 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Blazing a green trail To The Editor: Re: “Green in focus and form, a CB 4 task force is born,” “Firm taking the LEED on green architecture” (news articles, Feb. 15): I read with some enjoyment last week your current issue on efforts to go green in Chelsea. I announce, with some pride, that Public Interest Network Services, a 25-year-old telecommunications provider on 50 W. 17th St., is in the final stages of a major renovation designed to make us one of the first green Internet and communication facilities around. The centerpiece of our renovation is a natural-gas powered microturbine which produces clean, high-efficiency power for our communication room, along with waste heat that recaptures to create chilled water for cooling. As a matter of fact, we were the first microturbine to go live in New York City, and we led the way on getting this type of equipment approved for use—an arduous, 20-month battle—that culminated in the creation of citywide standards and a New York Department of Building’s certification for microturbine installations. We internally financed all of the construction and engineering, not just because we believe it’s a good business decision, but also to demonstrate that even small companies (by telecom standards) can blaze an environmentally friendly trail in our energy-hungry business. Our overall plan is to reduce the carbon footprint of our business by 50 percent. A good number of our customers are not-for-profits, and many of them share a similar goal. We still have a little ways to go, but with big steps like the cogeneration system, and little steps like new low-power servers and electronics recycling, we expect to reach our target in 2008. David Birnbaum Birnbaum is president of Public Interest Network Services Howling over Seravalli slight To The Editor: Re “Dogfight over Seravalli run ends with antis on top” (news article, Feb. 8): I think it’s outrageous that Community Board 2 has vetoed a dog run in Seravalli Park. It is a large enough park that a portion could easily be given to dogs and their owners. A fenced-off section would ensure the safety of children and dogs. The West Village is a dog-friendly neighborhood, and all we have is the Leroy St. dog run, a long walk for many West Villagers, especially in the winter when the wind is blowing off the river. The West Village already has many playgrounds for children, including one at Jane St. at the river, a baseball and soccer field at Hudson and Houston Sts. and a huge baseball and soccer field at Pier 40. Dog owners are treated like second-class citizens. Dogs require exercise like anyone else. Village dogs are cooped up in apartments and need to be let free for an hour or two every day to socialize and exericise. A dog run that opened at 9 a.m. and closed at 8 p.m. would not disturb sleeping neighbors. Deborah Glick is to be commended for advocating for a dog run and I agree with her that it is shocking that the city’s Parks Department refused to meet with the dog owners’ group. Ron Faber Who is Jacobs’s heir? To The Editor: David Halle’s Jan. 4 article in praise of the Municipal Arts Society’s current exhibit, “Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York,” neglects to mention current events: The exhibit is ironically timed with the destruction of the very features of Washington Square Park that Jacobs is credited with helping preserve. There was no better example of what Jacobs values about cities — in Halle’s words, “their ability to crowd people and activities into a joyous jumble” — than Washington Square Park, which worked, much to the chagrin of city officials. That Halle should nominate Bloomberg’s Department of City Planning as heir apparent to Jacobs’s legacy seems unwarranted, if not absurd. His hypothetical example of a community board contravening city government does not reflect what took place in real life, where a city plan received board approval without community support and without full disclosure of what the plan entailed by the Mayor’s Department of Parks and Recreation. Call me Jane Jacobs, but this scenario does not bode well for the future of New York. Kathryn Adisman Chamber ignores impact To The Editor: Re “Village-Chelsea Chamber: St. Vincent build plan checks out” (news article, Feb. 15): While the Greenwich Village-Chelsea Chamber of Commerce — of which St. Vincent’s is a member — may have voted to support the Rudin Organization/St. Vincent’s Hospital plan for a new state-of-the-art medical center, it did so on the basis of the hospital’s perceived needs and in total disregard of the impact and dangerous precedent such a plan would have on the Greenwich Village Historic District and all the city’s other historic districts. Even after allowing that the hospital is in dire need of modernization, what justification is there for allowing Rudin to build an out-of-scale, out-of-context, luxury condo development using the large-scale development rights previously granted to St. Vincent’s in its capacity as a community-service provider? Those rights cannot be allowed to be transferred to a for-profit developer. St. Vincent’s and Rudin are obligated to prove that their plan to demolish historic buildings and build two gargantuan, out-of-scale buildings is appropriate to the Greenwich Village Historic District. As a member of the Community Working Group constituted by St. Vincent’s for input, I can tell you that the community’s input was ignored and the die was cast when St. Vincent’s, by going with Rudin’s megabucks, rejected other less grandiose, less ambitious development partners who would have preserved the historic buildings on its campus. To reach the proper result, this must be a discussion of community and compromise, not “we need as much money as we can get and therefore we should be allowed to build as large as we want.” The community has offered an intelligent, well-thought-out compromise in its Community Alternative Plan, which so far has not been addressed by St. Vincent’s. David R. Marcus
|
|
|
Chelsea Now is published by |
Written permission of the publisher |