Drawings: Proposed Hoboken Hilton Hotel by GrafixAvenger on Scribd
Well people, here it comes... the good and the not-so-good. It depends upon your perspective.
It's big, it's shiny, it'll bring tourists and business travelers, it'll create jobs, it'll boost Hoboken's local economy, it'll bring tax revenue and $4.85M in givebacks. What else will it do?
It'll cast shadows.
Let's keep it real, KMS.
You owe the city a shadow study of the proposed 20-story hotel building. You have provided a shadow study of the existing building shadows. Nice to know. But where is the 360° study of shadows cast by the proposed 20-story hotel?
Since you have only provided a shadow study of "how Pier A already experiences shadows" how can you conclude that "the new hotel will not detract from the experience of park visitors?"
The architect can do a shadow simulation of the Hotel's impacts on Pier A and on River Street. The developer was required to furnish one-- GA assumes before the project was voted on.
It's not rocket science: the hotel will cast shadow on the park, the waterfront and on River street. Duh. So, why is the developer telling us that "the new hotel will not detract from the experience of park visitors" instead of showing us what to expect.
How about it?
Just got an email about the hotel negotiations from Peter "I do what the others tell me to do" Cunningham that contains this gem:
ReplyDelete"It is a shame that the Mayor refused to communicate and collaborate throughout the process. I believe strongly that further negotiations could have increased the overall benefits of the hotel. If the Mayor wasn't so reclusive and focused on self aggrandizement, and worked productively with the council from the outset, fantastic things could have happened."
What a douchenozzle.
We've heard a lot from Cunningham about "commutation" and "collaboration" over the past year. To which I offer him a four-word retort:
DeleteMary. Anne. Kampa. Relly.
Here in the real world, Peter and the gang negotiated a 170,000 sf 24 story hotel with no givebacks. They considered the restaurant, event space and the hotel itself to be the givebacks.
ReplyDeleteAll you need to know about Council member's feigned concern over the hotel's massing and volume (additional 20% sf) is belied by the fact they voted in favor of the hotel without seeing a shadow study. That would have been the first thing I would have asked for. Doyle instinctively knew the impacts, and voted accordingly. It's shocking to me personally that folks who were former ZBA and current Planning Board members voted for this project WITHOUT understanding the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and park.
ReplyDelete#1, they only want to grand stand the project and make sure they can include some hand in the give-backs in their campaign lit.
Delete#2, they've never been that good at being custodians of the public space and are too committed to #1 to start now.
I would be very surprised if the developers didn't do a shadow study of their building. All that would have been needed was input a few new bits of information and the same program that produced the study they published would have generated the shadow study of the new taller bulkier building. The obvious rational as to why it was not made public was that the results would not have helped them get the project approved.
ReplyDelete