and Flushing, with a handful of upscale Chinese restaurants in and around the court houses. How they effect their goals in Chinatown will be left to future administrations.

    • rob

      Thanks for this reply. I’d just amend it that it’s really the character of banks and developers that you have identified as the problem, not any cultural difference. Developers and banks are a breed apart, difficult to comprehend. The *day after* PS 164 was landmarked by the City Council, Gregg Singer began defacing it by removing its façade. With bankers you’re dealing with extremely narrow ideologues who are so convinced that money and development are the *only* solutions to *all* human problems, that they can’t imagine for a moment that they are doing anything but humanitarian good.

      In this case, Margaret showed her weakness as a politician. She didn’t get a written agreement, she didn’t wave it in the press proudly and take leadership and praise. She allowed herself to be led by the bank, which took all the credit for the affordable space.

      Chin showed her cards: she lacks the stature, dynamism, self-promotion, vision and leadership that could have gotten a much better deal than the one the bank dumped on her. As I repeated in my testimony on record, she could have coordinated the bank and local owners to shift 135 Bowery air rights onto Chrystie Street where they could have done far more benefit to affordable space than on the Bowery, and without harming any historical site. On record, I asked whether she even researched the options for development transfers. Lander admitted that she hadn’t.

      Consider also the specific conditions of Chinatown investment. Much of it is from Hong Kong investors, not local Chinatown Chinese-Americans. Non local investment and management is an added problem, whether it’s non local landlords in the East Village or non local hoteliers like Cooper Square Hotel. Their understanding of the local economy and culture are usually extremely coarse grained, and usually remain so, since they are preying on a location that they don’t themselves live in.

      Unfortunately, even the city wants to see development on the Bowery. DCP refused to include the Bowery in its EV/LES rezoning, specifically to encourage hotel development. My guess is that the city would prefer to preserve the LES for youth culture and nightlife, hotels on the Bowery facing upscale SoHo, and displace all of Chinatown to Sunset Park and Flushing, with a handful of upscale Chinese restaurants in and around the court houses. How they effect their goals in Chinatown will be left to future administrations.

Recent Stories

Recap: Falun Gong Procession in Chinatown [PHOTOS]
Photos

Recap: Falun Gong Procession in Chinatown [PHOTOS]

Stefon and Ian Rubbish Bid Farewell to SNL in Style [VIDEO]
Featured Video

Stefon and Ian Rubbish Bid Farewell to SNL in Style [VIDEO]

Children’s Magical Garden Supporters Will Lobby CB3 Next Month
Real Estate

Children’s Magical Garden Supporters Will Lobby CB3 Next Month

Cafe Katja Opens Annexed Dining Space at 75 Orchard
Food

Cafe Katja Opens Annexed Dining Space at 75 Orchard

100 Montaditos Withdraws Application for 177 Ludlow
Food

100 Montaditos Withdraws Application for 177 Ludlow

CVS Moving Into Soho Billiards Space on East Houston
Featured Real Estate

CVS Moving Into Soho Billiards Space on East Houston

Talking Shop with ‘The Last Jewish Waiter’ at Katz’s [INTERVIEW]
Featured Food

Talking Shop with ‘The Last Jewish Waiter’ at Katz’s [INTERVIEW]

Where in the World is the Lower East Side?
Boogie Beat

Where in the World is the Lower East Side?

Neighborhood Youth Rally Against Children’s Magical Garden Fence
Real Estate

Neighborhood Youth Rally Against Children’s Magical Garden Fence

Sara D. Roosevelt Park and Liz Christy Garden in Celebration Mode
Art

Sara D. Roosevelt Park and Liz Christy Garden in Celebration Mode