By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
The $250 million project, which extends from 2nd Street to Stanton Street, and from Second Avenue to the Bowery, is Manhattan's largest city-owned urban renewal site to date, yet it hardly became common knowledge during the latest review process. Rising in what is still one of Manhattan's poorest areas will be 525 units of luxury, market-rate studios, one- and two-bedroom apartments, and 175 affordable units for low-income families. A small number of two-bedrooms will go for about $3600. A family of four eligible for the affordable units would have an income capped at $34,000 a year.
"This is the longest, most painful pregnancy I've ever seen," said City Council member Margarita Lopez of District 2, airing doubt that construction will actually start this month. A lot of things were lost in negotiations, she said, including the hope for an all-affordable complex built by the city.
On July 4, 2001, the city's Housing Preservation and Development department (HPD) sent time-sensitive zoning applications to Community Board 3 for the urban land use review process (ULURP). Conveniently, in July and August the executive board voted in lieu of the full, 50-member board. Hence only 13 people voted in favor of the developer's applications, four abstained, and one voted no, having only seen the plans once at a public forum held weeks earlier. The forum had revealed little more than sketches and vague assurances of affordable housing and recreational space. Community turnout was sparse, and even so, little time was given for people to raise concerns.
Empty community meetings are a rarity in the East Village, unless nobody is aware of them. HPD only faxed notification to CB3 after office hours, three working days before the July 16, 2001, forum. A spokesperson for HPD claims the agency did notify local papers, and "posted within five blocks," but would not give specifics. At the next month's full-board meeting, then chair Lisa Kaplan announced her full support of the plan, saying the executive committee had voted unanimously in favor. Then a slim majority voted in favor of the zoning requests of a housing plan about which hardly anyone knew anything.
Since the project has been over 30 years in the making, most residents have given up trying to keep track of the elements of each incarnation. What they do know about it revolves around enticing catchphrases: "community consensus," "community recreational facility," "affordable housing," and, a favorite among advocates, "indoor swimming pool."
Most of those phrases come from the mouths of representatives of the Cooper Square Committee (CSC), who are vehemently supporting the plans after decades of acting as a community liaison for the city's long-held ambition to develop the area. The Cooper Square Committee formed in 1959 as an "anti-displacement and non-profit" group dedicated to preserving affordable housing in Lower Manhattan, and claims to represent the surrounding community. The city certainly regards the group as such, having subsidized the development of its offspringCooper Square Mutual Housing Association, a for-profit management company. But with 500 members who don't have to live in the area or attend meetings, and dues of $5-a-year or less, community participation has diluted over time.
"The city saying Cooper Square Committee is representative of the community at large is like me saying that the Hell's Angels on East 3rd Street are representative of all the Lower East Side," snorts Lisamarie Dixon, a 30-year on-and-off resident of the East Village. She attended that July public forum, and says she remembers seeing little about the plans. Any discussion of the plans was cut short, she said. "Before people could even really digest the information, [the board] voted on it just like that."
CB3 chair Harvey Epstein, who was chair of its housing committee in 2001, asserts that the board is supportive, but he still isn't sure exactly what to expect. "We haven't seen anything in months," he said about the plans. "We had some general descriptions by the developers, but I have no memory in specific of what it looks like."
The many visions and revisions of Cooper Square's development have, as the late J.A. Lobbia wrote, "spawned bitter battles . . . and endless task forces." The last such task force, initiated by HPD in 1997, released a March 2000 planning assessment study that managed to absorb all the input it could get, including ideas and design alternatives by would-be displaced tenants, garden advocates, artist collectives, and the Cooper Square Committee. The suggestions included preserving the abandoned Church of All Nations (also known as Cuando), an art and performance space on East 2nd Street; maximizing affordable housing; ensuring integral community space; maintaining the Liz Chrystie Gardens; and making a good-faith effort to attract families, not just singles.