Wall might fall, but retains nabe’s character(Page 2 of 2)
By Adam Wisnieski Posted 11/16/11
Mr. Moerdler tried to get CB 8 to pass a resolution urging the DEP to fix the retaining wall immediately, but Traffic and Transportation chair Dan Padernacht, who lives in Kingsbridge Heights and has represented FIPNA as an attorney, held off because he said the board should wait for public input before taking any action. An architect representing Long Island-based Jackson Development said at the April CB 8 meeting that the company would not touch the retaining wall during construction. FIPNA hired Grigg and Davis Engineers, P.C. to conduct a study of the project. The group reported that the amount of rock excavation required for the project would result in a “very high” probability of damage to adjacent properties on Cannon. In May, Jackson announced it would build a parking garage with an entrance on Fort Independence instead of Cannon Place to address the community’s concerns over a retaining wall collapse as the result of increased traffic. Jackson’s proposal is for a 96,000-square-foot mixed-income apartment building on the same 30,000-square-foot site Urban Pathways once planned to build a homeless shelter, which was also met with strong opposition from the community. Mr. Weisman of Jackson did not respond to a call for comment. KeywordsCharles Moerdler, Adam Wisnieski, Community Board 8, 3469 Cannon Place, Board of Directors of the New York City Housing Development Corporation, Jackson Development, Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association
2 comments on this story
|
Add your comment
|
Wow-- big news! There are other issues with this proposal besides the retaining wall, of course. It's an expensive site on which to build, and so Jackson was planning to charge $1700 for a 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment without a separate kitchen -- well over the market, I would say. And moving the vehicle entrance to Fort Independence had more to do with minimizing the additional traffic to two narrow one-way streets, Cannon Place and Giles Place.
It's great to hear that this ill-conceived project is no longer on the fast track (or may be completely off the tracks). Wednesday, November 16, 2011|Report this
Thank Goodness!! Now, if only we can get rid of the builder who is proposing the 63 unit apt. building on Giles Place. Thursday, November 17, 2011|Report this