City Council approves Flushing Creek luxury housing and hotel plan

 

 QNS

The City Council’s Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises and its Committee on Land Use on Wednesday, Dec. 9, voted in favor of approving the Special Flushing Waterfront District — a 29-acre proposal that would bring waterfront access, environmental cleanup and new development to a decades-long isolated and polluted section of downtown Flushing.

The proposal will now move forward to the full council for a final vote on Thursday, Dec. 10. 

After delaying the vote on the matter in recent days, the council’s Subcommittee on Zoning had announced reaching a deal with the labor unions, Hotel Trades Council (HTC) and SEIU 32BJ, to ensure good jobs, community benefits and more for the Special Flushing Waterfront District (SFWD).

According to Councilman Francisco Moya, chair of the Subcommittee on Zoning, it was imperative for the committee to reach a deal that met with the union’s demands. 

“As I stated from the very beginning, it would have been irresponsible to approve this application without commitments to provide good-paying jobs for local community members and deep community benefits like real affordable housing,” Moya said. “I have always stood by my brothers and sisters in labor, 32BJ and HTC.” 

The developers of SFWD — F&T Group, Young Nian Group, United Construction and Development Group known as FWRA LLC. — said they have worked tirelessly with community members for years to activate what is currently an empty and polluted waterfront and finally give Flushing the future it deserves.

“This is a pivotal vote for New York City’s economic recovery, especially for a hardworking immigrant community like Flushing,” the group said in a statement. “We deeply appreciate the Council members’ support in moving Flushing forward, particularly the leadership of Council member Peter Koo, Chairs Francisco Moya and Rafael Salamanca, and Speaker Corey Johnson.”

 That hotel might actually come in handy with all the homeless people that will be produced from the gentrification this will cause. Especially with rents going up in Flushing during a pandemic. Happy Holidays.

City rezoning proposal for Flushing Creek mega-development gets solidarity rejection from the community and city council candidates

 

THE CITY

 A contentious Flushing waterfront project is upending the usual City Council politics around approvals — and dividing candidates running to replace Councilmember Peter Koo, a fan of the hotel and apartment development.

A consortium of three developers, F&T Group, United Construction & Development Group, and Young Nian Group, is seeking permission to create the Special Flushing Waterfront District, underpinning a 13-tower complex that would transform the east shore of Flushing Creek.

The consortium, operating as FWRA LLC, aims to construct 879 hotel rooms and 1,725 residential apartments on three privately owned sites by 2025. Some 90 of the apartments in the 29-acre development would be earmarked for affordable housing.

On Tuesday afternoon, dueling sides of the fight made their voices heard on 39th Avenue in Flushing.

Opponents yelled, “Peter Koo, shame on you” and waved signs depicting the Democrat’s eyes.

Outside the Queens Crossing shopping center, a project developed by F&T Group, dozens of people backing Koo held signs in Chinese and English, and shouted chants of support.

Many construction workers who are employed at F&T Group’s partially complete Tangram South condominium were in the mix, and walked in lockstep back to the construction site after the rally.

On the other side of the street, a cluster of community members and staff from Minkwon Center, a community organizing group working with low-income Korean and other area Asian residents, protested the development.

Minkwon, Chhaya CDC and the Greater Flushing Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in June pressing for a full environmental impact statement for the project.

The groups maintain the creation and development of the waterfront district will drive up rents further and displace residents in a neighborhood where more than half of people are already rent-burdened.

Development of the former industrial area would be allowed under existing land use rules. But the plan currently under review by the City Council aims to tweak design details that include opening up streets within the area and new waterfront access.

A lot to the north, accounting for about 10% of the property, requires rezoning, a FWRA LLC spokesperson said.

 

 

City Planning Commission approves Flushing Creek hyperdevelopment with some "affordable housing"

 

QNS  

The City Planning Commission (CPC) on Wednesday, Nov. 4, voted in favor of approving the highly controversial Special Flushing Waterfront District (SFWD) proposal that will now move forward to the City Council for a vote. 

The City Planning Commission’s 11-2 vote is a milestone for the development, which after a halted land-use process, is steadily gaining momentum.

Marisa Lago, chair of the City Planning Commission, voted in favor of the project saying, “the application is an important step forward for Flushing.”

The three developers behind the Special Flushing Waterfront Development include F&T Group, United Construction & Development Group, and Young Nian Group, known collectively as FWRA, LLC. 

Their proposal seeks to revitalize 29 acres of inactive and underutilized land that the developers say will provide substantial public benefits such as a privately funded and maintained road network and a 160,000-square-foot waterfront promenade along Flushing Creek that will both be publicly accessible.

The plan also includes 1,725 residential units, including affordable housing, 879 hotel keys, office and community facilities, retail space and parking spaces to help alleviate traffic along College Point Boulevard.

In response to the CPC’s vote, the developers said they’re pleased that the City Planning Commission has voted to move the application forward. 

“With 3,000+ permanent jobs, a new traffic-alleviating public road network, publicly accessible waterfront with public amenities, and $164+ million in projected annual tax revenue among many other benefits, SFWD will bring Queens a step closer to the future our communities deserve,” the developers said. 

The CPC’s vote marks another step in the right direction, the developers said. 

“City Planning rightly sees that the SWFD is not a rezoning, but an essential next step for Queens at large towards recovery. Our vocal community submitted more than 300 letters supporting the project, showing that our vision resonates with those we are working to serve,” the developers said. “Without question, the months since COVID-19 have been among the most trying times our city has ever seen. TThere is no better time to give Flushing and New York City this exciting new chapter.” 

Meanwhile, opponents of the proposal have said that the rezoning of the waterfront will exponentially increase the process of gentrification and displacement. 

The MinKwon Center for Community Action along with the Greater Flushing Chamber of Commerce and Chhaya CDC, had filed a lawsuit against the Department of City Planning and the City Planning Commission, arguing that an environmental review must be conducted for the development proposal. 

Local organizations such as the Flushing Anti-Displacement Alliance, The MinKwon Center and the Flushing Workers Center took to social media describing the CPC’S vote as “shameful” while criticizing the mayor and Councilman Peter Koo.

Queens BP Temp Sharon Lee disapproves Flushing Creek development permitted by CB7

 

City Limits

 The interim borough president of Queens recommended against approval of a development plan for the Flushing waterfront in an advisory opinion Friday.

Sharon Lee acknowledged the potential of the proposed Special Flushing Waterfront District to fulfill long-held dreams of revitalizing the area—the unrealized goal of at least five earlier planning efforts.

“Downtown Flushing, however, is not immune to the consequences of transformative large-scale new development that inadvertently leaves many behind,” Lee wrote in her recommendation. “The people living closely to the SFWD will bear the brunt of the noise, dust, traffic and other construction-related inconveniences as the proposed project is built, with little chance to afford or secure some of the new housing that would be built in the new modern waterfront development.”

To make the project acceptable, Lee specified, developers must commit to paying prevailing wages, hiring union labor and building more affordable housing, and that the school system must find a place for new school seats in downtown Flushing. 

I don't know how much of an effect an interim office holder can have on a political machine based decision but here's a thought, write in Sharon's name on the ballot for Queens BP. 

CB7 tells future lower income tenants of Flushing Creek towers, let them have buckets

Developers and investor consortium looking to supress environmental review of luxury tower development by Flushing Creek

Curbed

Along the banks of the Flushing Creek—one of New York’s most vital and most polluted waterways—dozens of construction cranes loom over the landscape, and half-finished glass towers cast ominous shadows over the water. During heavy rain storms, the waterway regularly swells, flooding pathways in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, the streets of Willets Point, and even portions of the Van Wyck Expressway. And after those storms, the city’s overtaxed sewer system often pours raw sewage into the creek and Flushing Bay, causing a stench to waft from its brackish waters. Dead fish occasionally float upon its surface.

But this chunk of Queens real estate has been targeted for development by a consortium of landowners and stakeholders, including a group called the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation (FWPCLDC) that has long pushed for revamping the waterfront. Last December, the group quietly submitted plans to redevelop a 29-acre stretch of industrial property along the waterfront, which would include rezoning the northernmost section from manufacturing to residential use.

The proposal calls for creating a Special Flushing Waterfront District, which could accommodate a huge mixed-use development with more than 1,700 apartments, retail, a hotel, and publicly accessible open space (including a riverfront promenade that would connect to the recently opened Skyview Flushing Creek Promenade). Developers also want to integrate a publicly accessible road network with the existing street grid, effectively expanding downtown Flushing. The portion of land that would be rezoned could eventually be home to just under 100 below-market-rate apartments.

While proponents say the development will benefit the community, critics are concerned that development will have “immense impacts” on the fragile condition of the Flushing waterfront. 

“Adding significant residential development could overwhelm the Creek’s overburdened infrastructure that already releases over one billion gallons of raw sewage and stormwater runoff into the Creek every year,” the Guardians of Flushing Bay, a group of environmental activists, said in a statement. “Though the plan aims to provide critical access to a virtually inaccessible swath of the waterfront, it is essential that this project, if enacted, be implemented in a way that would enhance coastal resiliency, recreation opportunities, ecological stewardship and equitable access to the waterfront.”

The proposal comes as downtown Flushing experiences a development boom: Between 2009 and 2019, the neighborhood saw the second-largest number of condos constructed in New York City after Williamsburg, Brooklyn, according to Nancy Packes Data Services, a real estate consultancy and database provider. Over the past five years, rents have climbed by a whopping 21 percent. Although historically home to a largely working- and middle-class Chinese immigrant population, many of Flushing’s new developments—such as the massive The Grand at Skyview Parc, which has two-bedrooms selling for around $1.27 million—cater to a new wave of immigrants with deep pockets.

With Flushing booming, the waterfront remains the last frontier for developers. But given the size of the proposal from the FWPCLDC, as well as the fact that the Special Flushing Waterfront District is situated in a coastal flood hazard area, critics have argued that an environmental impact study—which is not required for this particular project—must be conducted before the plan moves forward.

“They’re adding three million square feet along the waterfront,” says Tarry Hum, chair of the Queens College Department of Urban Studies. “Can you imagine the environmental impact?

Update: Community Board 7 approves the rezoning anyway

 At a tense Monday night meeting, Community Board 7 voted 30-8 to approve a development team’s plan to rezone a large section of land by Flushing Creek.

Dozens of protesters showed up to criticize the land-use application filed by FWRA, a consortium of real estate firms behind the project.

The development group wants to rezone a section of the area so it can construct a 13-tower project with 1,725 residential units and 879 hotel rooms–along with retail and office space–by the waterfront.

The 29-acre property is bound to the north by 36th Avenue, to the east by College Point Boulevard and to the south by Roosevelt Avenue.

FWRA seeks the creation of the Special Flushing Waterfront District and a rezoning in order to move ahead with the proposed plan.

The standing-room only meeting was heated. Activists grew frustrated that they were unable to speak until after FWRA presented its lengthy and time-consuming presentation, which continued on until after 9 p.m.

“Let us speak,” some in the crowd pleaded during FWRA’s presentation.

CB 7 Chairman Gene Kelty walked into the crowd and tried to hush some of the unsatisfied people who were waiting for their turn to speak.

In a video of the meeting, one frustrated woman tells Kelty, “Why are you saying this is a public hearing? This is not a public hearing and you know it.”

The footage shows the CB 7 chairman saying, “It is a public hearing,” uttering a few more words that are drowned out by other noise, and then appearing to lunge at the woman to steal her phone before being stopped by police officers and others.

“Let us speak! Let us speak!” the group chanted as Kelty walked away.