Search
 

$375M Studio Project to Add 700,000 SF to Hell's Kitchen

NEW YORK CITY-The developers of a major Clinton production studio/office complex say they completed the city's approval process for the massive project "with flying colors." But neighborhood residents claim that when the local community board tried to get the 700,000-sf design scaled down they were told to take it or leave it.

By Glen Thompson | Updated on February 28, 2002

NEW YORK CITY-Hell’s Kitchen residents will soon have a movie studio in their neighborhood, whether they like it or not. Some don’t. Developers of the 700,000-sf Studio City project yesterday said that the project sailed through the city’s approval process “with flying colors,” but neighborhood residents who sat on Community Board Four’s Land Use Committee when the project was pitched two years ago say they voted against the plan as it was presented, insisting it was far too large for the neighborhood.

Studio City New York LLC principal Lee Tomlinson and marketing and sales head Richard Benowitz say they hope to break ground by the end of the year on the $375-million film/television production studio complex, provided they are able to secure an anchor tenant for the project and prelease a significant portion of its 400,000 sf of office space. The 92,000-sf parcel of city-owned land on 11th Avenue between 44th and 45th streets is under contract, air rights from a neighboring school have been signed over and all the necessary approvals are in place. “The Community Board and [city councilmember] Christine Quinn have been fully supportive,” says Tomlinson. “We came through with flying colors.”

But at least two former members of Community Board Four’s Land Use Committee, which advises the board on development in that part of Clinton, say the Studio City project faced stiff opposition from the start. Clinton Coalition president John Fisher and neighborhood resident Bruce Levine were both on the committee when it reviewed the Studio City proposal in late 2000. They say the committee voted to reject the development unless it was significantly scaled back. “There was substantial community concern for reducing the size and scope of the project,” says Fisher. “We didn’t want to stop them completely. We don’t have a problem with a film studio in the neighborhood, but it was too large.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:

  • Unlimited access to GlobeSt and other free ALM publications
  • Access to 15 years of GlobeSt archives
  • Your choice of GlobeSt digital newsletters and over 70 others from popular sister publications
  • 1 free article* every 30 days across the ALM subscription network
  • Exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

GlobeSt

Join GlobeSt

Don't miss crucial news and insights you need to make informed commercial real estate decisions. Join GlobeSt.com now!

  • Free unlimited access to GlobeSt.com's trusted and independent team of experts who provide commercial real estate owners, investors, developers, brokers and finance professionals with comprehensive coverage, analysis and best practices necessary to innovate and build business.
  • Exclusive discounts on ALM and GlobeSt events.
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com.

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join GlobeSt

Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.