[weeksie]

That's the fault of the developer not being clear about what was going to happen to the Elizabeth Street Garden. Not to mention the screeching YIMBY side of the equation pretending that opposition to the project was just because a bunch of rich people were throwing a shitfit and somehow hated LGBT retirees.

The ESG is a really unique area in a part of downtown that doesn't have a ton of greenspace. The nearest parks are Washington Square, Tompkins, and Sarah Roosevelt, all across neighborhood boundaries from Nolita. ESG is pretty unique, a green space full of collected sculptures—not easy to replicate.

The proposed solution does preserve some of the space and will keep the area open to the public which is what tipped me in the direction of supporting the development but I do hope they buy some of the existing sculptures to put on the public green area instead of turning it into a shitty lawn.

I understand the YIMBY side, I am mostly all in on YIMBY-ism, but the rhetoric on this is bonkers. It also conveniently ignores that there is already a large public housing development right next to ESG.

[Nelkins]

1. Characterizing support for the affordable housing project as "screeching YIMBYs" is incredibly unfair. Much of the advocacy for this project is coming from local support organizations for seniors and the homeless, such as the Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing, or LiveOn NY. Not to mention the heart-wrenching individual accounts of the elderly who are currently in old affordable housing units that are not accessible (think five floor walkup), thus trapping these people in their homes.

2. The ESG property is not some decades old staple of the neighborhood. It actually ALREADY WAS earmarked to be built as affordable housing in 1983. In 1991 the city decided to lease it out to Allan Reiver for his art gallery on a month to month basis while awaiting development. At this point it was not open to the public. It became semi-sort of public in 2005, but you still had to go through the private gallery. Only in 2013(!!!) did the site become completely open. And even now, the hours are extremely limited so most people can't take advantage of it (to be fair, this is something Friends of ESG are trying to change). So I just want to point out that the site is finally being used for it's intended purpose, and it hasn't really been open to the public for very long anyway.

3. Sarah Roosevelt, a much larger park, is LITERALLY two blocks away. http://imgur.com/gallery/CbYszsu

4. As you noted, some green space will remain, and will be ACTUALLY open to the public this time (it will be enshrined into law as part of a land disposition agreement). Residents of the area should feel free to adorn the area with statues as they see fit.

Is anything I've said rhetoric?? I don't think so, of course I'm biased. To me, this is rhetoric: "Elizabeth Street Garden is unique in the continent, and is irreplaceable." That is an exact quote I heard at one of the CB2 hearings on ESG.

In any case, CM Chin is probably going to support the project, so unless the rest of the city council votes against her all this hubub doesn't really matter. But I just think it's not accurate to say that the rhetoric is anywhere close to being equal on both sides of this issue. One side of the argument has considerably more support than the other.

EDIT: I forgot to address your point about another affordable housing development nearby. ESG is located in an extremely desirable, high opportunity economic area. The fact of the matter is, the city just doesn't have that much land left to dedicate to affordable housing. And most of what it does have is out in the sticks of NYC. A site like this is a great chance to significantly improve the lives of people who really need it. There's a wait list of 200,000 for affordable housing, and that's just seniors. This is a relatively small four story building that is contextual with the neighborhood. Given all that background, the limited resources, etc, I don't think there's anything wrong with having two affordable housing projects within relatively close proximity.

[weeksie]

1. There were plenty of screeching YIMBYs, particularly the ones who showed up at community board meetings.

2. The 1990s were literally decades ago

3. Sarah Roosevelt is across the Bowery + a block.

4. I sure hope they do a decent job on the green space that's left, it's the only reason I support the project

Also, this is 100 units. Again, I'm on-balance for the project but it's not really that impactful and it alters the neighborhood significantly.

My big gripe is the just that you can be YIMBY _and_ give a shit about neighborhood character. Pretending that ESG isn't a unique feature of the neighborhood is ridiculous. Nobody walks by that for the first time without going "wow, that's pretty neat." It's a bummer that we'll lose another piece of the city, even if it is, on balance, worth it.

[Nelkins]

1. If you think the people advocating for this project are screeching, I can't even imagine how you'd describe the people who are against it.

2. 2013 is not decades ago.

3. Still, two blocks/a five minute walk.

I don't think that NOTHING will be lost, and I have literally never heard anyone advocating for this project say that, and definitely not from any official organization that represents a group of people. Contrast that to the Twitter account of Friends of Elizabeth Street Garden, which regularly peddles in misleading information and rhetoric.

It's 123 units, not 100. And it's only that small because the city anticipated huge pushback from the community if it were any larger, based on decades of experience with similar projects. I can almost guarantee that if they tried to make it any bigger they'd be fielding accusations of it being "out of context" with the neighborhood.

I don't disagree that you can be a YIMBY and care about neighborhood character. Nobody is saying it's not a unique site. But given the context, given the site's history, and given what's being gained, I find it frustrating that people are "both-sides"-ing this when the evidence weighs far more heavily in favor of one side than the other.