Hell's Kitchen Online 6/14/98
Hellskitchen
kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:45:51 -0500
Hell's Kitchen Online 6/14/98
"All the News the Times Won't Print"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Zoning will be covered in a separate issue)
In this issue...
* Friends of Pier 84 Waterfront Walk 6/20
* City and State Agree on Plan for Oversight of Park (Times)
* Tenant Rally Day 6/20
* A Year After the Rent War, Prices Orbit out of Control
* Assembly Bill to protect Companion Animals
* Proposal Threatens Rockefeller Center
* Javits Center Expansion Plan Clashes With Stadium Proposal (Times)
=================================================================
FRIENDS OF PIER 84 TO HOLD WATERFRONT WALK
Join Senators Abate and Leichter, Assemblymembers Gottfried and Stringer,
City Councilmembers Duane and Eldridge, and the Citizens for a Hudson River
Park in Clinton in a Waterfront Walk.
Noon - 20 June 1998
Starting at 42nd St Between 8th & 9th Ave
Ending with a forum at the High School of Graphic Arts
Show your support for a Hudson River Park for Clinton/Hell's Kitchen!!!
=================================================================
City and State Agree on Plan for Oversight of Park
from the New York Times, June 14, 1998
By DOUGLAS MARTIN
NEW YORK -- Plans to create a long strip of elegant parkland along the Hudson River took a giant
step forward last week, as the city reached agreement with the state on who will govern the park
and how it will be run.
"We have worked out our problems," Deputy Mayor Randy Levine said. He added that the state, which
owns the section of the riverbank from Battery Park to 34th Street, and the city, which owns the
land from 34th to 59th streets, have agreed to lease their land to a new entity to be created by a
bill now before the Legislature. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had been reluctant to sacrifice ownership
permanently.
Charles Gargano, chairman of Empire State Development Corp., the state economic development arm,
said the agreement paves the way for smooth operation of the park. He said that under the deal,
his agency will build the park and the city and state Park Departments will cooperate in running
it.
Until now, Gargano's agency has overseen the features of the park, a temporary bike path and
several recreational piers, that have already been opened. "It should be run by the Parks
Departments," Gargano said. "Empire State should not be in the business of running parks."
Overall governance, long a particular concern of the city, has been settled, the officials said.
Each government will appoint five members to a board, with the chairmanship rotating every two
years. Previously, both governments had four appointees, and the Manhattan borough president had
one. Board meetings have been rare for more than a year.
The state and city hope to include their agreement in legislation now before both houses of the
state Legislature. If that legislation fails, they say they will put as much as possible in a
memorandum of understanding, the present basis of governing the park.
Proponents thus say the park is at a critical juncture. While the city and state agreement pushes
the park further forward than it has ever been, they say legislation is needed for important
reasons.
For one thing, Albert Butzel, president of the Hudson River Park Alliance, a coalition of civic
and environmental groups, said a law was needed for revenues from development projects, such as
Chelsea Piers or the Circle Line, to go to the park. At present, they flow to state and city
coffers.
For another, he said, a law could definitively identify piers as part of the park, meaning they
would be forever protected. Legislation would also permanently protect wildlife, such as baby
striped bass, at the water's edge.
In Albany, legislators say the park bill is likely to pass the Senate, particularly if Gov. George
Pataki strongly pushes it. Though environmentalists worry that Sheldon Silver, the Assembly
speaker, may not be on board, Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, an author of the bill, says Silver
will support it with relatively minor modifications. Neither Silver nor his staff returned calls.
"The key thing was getting the mayor on board," said Sen. Franz Leichter, the bill's Senate
sponsor. "If we let this opportunity go by, we may live to regret it."
In any case, the state expects to begin construction of the Greenwich Village part of the park in
September. But for people who have fought for a decade for the vision of a clearly defined,
strictly protected and self-sufficient park, it seems a bit like now or never.
"It's been a long time and people are starting to peter out," said Pam Frederick, chairwoman of
Community Board 4 in the Clinton section of the city. "You can only sustain your energy for so
long."
=================================================================
TENANT RALLY DAY
Saturday, June 20th
Noon to 3 PM
Union Square Park (14th and Union Sq. West)
Thought our rent regulations were safe until the year 2003?
Think Again
Thanks to Shelden Silver and Vito Lopez, the Rent Regulation
system is virtually defunct (calling it dysfunctional
would be kind--see below)
Speakers:
City Councilmember Margarita Lopez
State Assemblymember Scott Stringer
State Assemblymember Jeffrey Aubrey
James Butler, Local 420 Public Hospital Employees Union
Penny LaForest, Citywide Tenants Coalition
Sponsored by Belnord Tenants Assoc., Chelsea Coalition on Housing, Coalition
for a District 2 Alternative (CODA), East Side Tenants Coalition, Harlem
Tenants Council, Lower Washington Heights Neighborhood Assoc., Park Terrace
Tenants, Queens League of United Tenants, Riverside-Edgecomb Neighborhood
Assoc., Skyview Tenants (BX), SRO Tenants United, West Side Tenants Union
and others. For info call (212) 862-8958 or (212)822-8231.
=================================================================
$2000: A Rent Odyssey
A Year After the Rent War, Prices Orbit out of Control
from Village Voice, June 9, 1998
by J. A. Lobbia
Karen stomps around her Upper East Side apartment sounding like a hawker for Home Depot. "Look at
this," she says in her galley kitchen. "You got a new refrigerator, that's $269. You got a new
sink in the bathroom, that's $69. A new shower door? Another $69, maybe a little more."
Surveying her cookie-cutter one-bedroom unit, Karen tallies up a hypothetical bill for the
"improvements" her landlord made before she moved in this January. Even being generous—for
instance, she prices out a fancy tile bathroom instead of the peel-and-stick linoleum that her
landlord installed, and a builder's kitchen instead of the worn cabinets and used dishwasher he
left her—she figures the bill would be $7500. "Tops. Total. That's it," says Karen, a former real
estate broker who knows the cost of such things.
There's no way the bill could reach $40,000, Karen insists. But that's how much the landlord—one
of Manhattan's biggest—would have to have spent to legally charge the rent he wanted: $2500 for an
apartment where the last tenant had paid $800. As a favor to Karen—who herself was brought in by a
broker—the landlord offered her a "deal" for $2200.
Since state lawmakers profoundly revamped the rent law one year ago this month, it has become
almost irrelevant to landlords whether the first rent they get on a recently vacant apartment is
$2500 or $2200. That's because the magic number is $2000—the level at which vacated apartments
leave the rent-regulation system and enter the world of market-rate rents, where a landlord is
free to charge as much as a tenant is willing to pay.
It's unclear just how many apartments have flown from rent regulation since the law was signed
last June 20. The state Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) is still compiling data,
and a study that might have measured the phenomenon, commissioned by the city's Rent Guidelines
Board, was squashed last week by RGB chair Ed Hochman, who said the study is faulty and awaits
revised data. But tenant advocates say it's not unusual for apartments to be deregulated because
landlords have hiked rents above $2000—not always legally.
Sam Himmelstein, a private attorney who represents tenants in disputes with their landlords, says,
"The incentive to get rents over $2000 is palpable. I'm seeing a lot of apartments where the
initial rent is over $2000 and renovations that were done are suspect."
Renovations are key because landlords are allowed to tack one-fortieth of the cost of renovations
onto the rent bill of a new tenant. Regulated rents also rise annually through RGB-issued hikes.
In addition, last year Albany granted landlords a 20 per cent hike on vacant, stabilized
apartments. Landlords combine these factors and try to reach a $2000 rent.
In Karen's case, for example, the landlord could raise the rent 24 per cent, from $800 to $992, by
combining the state and city vacancy hikes. To reach $2000, the landlord would have to spend just
over $40,000 on renovations, charging one-fortieth of the cost—or about $1000—to the monthly rent.
"There's just no way he spent that," says Karen. "I mean, landlords are entitled to make money.
They are not entitled to this kind of wholesale thievery and ripping people off."
Unless a tenant complains, no one keeps an eye on whether landlords' claims are legitimate, so
units may be wrongly deregulated with no consequence to the owner. DHCR will investigate
complaints, but it relies on tenants to initiate the process. To begin a challenge, a new tenant
must inquire from DHCR how much rent the previous tenant paid and question exorbitantly different
rates—especially in the absence of obvious major renovations.
"Anybody who thinks they have a problem should file a complaint with us," says Harry Ryttenberg, a
spokesman for DHCR.
Just last December, Upper West Side tenant Sandra Prangley filed a DHCR complaint alleging that
her landlord, Maurice Herman, was overcharging her at $2100 a month. DHCR records showed the last
tenant had paid $1625. Herman claimed that the hike was justified in part because he had installed
new windows. Prangley hired an architect who concluded the windows were not at all new—a fact so
obvious, Prangley says, "a six-year-old could figure it out.
"If you just look at the windows, you can see that they're crumbling," says Prangley, who is being
represented by Himmelstein and attorney Maddy Tarnofsky. "There's air-conditioner holes, and I
don't have an air conditioner. There's at least four colors of paint. Why my landlord didn't claim
something a little less obvious is beyond me."
Herman disputes Prangley's claim as "lunacy," saying her downstairs neighbor complained about
noise from Prangley's apartment. "We don't want problem tenants, so we told her we're not going to
renew her lease, and all of a sudden, surprise! She files the overcharge complaint. It's
retaliatory in nature."
Prangley denies she makes excessive noise and notes that she filed her DHCR complaint several
months before she got papers from Herman saying he would not renew her lease. On May 27, DHCR
issued a preliminary order against Herman, and is proposing to roll back Prangley's rent to about
$1900. Herman insists the windows were installed just prior to Prangley's tenancy. He plans to
rebut DHCR's preliminary order.
Himmelstein says the effects of the year-old rent law are evident in other ways: "Landlords are
suing right and left because they find a tenant has another address upstate, even though the
apartment is their legal, prime residence," he says. Tenants must live in an apartment at least
183 days a year for it to be considered a prime residence. And owners are less willing to settle
illegal sublet cases, says Himmelstein. "We used to be able to negotiate by saying, give the
subtenant the apartment and raise the rent $300 a month, and that was okay. Now, they don't want
that. They want that rent at $2000."
Clearly, the new rent law is not the sole influence on the market. More important is Wall Street's
superheated economy, which enables more people to pay higher rent. That economy and the $2000
policy work synergistically, forcing many tenants to stay put or pay up.
In the end, Upper East Side tenant Karen struck a deal with her landlord: she'll pay $1800 a month
for a year. After that, all bets are off, though she intends to file a DHCR complaint.
"This is happening throughout the market," says Karen. "The point is to urge the world, if you've
just moved, go to DHCR and check out the numbers. Tally it up and see."
=================================================================
From the ASPCA: Don't Kill It
Perhaps you've heard about the "felony cruelty" bill pending in Albany (A.2268-C).
it would make abusing or killing a companion animal a felony. It would make a good law.
We need everyone's support to pass this bill, especially Assembly Speaker Silver's.
This is certainly one bill that should not be allowed to die. Please call Assembly
Speaker Silver at (212) 312-1400 and voice your support. (also call our local state
assemblymembers)
BILL NO A02268C
Provides that intentional torture to animals or deprivation of necessary food
or drink, resulting in serious physical injury or death to the animal
constitutes a felony; makes related provisions.
AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to cruelty
to animals
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY,
DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. Section 353 of the agriculture and markets law, as amended
2 by chapter 458 of the laws of 1985, is amended to read as follows:
3 S 353. Overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failure to provide
4 proper sustenance. A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or
5 cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any
6 animal, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to himself or to
7 another, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink,
8 or neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink, or caus-
9 es, procures or permits any animal to be overdriven, overloaded,
10 tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or
11 killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink, or who wilfully
12 sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of
13 cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, is
1 guilty of a CLASS A misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more
2 than one year, or by a fine of not {more} LESS than {one thousand} FIVE
3 HUNDRED dollars NOR MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, or by both.
4 Nothing herein contained OR IN SECTION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-THREE-A OF
5 THIS ARTICLE shall be construed to prohibit or interfere with any prop-
6 erly conducted scientific tests, experiments or investigations, involv-
7 ing the use of living animals, performed or conducted in laboratories or
8 institutions, which are approved for these purposes by the state commis-
9 sioner of health. The state commissioner of health shall prescribe the
10 rules under which such approvals shall be granted, including therein
11 standards regarding the care and treatment of any such animals. Such
12 rules shall be published and copies thereof conspicuously posted in each
13 such laboratory or institution. The state commissioner of health or his
14 duly authorized representative shall have the power to inspect such
15 laboratories or institutions to insure compliance with such rules and
16 standards. Each such approval may be revoked at any time for failure to
17 comply with such rules and in any case the approval shall be limited to
18 a period not exceeding one year.
19 S 2. The agriculture and markets law is amended by adding a new
20 section 353-a to read as follows:
21 S 353-A. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. 1. A PERSON WHO INTENTIONALLY OR RECK-
22 LESSLY AND WITHOUT JUST CAUSE TORTURES, MUTILATES, OR MAIMS ANY COMPAN-
23 ION ANIMAL RESULTING IN SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY OR DEATH TO THE ANIMAL
24 OR WHO INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY AND WITHOUT JUST CAUSE KILLS ANY
25 COMPANION ANIMAL SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT
26 FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS OR BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
27 DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR BY BOTH.
28 2. WHERE DEEMED APPROPRIATE, A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A
29 VIOLATION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A THOROUGH
30 PSYCHIATRIC ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION BY A COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL PRIOR TO
31 SENTENCING.
32 3. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT OR
33 INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH ANYONE LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN HUNTING, TRAPPING,
34 OR FISHING OR THE DISPATCH OF RABID OR DISEASED ANIMALS OR ANIMALS
35 POSING A THREAT TO HUMAN SAFETY OR THE SAFETY OF ANY OTHER ANIMAL AS
36 PROVIDED IN ARTICLE ELEVEN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW.
37 4. EACH ACT OF CRUELTY SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE.
38 S 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
=================================================================
HDC PRESERVATION ALERT: Proposal Threatens Rockefeller Center
Proposal Now Under Review at the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission
Please take action!
Rockefeller Center, widely claimed by architectural historians as the finest and most refined
compact planned urban space in the United States, contains a most distinguished and extremely
ambitious decorative public art program, arguably the finest of its period in the world. It is an
unparalleled paradigm of how to plan internal and external space and traffic flows (pedestrian and
automotive); how to employ gardeners, artists, architects and artisans in a unique melding of
their skills; and how to build and mass skyscrapers in a definitive and highly dramatic Art Deco
style.
A proposal now under review at the Landmarks Preservation Commission threatens Rockefeller Center
with a number of highly intrusive and destructive alterations planned by the owners to accommodate
enhanced commercial uses. Boosting the Center’s commercial capabilities is, in and of itself, a
very reasonable aim. Preservationists believe, however, that this must be achieved without
destructive intrusions. Unfortunately, many of the proposed changes would, if allowed, irreparably
alter the architectural integrity of a number of the Center’s significant spaces. A number of
preservationists testified in opposition to many of the proposed alterations at the May 5th
Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing. They include: the Municipal Art Society, the Historic
Districts Council, the Beaux Arts Alliance, the Society for the Architecture of the City, the
Cityscape Foundation, the Queensborough Preservation League, and former Landmarks Preservation
Commissioner Anthony Tung and former Landmarks Preservation Commission Chairman Gene Norman.
As this building complex is so important to the history of planning and urban design in America,
preservationists and other interested members of the public are urged to express to the Landmarks
Preservation Commission that Rockefeller Center must not be insensitively altered.
Basic Information
The buildings were commissioned by John D. Rockefeller Jr. founder of Riverside Church, the
Cloisters, Rockefeller University & the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg and Versailles] & his
wife Abby Aldrich Rockefeller [co-founder of MOMA, Folk & Modern Art collector]. Rockefeller
Center was designed by Raymond Hood, Harvey W. Corbett, and J. Andre Fouilhoux, and their
successors Wallace K. Harrison and Benjamin W. Morris.
Proposed Changes (not a complete list of what is proposed, but aspects deemed most objectionable):
[1] Changes proposed for Sunken Plaza
Proposed: construct a reconfigured staircase on the East wall of the sunken plaza to bring
pedestrians down to the lower concourse – achieved by raising the turn and descent point of a new
North and South staircase on a built-out plinth. Includes construction of a solid granite
‘railing’ as the West wall of the new stair. The new stair’s Western edge would equal in height
the existing grade of Channel Gardens. This is coupled with the re-location of two Paul Manship
sculptures at the sides to the stairs where garden planters now stand.
Effect: the intended view of Prometheus as one descends down the inclined Channel Gardens will be
blocked by three elements – the 3’6” raised level at which the new stair begins, the new 3’6”
solid granite wall to be sited at this raised height at its Western edge, and the new position of
the sculptures where low planter beds currently exist. The gilded sculpture of Prometheus,
intentionally located at the ‘vanishing point’ of the Channel Gardens, was designed to draw people
into the plaza (like the pull of gravity) towards the sculpture; the proposed alterations ruin
that effect. In addition, the new stairway creates a gaping hole at the skating-rink level in the
East wall underside of the gardens (to accommodate a new entrance), making them appear suspended
and artificial in a manner utterly inconsistent with the overall planned textures of the Center.
[2] Change proposed for the Prometheus Fountain sculpture by Paul Manship
Proposed: alter the base of the sculpture, changing it from rectangle to half-oval; move the
sculpture forward about 2 or 3 feet; and build new doorways on either side of it to allow entrance
from the skating rink into the concourse under Rockefeller Plaza. The proposed built-out box-like
entrances narrow the space in which the sculpture stands by 12 feet.
Effect: America’s most distinguished Art Deco sculptor has provided the Center with an icon now
known internationally. The sculpture acts as an integral part of the view of the G.E. Building –
its golden horizontal form contrasts brilliantly with the soaring vertical shape of the G.E.
tower. To change the sculpture’s base from a rectangular shape to a half-circle (likened to a soap
dish by architectural historian David Lowe), and to remove its open setting with two massive
enclosing walls, is to irrevocably reduce the visual impact this spectacular site-specific
conception has on the viewer. Combined with the wall and staircase changes outlined in Point 1
above, the proposal also marginalizes the figure considerably from its pivotal role at the Center.
[3] Changes proposed for the storefront windows on Fifth Avenue
Proposed: enlarge the storefront windows on Fifth Avenue to a new ‘double-height’ configuration to
increase retail allure of the stores; horizontally expand the second story windows to line up with
the widened and heightened windows below.
Effect: the resulting glass expanses alter the entire appearance of the Pavilion Buildings along
Fifth Avenue, destroying the concept of a solid base that grounds the soaring verticality of the
building above. Currently, the second story office windows are separated from the ground floor
commercial windows by a delicate carved stone reeded stringcourse. Above, inset panels of carved
stone with reeded inset vertical accent lines are found between the pairs of sash windows. If the
second story is transformed into one sheet of horizontal glass, the subtle detailing will lose its
meaning, and the building’s base will lose its human scale and jewel-like quality. The overall
architectural effect would be to overwhelm the buildings’ monumental main entrances by reducing
their importance relative to the storefronts; to isolate the Fifth Avenue facades from their
integrity with the Center; and to destroy Raymond Hood’s ‘modernist’ storefronts for a generic and
probably passing phase in American retailing. If Winston’s, Cartier’s, Saks, and Versace can be
successful in historic buildings with historic storefront windows, why not the shops in
Rockefeller Center ?
[4] Changes proposed for International Building at 630 Fifth Avenue (Atlas Court)
Proposed: cut and remove limestone wall sections to create larger window openings in the court
surrounding the Atlas sculpture [designed by Lee Lawrie (1877-1963)] to lighten and improve
shopfront windows.
Effect: violates the interplay between the stone walls and the swelling bronze mass of the
sculpture. The austere and inspiring design would lose its monumental enclosing limestone walls.
The transparent glass effect would obliterate the original bold design concept, and a watered-down
mediocre version would result. When entering the court and 630 Fifth one would see opaque walls
fitted with down-light spot fixtures in the new windows, rather than the severe architectural
setting of the serenely austere limestone walls.
Note: Lee Lawrie trained and worked with Augustus St. Gaudens. He made contributions to the 1893
Columbian Exposition in Chicago. He worked extensively with Bertram G. Goodhue, and is perhaps
most famous in New York for the superb reredos figures in St. Thomas’s Church, Fifth Avenue.
Lawrie also designed the stunning Genius figure over the principal plaza doorway to the G.E.
Building.
[5] Change proposed for Palazzo d’Italia pavilion
Proposed: remove a site-specific commissioned Giacomo Manzu (1908-1991) figural entrance
sculpture, isolating it from the decorative panel above it. Manzu is a world famous Italian artist
highly regarded in Europe, and his sculpture identifies the Palazzo d’Italia Pavilion. The plan is
to move it to an alternate site in the Center away from Fifth Avenue in order to provide a
three-doorway access configuration to the building.
Effect: irreparably alters the street elevation on Fifth Avenue in a manner totally unsuitable for
a designated landmark. The change will result in the loss of the historic ‘Italian identity’ of
the pavilion (the Italian immigrant figure to be separated from the agrarian motif of grape-vines
and wheat stalks- symbolic of the earth’s fruitfulness above), and the needless destruction of an
important Manzu sculpture.
Note: MOMA has two portrait busts by this artist in their collection, St. Peter’s Basilica Rome
has a set of famous Doors of Death (1964-67) and the Grotte Kerk in Rotterdam has War and Peace
doors by the artist, among other distinguished commissions.
Numerous preservation groups have strongly urged the Landmarks Preservation Commission to prevent
many of these changes from taking place. The present owners of Rockefeller Center are fortunate to
possess such a masterfully designed complex, and only a far more sensitive and less intrusive
series of changes should be considered by the Commission.
You are urged to write the Landmarks Preservation Commission to express those points described
above which they feel they agree with. The buildings of Rockefeller Center are very important to
New York City and the Landmarks Law was specifically designed to protect architectural icons such
as Rockefeller Center from changes like some of the ones contemplated. Feel free to share this
information with others.
Send e-mail to landmark@pcwnet.com or write:
The Hon. Jennifer Raab, Chairman
Landmarks Preservation Commission
100 Old Slip
New York, New York 10005
Fax: 212-487-6796
=================================================================
Javits Center Expansion Plan Clashes With Stadium Proposal
New York Times, June 10, 1998
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
NEW YORK -- State officials are scrambling to salvage a $750 million plan to expand the Jacob K.
Javits Convention Center on the West Side of Manhattan, which has collided with the Giuliani
administration's proposal to build a stadium for the New York Yankees and a developer's efforts to
erect a sprawling apartment complex.
The state, which controls the Javits Center, had hoped to double the center's exhibition space to
1.5 million square feet by extending the convention hall from 38th Street to 42nd Street, a plan
that officials and hoteliers said would let New York compete with other cities for tens of
millions of dollars in convention business and anchor the western end of a rejuvenated Times
Square.
But discussions between executives at the convention center and the developer, Larry Silverstein,
who owns a key parcel of land needed for the expansion project, collapsed recently when the
Giuliani administration failed to support the state's plans. Any state project north of the
convention center would require city assistance to close streets and redirect traffic.
Real estate executives and state officials say Silverstein concluded that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
would not approve expansion plans that did not include a baseball stadium just south of the Javits
Center.
"There's nothing happening with the expansion of the convention center on 42nd Street,"
Silverstein said. "So we're going forward with our project. To sit and wait makes no sense at all.
I couldn't afford to delay this any further."
Real estate executives and state officials said the Javits expansion was only the latest example
of how the debate over a future home for the Yankees was overshadowing everything from the city
budget to a new location for the New York Stock Exchange.
Mitchell Moss, director of the Taub Urban Research Center at New York University, said he was
surprised that the mayor had been concentrating so heavily on the stadium.
"The Yankees are sucking up all the oxygen at City Hall," Moss said. "It's shocking to think that
a baseball stadium is more important than a convention center or stock exchange. New York's future
lies in tourism, finance, communications and entertainment, not in professional baseball."
Giuliani has revived a plan to build a billion-dollar stadium on the West Side of Manhattan that
he said would prevent the Yankees from leaving New York and generate $1 billion a year in economic
activity.
The administration has commissioned several studies and recently set up a delegation of nine
officials to visit new ball parks in other cities to assess their economic impact. On May 28, the
group led by Joseph Rose, chairman of the City Planning Commission, and Charles Millard, president
of the Economic Development Corp., visited Baltimore and Oriole Park at Camden Yards.
"I guess that says something when folks come out of New York to see how others do it," said
Charles Graves, the director of city planning in Baltimore, who met with the delegation. "We
talked about design, siting, political and economic issues."
Rather than wait for the Javits expansion, Silverstein plans to build two residential towers with
1,800 apartments on the block along 42nd Street between 11th and 12th Avenues. The apartment
complex would form an insurmountable roadblock to what state officials said was the best route for
the expansion.
On Tuesday, state officials were urging Silverstein to reconsider. At the same time, the officials
are reluctant to press the mayor because they want to avoid an open battle with him during Gov.
George Pataki's re-election campaign.
"The last three years have proven how vital the Javits Center can be to New York," said convention
center chairman Robert Boyle. "We intend to build on that record. But in light of Silverstein's
plans, we would have to consider less desirable options for expansion."
Real estate executives and state officials say privately that the problems with the Javits
expansion are the latest example of the Giuliani administration's almost single-minded effort to
resolve the future of Yankee Stadium.
Monday, the mayor vetoed nearly $5 million from the budget that the City Council had allocated for
itself, surprising Council Speaker Peter Vallone, who is in a dispute with the mayor over the
stadium.