Lee Edelman:
    My name is Lee Edelman, a resident of the Island for over eight years.  I don't really want to comment on your plan, but I do want to comment on the whole concept of the project, and being that often in meetings of this sort if I speak extemporaneously, afterwards I've forgotten things that I would love to have said, and I want to kick myself.  As a result, I've prepared something so I'll be sure I cover all the points that I desire to cover.
    To discuss the merits...

[Prepared remarks to be added when available]

Bruce Becker:
    I'd be curious to get some clarification on some of your thoughts.  Is it your feeling that there would be another type of development that would be more appropriate than a residential or do you feel that the best future for that area would be just to restore the park and the building and leave it at that?

Edelman:
    Couple things I want to say.  One is: As I read the original intent it was to redevelop the Octagon building perhaps with some additions, into an ecological urban study center, which schoolchildren, perhaps with a museum, would utilize.  It would be utilized by the community on RI and the surrounding area.  You see, as I see it, to develop residential housing here, it's so separate, so far from the rest of the community, and especially the type of housing that's being proposed, that it's everything that I said here, and I can see clearly the hand of RIOC behind where... in deference to you and a more positive impression I've gotten from what I've seen here, I can see clearly the hand of RIOC in pushing you in the direction you have gone.  Obviously, RIOC asked you to maximize profits, and maximize concentration, so I think personally the major fault is laid on RIOC's step.

Becker:
    I know their goal is to try to make the Island self- sustaining.  We are trying to respond to an invitation that they published.  I guess one thought would be if we were able to incorporate an ecological urban-study center into the plan, would that make it any more acceptable?

Edelman:
    From my view, any residential development there is uncalled for, and I should add that the GDP clearly states that the acreage between Coler Hospital and Northtown is to be parkland.

Becker:
    When the GDP was drafted the wings of that building existed where the wings that we designed would exist.

Edelman:
    Yes, but the GDP clearly stated there would be open- space parkland.  The only reference to usage was an ecological park and study center, no residential development.  I think it's clear from the GDP.

A Becker Associate:
    [UNINT]...was a 20-something story building, and we're proposing a building that's significantly smaller than that.

Edelman:
    Well, as I said before, that begs the question.  You know, that's like saying we're not going to give you a fire, we're only going to give you a frying pan.  It just doesn't fit on Roosevelt Island.

Becker:
    I'm curious to know if this feeling about not having any development on the site is something that everyone shares or is there someone that feels that there's some merit in the proposal?

Margie Smith:
    I think we all feel the same.  We all want something there.  We don't want to leave it in ruins.  I think the work you do with buildings is great.  I spend a lot of time in Hartford and I think it's terrific, but it was never meant to be a residential site.  When you talked about adhering to the spirit of the GDP... the GDP says there's a basic program: There's going to be a new community.  The new community will be developed in two areas, Southtown and Northtown.  We've got Northtown, we may or may not have Southtown, and open related space to be developed as parks.
    Now I know, technically, there was a foundation there and that wasn't the intent of the GDP, to put a residential building there.

Becker:
    More than a foundation, there was a four-story building where those wings were.

Smith:
    But they were ruins.  They weren't meant to be...  If they wanted a residential housing there they would have said three areas, Northtown, Southtown, and Octagon.  But they clearly defined Octagon as the space between Coler and Northtown, and they clearly said that Octagon Park, approximately 25 acres, of which we already lost plenty for Manhattan Park, is to be developed as a park.  I don't know how you get any clearer than that.  I think your work is great and if we wanted to hire a firm to come in and put some new residential buildings on a landmark, you'd be the guys, and we hate to fight you but we've got a GDP that we need to protect.  If you came in and said, "We're going to try to get an amendment to the GDP," and you did that, we'd hate it but we could at least understand it, but we can't let you just...

Becker:
    You know, I wonder if it's a point that could be researched, because I know the GDP does call for the restoration of landmarks.  I wonder if we could do some research and actually talk to the people that originally drafted it and get a reading from them as to what the intent was.

Smith:
    Philip Johnson, still alive and well, I'm sure he'll talk to you.

Becker:
    He lives in the same town that our office is in.

Smith:
    Yes, and he's right over in Manhattan.  He goes to work every day and I'm sure he'd love to talk to you about it.

Becker:
    If we got a letter from him that clarified his intent, would that be of any use?

Smith:
    That would help.  I'm not saying that would do it, but... also, I don't want you to take the attendance level here tonight as an indication that people like this and are OK with it.  Take it as an indication that they are so used to what RIOC does and the way they work, it's an old movie.  RIOC wants to do something, they make believe we're going to have some input, they ignore us, they do what they want to do, people are getting tired of showing up, so...  Sorry you got caught in the middle of this.

Judy Berdy:
    I have seen a few proposals that the former RIOC administration, namely Alice Russo, who was their planner, did for the Octagon.  Nothing was ever fundable.  They were very nice plans, they were imaginative, creative, but there's no one around to fund an ecological museum or something in a building that is so, so tiny.  The Octagon structure itself will not support very much because it is a very small tower.  It is what's remaining of what was really an entrance hall, so of course, I would love to see it a park, but at this time I personally think that something could be added to it on the basic footprint, at a lower height, that is compatible with what was there, is compatible with the building's architectural significance.  Could you go back to the 1980 picture?
    That is how the Octagon should look.  And in today's floor heights, I'm sure a six-story building (This is a four-story, probably had 10 or 15-foot ceilings) would be much more amenable to me than the eight-story.  The eight-story overwhelms the tower.  If you were to reconstruct the tower at this height, it just absolutely overwhelms it; it does not do justice to it.  This is the silhouette of the building that should be reconstructed.

...to put 350 units into this at eight stories is really cramming in a lot of units in a small space.  There's also a problem with the number of units because you do not bring families to Roosevelt Island.  Mostly, 33% studios, 60 percent one- bedrooms, and about 6 percent two-bedrooms?  That is bringing single people.  That is not bringing families. -Judy Berdy

I realize that people have put... various people say various other people have done this, but to put 350 units into this at eight stories is really cramming in a lot of units in a small space.  There's also a problem with the number of units because you do not bring families to Roosevelt Island.  Mostly, 33% studios, 60 percent one-bedrooms, and about 6 percent two-bedrooms?  That is bringing single people.  That is not bringing families.  That's not bring children.  That's not bringing people that are interested in our community.  You...  I know the biomedical people would love to have this.  It could be another biomedical dorm, as long as they do not do their experimenting in the house.  (You heard about the woman who found nuclear stuff by her house?) It does not contribute to the community.  It would be an isolated building away from everything because there would be no one up there using the services of the community.  It has to be made smaller, many, many more larger apartments.  More two's, maybe a few three's.  The Island is already getting a building from Memorial Sloan Kettering of two hundred some apartments, and a hundred and some apartments from New York Hospital, at Southtown.  It's very nice to be the breeding ground for the future medical personnel of America, but I really do not think the Octagon is the right place to stick all these single people, up there, and it's going to be isolated enough, and if you don't have families up there, what is this?  It's going to be something just for certain people to go to.  The building itself would not be in the community.  It's hard enough to get the people who live in Manhattan Park into the community, and they only live a few hundred feet from us.  This is a few hundred feet farther.
    Also...  Go back to your... just go ahead a few slides...  That is the road to Coler Hospital, the road leading to the river, where it says "waterfront promenade." Is there an entrance or something?  There is a building entrance there, and there is no way...

Becker:
    Actually, this is the waterfront promenade here...

Berdy:
    Right.

Becker:
    ...and this is an existing road.

Berdy:
    Right...  Because that's a one-and-a-half lane street at the moment.  Another traffic problem.  And the building entrances are on the one-and-a-half-lane street, with no parking... a very limited traffic negotiation there.  Also, when you go up to Coler Hospital, you must turn around and go back down because you cannot go around your site, if you know what I mean.

Becker:
    Actually, just to follow through on the traffic lane, this road exists now to this point.  We would be creating a drop-off here.  There would be parking in front of the building.  There also would be parking below the building.  There would be access underneath each wing.

Berdy:
    In simple words, you're putting in a garage?

Becker:
    Yes, under the footprint of the building.

[UNINT COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE]

Berdy:
    Well, we don't want cars, but unfortunately people do have to drop things off and cars have to go somewhere.  Also, you need trash removal and service area.

Becker:
    We have budgeted for extension of the AVAC system.

Berdy:
    But what about, you know that stuff, the recycling and all that stuff that has to go out?  Most of our buildings we just built without any site in them.  In those days you didn't need recycling areas.  I don't know where you would put your services, which end up being a big eyesore in many buildings because they're not fully planned out in advance.
    And my other concern is that you have west waterfront promenade.  There's nothing there, or something would have to be worked up.  That part of the promenade just south of your site is where the water tunnel site is, was never technically finished.  It's just blacktopped.  It's not finished.  Is there any way that you could work with the Island to finish the promenade, because you showed all the beautiful waterfront communities you've worked on in other cities, and here we are the greatest waterfront... 100% waterfront community in the world and we don't do a damn thing with our water. You read about the new pier on the West Side by the Trump buildings – how beautiful it is going out into the river.  We're Roosevelt Island.  We're an island.  We have nothing.  No one has shown us anything by the water to enhance your project, to... give us some more of our water character.

Becker:
    And one of the things we're interested in exploring is ferry service to the dock that exists there.

Berdy:
    We've had a lot of ferry tales here.  We'll leave it at that.  I thank you for your time, and I know you're working hard on this.  And a lot of the questions, we point to you, but they're really questions for RIOC, and we hope Mr. Antonek takes them home tonight and tells his superiors tomorrow because people are always [UNINT] on the developers – any project here, whereas it's RIOC who should be up here answering a lot of our questions.  But as to the development, I'd like to see the best it can be.

Becker:
Let me ask you this.  I know there's been some discussion of units for families.  It's interesting that so many of the communities we work in, there's opposition to that, because of burdening the school system and the taxes and what-not.  But is that sort of universally felt here – that there's a preference to have more kids and larger families?

Berdy:
    Yes.  This is a family community.  It's a residential family community.  That's why we don't want lots of single people who don't use the facilities of the community.  Of course, we will then have to scream to get another school built, hopefully.

Becker:
    I should mention, we're flexible on the size of the units, and this is important for us to hear.  One of the things we might do, too, with respect to the view of the Octagon as it looked at the turn of the century, is we could develop a perspective of different design studies from that same position so we'd see that photograph.  My sense is that massing is appealing and if we can try to design around that perspective we will be more successful.

Jose Baca:
    My name is Jose Baca.  I live on Roosevelt Island and one of my concerns is how go to be done the construction.  We have only one access, it's called Main Street, but it's not a main street at all, it's a very narrow place to move... probably going to use the bridge to connect to Queens.  ...  But probably everybody living here going to bring some automobiles, and then during the day, going to be a big mess of traffic.
    Number 2, all the garbage, salt and [UNINT] going to be another problem, too.
    Second, one of my concerns, too, is the trees around the Octagon are very old and very pretty.  If they going to destroy it, going to be a big loss for us.  If they are able to construct, picking up the trees and replace it without loss, that can be great benefit for the community.
    Another possibility, I don't know it's allowed or not, but they construct piers to all the materials come from the big transportation tube, they can save a lot of complications, number one.  Number two, if the piers stay there after the construction, it's a fast way to reach Manhattan for the people who live and work in those buildings.  ...
    Don't make too-high buildings, because it's one of the things that are the other projects are going to create a monster, 26 and 21 stories.  The Island going to disappear, look like a big [UNINT] destroying the Island.  A principal asset of the Island are the green areas, the open areas.  And we have an easy life because we are not too much residents, we can walk free in front of the river and we are in contact with the river.
    Sometime the previous constructions, they were not very smart because they block the view of the river, and we are like in a alley to we have only time to time the view of the river, only the people who live on the west side to have the benefit of the river.  The people who live on the east side, we have only the view of our buildings.  It [does] not make sense...
    Thank you very much.  I hope everything will come out well for everybody, not only the money-maker people.  If you do the things right, you can take with love what can be taken by force.

Jeff Hochman:
    Hello, my name is Jeffrey Hochman.  I think I talked to you in the RIRA presentation.  You must understand that Roosevelt Island is and has been and will remain a planned community.  The current administration does not want to continue the planned community essence which is the basis of this Island.  If you look at the history of planned communities around this country, once the buildings that were built did not continue in the planning area, these communities ended.  They just became one part of a big maze of the city and their character had ended and eroded.  That's number one.
    Number two, when you look at this area, we had expected development in Northtown, which we have, and development in Southtown, which we have.  And to have open space between the hospitals and at the north point and south point.  When you take this away what you're doing is making the Island much more built up.  Keep in mind, that any area you go to in Queens or Manhattan, you can keep walking until you find a park.  We only have an Island, and every building built here has a gigantic impact here, more than you would have in any part of the City.
    Number three, this building that you want to have, I understand the quality of the plans and the drawings, which seem to be a very high quality, but I do agree with what other people have said that the wings should not as higher or higher than the Octagon building itself, if the plans are built.
    But I want to add, if you built the residential building here, I want to add onto what other people have said.  What are the people who live here in these buildings going to do with the people who live in Southtown and Northtown?  How are they going to live?  Where are they going to shop.  How are they going to drive through.  You're going to have a parking underneath the building.  If you look at the plans you notice that this Island was not supposed to have any cars at all.  Then the hospitals were able to bring their cars in, because a lot of people did not want to park in the big building and after that, we have cars all over the place, everywhere.  We have cars parked in areas that they shouldn't be.  It's more difficult to walk down the street now.
    I want to emphasize very well that every part of the area now in Roosevelt Island is planned for complete access by anybody on the Island.  Whatever you do, this doesn't sound like it's going to have access for everybody on the Island.  You will have some private areas for people who live there, and this Island will not be the same.
    Finally, I want to continue what Judy Berdy said.  If you continue with what they want to do in Southtown, our Island is going to be overwhelmed by hospital workers.  I have no problem with hospital workers.  But they are temporary people, even doctors and nurses who stay here for one or two years.  We know this Island began as an Island of hospitals.  We don't want it to end the same way.
    Thank you.

Becker:
    Just to clarify, we're aren't intending of us to have any of the open space reserved for private use.  It would be a park that would be as successful as any park.  Also, the area right now is largely visible.  I think we probably would be increasing, probably 400%, the area of parkland that actually is available and useable.  And we also see that park as an area that would foster interaction of the residents throughout the Island and we are very interested in having families and revisiting the mix of apartments so we could address that objective.  Thank you for your thoughts.

Linda Heimer:
    My name is Linda Heimer.  I'm a 20-year resident, and I think some of the developments you've shown us look impressive, and you seem like very nice folks, but with all due respect, I've been through this before with other developers, several of them, specifically Southtown, which I'd like to talk about.  They and RIOC pretend to listen, but we're really not heard.  The community has been ignored for the most part.  We've been told over and over again, "Nothing is written in stone, you will be consulted at every important juncture." We haven't even seen schematics, not one drawing, and they've broken ground.
    So we have learned to judge developers and RIOC by their actions and what they put in contracts and in writing and not by their words at meetings like this.  Unfortunately, as someone else said before, unfortunately you are bearing the burden of years of us being ignored and this is the result.  We used to have 100 people at a meeting like this, then it was 80, then a handful.  So...
    I happen to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit on Southtown. to stop the current plan.  Because we felt that was our only recourse.  The GDP is being violated, and we feel that parts of this plan will also be violating the GDP.  It is our only zoning; we don't have City zoning here, and if we allow the GDP to be violated, it can be violated with all other development, even worse, the Marriott, at Southpoint, which, I know very few people want.
    We don't want this to be a commercial Island.  It's a planned community for families and residents.  So my question to you this evening is: Is this a pro-forma presentation so you can fill out a box on some form saying we made a presentation to the community, or are you going to really listen to us and take in some of what we're saying and work with us as to what we would like there?
    I personally, because I'm involved in this lawsuit, feel no violation of the GDP should be allowed at all.  Therefore, I don't think there should be any residential building there. 

...no violation of the GDP should be allowed at all.  Therefore, I don't think there should be any residential building there. -Linda Heimer

I think you should have some kind of a museum or a laboratory, a research center, ecological park like it was meant to be, etc.  If RIOC insists on this, because they've been breaking the law for years now, then will you really listen to us as far as family composition and all the rest of it?  The Southtown developers just last week said, "If you want to see the color of the building, go down to Battery Park City." Couldn't even show us a picture.  I mean, it's really pathetic what RIOC expects us to live with as a community...  you know, again, formal presentations and then it's not heard.
    They were going to barge in materials.  No more.  It's too expensive.  They were going to replace Z-bricks when they destroy Main Street.  No, not going to do that.  We're not going to take down any trees; they've taken down several already.  Etcetera.  We don't judge them by what they say at presentations like this.  We judge them by their actions.  And unfortunately, as I said – you seem like really nice folks – I like your plans and your background more than any other development that has been presented on the Island anywhere – the minischools, we have eldercare, there have been all kinds of developers here.  But, you know, this is not what the intent of the community was supposed to be.  I do hope you'll talk to Ed Logue and others of us who know what that is.  We've pored over the GDP, we know what they wanted, and I really hope you'll take it into consideration.

Becker:
    I appreciate your sentiments and I can only tell you that I am sincere.  We are known for our community-based planning.  There was only one award given out this past year for sensitivity to community values in development, and our firm received that award, nationally.  So we're proud of that and we wouldn't be, here, wouldn't be in this business if, at least I wouldn't be if I weren't sincere about it.  As far as having access to information, we look at this as a totally open process.  If someone would like us to send them copies or any of the documentation that we've developed, give me your name and we'll send it to you.  People are welcome to come to our office; we'll come and meet with you.  We're trying to set up a meeting with the Planning Subcommittee for RIRA to go into more detail about the plans, but I am personally not going to be satisfied with this project if it doesn't genuinely respond to what the community's looking for here.

Heimer:
    Well, that's good to hear, but now that you've heard what at least some of us in the community feel, will you accept final designation next month if RIOC offers it to you under these conditions?

Becker:
    We certainly are going to be exploring latitude on having larger units.  I don't believe that RIOC has a strong position about unit size, so we can certainly explore that.  We also are not committed to working with hospital

We also are not committed to working with hospital population.  That was something that was suggested and it certainly is something that we're willing to work with, but we certainly can develop a family- oriented project here. -Bruce Becker

population.  That was something that was suggested and it certainly is something that we're willing to work with, but we certainly can develop a family-oriented project here.  For us to be able to be successful there has to be an economic basis for what we do.  So we couldn't just develop the park and restore the building.  But we are very creative at coming up with solutions that...

Heimer:
    What about a research center?  What about a museum that you can...  I don't know if you manage your buildings after you build them.  But there could be foundations or other entities that would give money toward that and you would be the ones that would build it.  I mean, I realize it wouldn't bring back the same return on investment.  However, that's not what this community is about, but unfortunately, that's what RIOC is about.  All they care about is the bottom line.  Someone in RIOC suggested you build 28 stories, didn't they?  They wanted a 28-story building there.  That's all they care about.  We don't.  This is our community, this is our home.  We want it to be consistent with the original plans and with what we would like on our Island.

Becker:
    I think our challenge is to come up with something that is a balanced solution to needs – that balances public needs, and yet is also something that, in the absence of significant public support for this, in terms of dollars, we have to come up with a clever way of meeting the objectives of creating a park there that hasn't existed, and also restoring that building, both of which are mandates from the GDP.  Now, it would be one thing, if there was a check for $20 million from Albany to facilitate that, but it doesn't seem likely, so we are pragmatists.  All of our planned solutions tend to balance different objectives.  But the only feasible plan we can come up with is one that can support itself.  I feel that there's potential to improve the Island with this project, but I want to continue the dialog and I want anyone to call, write, or visit with us, or to attend the planning session that we're going to schedule.  I don't know that there's a firm date, but we're...

Audience member:
    January 22nd

Becker:
    January 22nd?  So Monday at six o'clock we'll be here, again, to go over the details.

Heimer:
    Thank you very much.

Jim Tendean-Luce:
    Just to sort of serve as the amen choir to what my neighbors have said.  My name is Jim Tendean-Luce, and I just wanted to say again as everyone has said, the GDP really is our zoning here on the Island.  It's our vision, and it's a vision of community.  I think community is the most important thing that we have here on Roosevelt Island.  It's the reason that I moved here and my family moved here, is to have a community, to know your neighbors, to do your shopping, to go to a school that you know.  It's very, very, very important.
    I think the biggest problem that I have with the plan, as wonderful as aspects of it might be, that it doesn't really support community.  I see it rather as a high-end dormitory for medical transients, and that's very, very troublesome to me.  I think there's a need for fewer studios, a need for more stable population, and a need to integrate the complex into the Roosevelt Island community on a larger scale.
    So my question to you that I'd like to pose is if you could rework the population [UNINT]...  If you could do that you would find more community support.  Thank you.

Becker:
    I guess here's a question that I have.  In addition to changing the mix of units and having more family units, is there another way to integrate the building and the population into the larger community here?  What sort of public spaces, public uses, would facilitate that integration.  We had talked about a center for ecological studies.  Would having some sort of a pre-school or an education component make the project better-integrated?  Is there a...  having a cafe, or a...  Is there a use, a public use, that would make the site more a part and more accessible?  ...  Obviously, right now it really isn't accessible... there isn't even 10% of that land that you could probably walk on.  We'd look at the issues and some guidance as to what could be done in that three-acre parcel to draw people from the Island to it, to foster the interaction that you're so interested in.

Berdy:
    Well, as you know, the little picnic park that is there now... the only reason that it was even built is that there was a man, Mr. Harold Rupel, who went up there and made half of what's there now... he started cleaning away the debris and trash and over the years built picnic areas and barbecues...  But that was the only park that we had on this Island that was built by a resident, that we had any control over.  People just went up there, probably with no one's permission, and just did it.  You know, we're like puppets here, you have to get a permit to do anything.  So the most important thing is to maintain the picnic park, or put in some facilities... you know that curse, restrooms, that every developer [UNINT]... because there's no way to go to the bathroom there unless you go to the hospital.  It's a long walk.  Also, as you said, vendors, a cafe, community room inside the building.  The best way to get people into the building, to use it, is have one or two very attractive community rooms for people to have functions in, to have meetings in, and then bring...  If you have a meeting there, you're going to go and say, "Oh, what a nice place," and it will bring people into buildings.
    Manhattan Park does not have that in their buildings, so there's no reason to go into it...

Becker:
    In Norwich, we are restoring a historic ballroom and banquet hall.  There will also be a restaurant in the building, public restaurant, that will share a kitchen.  So conceivably we could have a public space that could be rented out for functions.

Berdy:
    You could have a dining room.

Becker:
    We could have a dining room; we could have a... in fact, just so you know, the entire Octagon building is not really programmed yet.  There are no housing units in there, and we have anticipated a museum, a gallery, perhaps a center for ecological studies in there, and are very much committed...

[Pause for disc change]

Bruce Becker:
    I think it's very hard to fit existing affordable financial programs into what we're doing.  Realistically, we don't know if there are any State subsidies available for housing.  We'd certainly be open to exploring that possibility.

Matthew Katz:
    Clearly the kind of HUD financing that was available for Manhattan Park no longer exists.  But even with Southtown the proposal is that there will be a 60-40 split between fair market and subsidized housing, and this is projecting into the future so it's something that I would urge you to consider.
    People have spoken eloquently about the importance of he General Development Plan here on Roosevelt Island.  We feel it is what protects us between total exploitation of the Island, given that there is no other kind of zoning available to us with our unique situation as a planned community owned by the City, leased to the State.
    We all feel this is a document which has the force of law, given that it is part of the Master Lease.  We feel that RIOC was cognizant of this once upon a time.  Ten years ago they went to the Board of Estimate to get an amendment to the GDP.  Since then, with the demise of the Board of Estimate, their attitude seems to have softened somewhat.  We've heard their special counsel describe the GDP as a general guideline without the force of law.  There are now suits on the Island to refute that contention.  I would urge you to comply with its requirements.  If amendments are required, get the amendments.  You will be breaking new ground, it's true, no one has gotten an amendment to our GDP since the last Charter Convention, so you'll be inventors.

Becker:
    Our intention is to comply with the GDP and to get an amendment or verification wherever that will be necessary.  It is a little bit ambiguous, from our research.  We also interested in... there's been a lot of consideration of the GDP and how it is to be amended.

Becker & Becker Attorney:
    We have had some preliminary discussions with RIOC.  There's talk of a major amendment or a minor amendment.  We think we could at the end of the day seek some kind of amendment or clarification.  I frankly think the GDP is not as specific... it is not as clear as I would like as a lawyer as to what's permitted and what's not permitted in certain areas of the Island...

Katz:
    I appreciate that and I would urge you to seek counsel from some of the public officials who have been part of the process much longer than anybody at the current RIOC: People like Pete Grannis, people like Gifford Miller.  They have much more information about this and I think are much more fair-minded about the ramifications of the GDP than anybody at RIOC at present.  I would suggest speaking to them.  ...  Our public officials have a great deal of knowledge.  What they don't have is a great deal of access to the process, given that all of the decision-making on the Island, both operational and development questions, are made by an appointed organization appointed by one man.  This has made the residents of this Island a little prickly because we do not have the kind of access to the decision-making here that other residents of other small communities have.

...

Margie Smith:
    You wanted some recommendations.  How about scrapping the residential housing?  The Guggenheim took a look at the other end of the Island and they considered using that for a museum.  Unfortunately downtown won out.  But the Metropolitan can't expand into Central Park, and they're apparently looking for expansion.  The Botanical Gardens would have a perfect place for an annex.  Waterford Park Coalition could give you a million ideas.  The Parks Council could give you a million ideas.  We'd be very happy to work with you to try to come up with an alternative plan.  We'd love to see you guys get whatever development there is, and we'd love to have it be a lot closer to the GDP than residential housing.  We're really not trying to give you guys a hard time.  Unfortunately...

Becker:
    do you think that having a museum is a clearer conformity than having residential housing on the site...

Smith:
    I think it's closer.  It's supposed to be open space, and it should be open space.  I'm talking about something like the Botanical Gardens, or some kind of an annex like that where at least it would be open to public use for everybody, which is more the intent.  When they say a park...  You know, there's a carousel in Central Park.  Technically, that's not grass, but it's something that everybody can use and everybody can take part in.  And the public areas are supposed to be open for the people in the City, not just the people on Roosevelt Island, and this gets us a little bit closer.

Becker:
    So more of the ground floor that would be publicly- oriented would be better.

Smith:
    No, I didn't mean "ground floor." I meant "no residential housing." Thanks.

Nurit Marcus:
    My name is Nurit Marcus, and I've lived here for 18 years.  With all due respect, my issue is not about 8 floors or 6 floors or the size of the park and so forth.  I came here into this planned community which enabled me to actually use this area.  I jog there every day when RIOC does clear the snow and the ice.  If I wanted to go and look for traffic and noise and buildings I can just go to Manhattan and get it there.  So for me it's very special to have nothing there, to maintain the open space.  It's such a luxury, and I know what I've got.  I really know what I have here.  It's a very special place.
    And I would like to ask you: Considering what you heard here tonight about the GDP and the open space, and my personal view is that I would really like to maintain it as a wild... and maybe it's going to be a nature's habitat... maybe it could be a research center, maybe it could be some bird-zoned area, something somebody can use for that kind of a purpose.  It is a possibility.
    Would you be able to go back to RIOC, which I feel badly that I'm actually contacting you about that.  I should be talking to them, but they put you in front of me.  So I'm asking if you would go back and, based on what you heard here tonight, tell them that you are going to withdraw the residential proposal for something else with an open space which is much more... ground use, animal use, ecological park use... something of that sort.  But would you be able to go back to them and say with all integrity really affects you and you're not going to do those residential buildings because it wasn't meant to be there?

Becker:
    I think what I could do is I could certainly report on all the comments which clearly are negative about residential uses there.  One of the things you have to recognize is that we've been working for close to 3 years here, and while we're passionate about preservation and meeting community needs, if we're to pursue this further we need to have some sort of a designation.  I would be willing to commit, if we are designated as the developer for this site, to pursue a change of our concept if we can find funding for it.  Obviously there would be little point in our proceeding with a plan that can't be realized because the sort of purely public uses you're really looking for require public dollars.  There may some grants available from Albany for that...  I know that there's a small grant that is being pursued for part of the improvement of the park.

Marcus:
    [UNINT (off-mike)]

Becker:
    We're very resourceful.  If there's another feasible way that the property can be developed where there are some identifiable sources, we're more than willing to be flexible.  But right now we don't have any [UNINT] until we get designated.  I don't believe that we would be designated if we didn't have some sort of economically viable plan to start with.  But we're more than willing to revise that if we can find other sources of funding to be more oriented to public uses.  We've dealt with the Museum of Modern Art, [UNINT] with the Metropolitan... We have some relationships we can pursue there, but my sense is that that would be challenging...  I would certainly make the commitment to pursue it.

Judy Berdy:
    I'm looking at this plan.  Something's the matter.  You're asking us what we want.  What is the building to the north?  Coler Hospital.  1000 beds, long-term residential hospital.  Have you been in the hospital?  Have you spoken to Mr. Lehrfeld, the Director?  They are the people who will be walking by.  there's over a thousand staff that come and go there every day.  In fact, that big area adjoining your building on the west used to be grass.  It's now a parking lot.  They paved over all their lawns on the corners and put in parking lots, so it's not very attractive.  They are the ones that would probably say, more, what they would like up there, because they're the ones that are going to be there every single day.  The staff walks by there.  They will finally have a bus stop for their minibus that will be close to the hospital.  It's a long schlep when they get off opposite the Fire House to walk up to the hospital.  I really think that it's nice for us to think about all the things that we would like there, and maybe we'll go there once or twice a year.  But I know as a volunteer at the hospital, there are a thousand people who go there every day.  There are staff there who have nowhere... they want to go somewhere to buy something at lunch time, there's nowhere to go...

Becker:
    And who should we contact there?

Berdy:
    Sam Lehrfeld.  He's the executive director.  And I really think that this is so close to their property, and their property is really their property, they can do anything they want with their land, that they should be consulted.  It's not fair for us to tell...  They are the ones that would probably say, "Hey, it would be great if you could do this, because it is there.  They have been looking at this eyesore since...

Becker:
    Well, they have a thousand employees and we want to have a cafe, they are the obvious market...

Berdy:
    Right.  they are the market because they really have nothing inside the hospital that attracts their staff, and a lot of patients are ambulatory, and people want to go out.  There's no place for them to go.  The Lighthouse is isolated.  People don't need to be isolated, and I think they are the people who should be consulted on what amenities, in addition to...

Becker:
    I will definitely contact them and maybe we can set up a meeting because I think maybe we could learn a lot from them...

Shirley Margolin:
    I think you've heard from everyone in the community and I think it's all been very constructive and positive.  ...  You recall the point that I would like to make, and that is affordable housing...  We keep reiterating the same thing all the time.  Please remember.  This is a community that was blessed with a wonderful concept.  that concept was that it was to be affordable housing for all people, and I think once you attempt to go beyond that contract with all of us, the GDP that you've heard mentioned tonight, we get, we are very uncomfortable.  ...

Becker:
    I thank you, and if we get site control, we will pursue that as an option.

Eric Stocker [sp?]:
    My name is Eric Stocker, I'm a resident on the Island.  And I have quite a different perspective than my neighbors do.  Quite literally, I [UNINT (off-mike)] ... the Octagon, but I approach this with a background in architecture and architectural history [UNINT] historic preservation field, and I'm well aware of the economic factors that are present here.  But I must say that my concerns really are aesthetic.  You could tell me you were going to build a prison there for child molesters and that would be fine with me if it looked good.  But I am very disturbed by its look, I must tell you that.  I think to have those two wings rise above the roof level of the Octagon is most unfortunate.  I think restoring that cupola [UNINT] most unfortunate things that have happened to the Octagon towers itself.  Now that we've been blessed by a fire that destroyed it, why not return it to its original crenelated form.  I am fortunate enough to have the Currier & Ives 1862 view of that which I can look out my window and see, and can also look out and see that nice crenelated tower.
    I do have some questions of you, though.  And that is to what extent any of these designs have been passed on or seen by the Landmarks Commission, the Municipal Arts Society, people of that nature [UNINT]... changed apartments in the same floor [UNINT]... and the architecture or designer that we hired [UNINT] has not been to Roosevelt Island since...  [UNINT] I think, and I'm speaking now for people who don't live on Roosevelt Island, that the interest that's going to be generated...

[END OF RECORDING]