On Monday, June 8, CFDC President Stephanie Kelemen, along with representatives of the Tribeca community, testified at the Land Use, Zoning & Economic Development (LZE) Committee of Manhattan Community Board 1.

The purpose of the meeting was to review the Environmental Impact Study draft scope of work (linked below) related to the proposed 1,000+ foot tower at Independence Plaza. As the committee explained, the “EIS is a legally required tool that analyzes the potential impacts of a major development on the natural environment, built environment and overall quality of life for nearby residents.”

Click to access Independence-Plaza_DSOW_5-4-26-1.pdf

The LZE Committee gathered feedback on the EIS, with the goal of incorporating “issues to be addressed” into the NYC City Planning Commission’s public scoping meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 25, 2-5pm (attendance details TBD). Written comments to the CPC are due by Monday, July 6.

Representatives of Vornado/Stellar did not attend to answer questions.

You can review CFDC’s testimony and a slideshow of community speakers below. (Because in-room comments were limited to a few minutes, we’ve included the full text of our testimony, submitted to the committee in writing, as well as the video.)

Full CFDC CB1 Meeting Testimony – June 8, 2026

My name is Stephanie Kelemen, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Community First Development Coalition, a Tribeca-based 501(c)(3) that advocates for thoughtful development that respects neighborhood scale, historical integrity, the environment, quality of life, and the preservation and expansion of permanently affordable housing.

We had expected the developer to be here tonight to answer questions from the community about its proposed redevelopment of Independence Plaza. We are disappointed—and frankly troubled—that the developer has decided not to appear.

This is not a minor matter. The developer has filed plans for a project that would add more than 700,000 gross square feet of new construction, demolish existing homes, and build a 1,090-foot tower on the site of a former Mitchell-Lama affordable housing complex. The filings describe this as a non-ULURP modification to the Independence Plaza Large-Scale Residential Development, but the reality is that this project would permanently transform the scale, character, and future of this part of Tribeca.

If the developer is asking the City and this community to accept one of the tallest residential towers in New York City, then the developer should be willing to sit in this room and answer questions from the people who live here.

Its absence tonight is especially concerning because the filings themselves raise serious questions.

The filings say the project would demolish 45 dwelling units. They say the project may rely on affordable housing located somewhere else. They say the affordable housing “has not yet been determined” and could be provided on-site or off-site. They say the Greenwich Street streetscape is “uninspiring” and that the cure is to replace low-rise buildings with 85- to 125-foot street walls and insert a 1,090-foot tower behind them. They say the proposed streetscape improvements include retail, sidewalk improvements, removal of arcades and vents, and relocation of a garage entrance—but the drawings also say key design elements are illustrative and subject to change.

That is not enough.

This community is being asked to accept an enormous project based on vague promises, incomplete disclosures, and an affordability story that does not withstand scrutiny. Independence Plaza was once a major source of affordable housing in Tribeca. Over time, that affordability has dwindled. The developer now wants credit for potentially creating 251 affordable units, even though those units may not be on-site and even though that number does not meaningfully account for the affordable housing that has already been lost.

The developer should not be allowed to hide behind filings and consultants. It should have to answer basic questions in public.

Questions the Developer Should Be Required to Answer

First, on affordability:

• How many affordable units existed at Independence Plaza when Stellar took the complex out of Mitchell-Lama?
• How many affordable units existed when Vornado invested in the property?
• How many affordable units exist today?
• Why do the filings appear to treat the project as creating a net affordability benefit without fully accounting for the affordable housing that has disappeared from Independence Plaza over time?
• How many affordable tenants were bought out or relocated to clear the way for this project?
• How much money was spent buying out affordable housing tenants?
• Were any tenants paid more than $1 million to leave units slated for demolition?
• The filings say 45 units will be demolished. Are those the Independence Plaza townhouses? If there are 46 townhouses, why do the filings say 45 units?
• The filings say 251 affordable units may be provided under the Universal Affordability Preference program. Will those units be on-site?
• If not, where will they be?
• Will they be in Tribeca?
• Will any affordable units be in the 1,090-foot tower itself?
• What income bands will the affordable units serve?
• How long will the affordability last?
• And why should this community accept the demolition of existing homes in a formerly affordable housing complex in exchange for affordable units that may be somewhere else?

Second, on community impact:

• What happened to the public school that previously operated at Independence Plaza?
• Why has the former school space been left vacant?
• What community facility space will be lost under this proposal?
• What will happen to the senior center during construction?
• Will the senior center remain in Tribeca?
• How will older residents and residents with health conditions be protected from dust, noise, vibration, and construction disruption over a multi-year construction period?
• What will happen to the parking garage during construction?
• Will existing residents lose access to parking?
• Will any portion of the garage be reserved for residents of the new luxury development?

Third, on construction and safety:

• The project would be built next to historic townhouses and existing residential buildings. What structural studies have been completed?
• What vibration analysis has been performed?
• What method will be used for pile driving or foundation work?
• Will the developer agree to independent engineering review funded by the developer but selected with community input?
• Will the developer commit in writing to repair any damage to neighboring historic properties caused by construction?
• What health and safety protections will be provided to residents who lived through 9/11 and may already suffer from respiratory or other chronic conditions?
• What will the developer do to make sure current residents feel safe in their homes during years of demolition and construction?

Fourth, on parks, shadows, and the environment:

• The project is adjacent to Washington Market Park and near Hudson River Park. What shadow impacts will the 1,090-foot tower have on those public spaces?
• How will the developer study the impact on park users, trees, plantings, and public open space?
• Will the shadow analysis include Hudson River Park and the Hudson River?
• Will the developer study potential effects on marine life and waterfront ecology?
• This is a notoriously windy corridor due to the existing structures.  What studies will be done to assess the impact on wind from adding a tower to the area?

Fifth, on scale and public review:

• Why is a 1,090-foot tower being treated as a non-ULURP modification?
• Why should a project of this magnitude proceed without a City Council vote?
• Why should it proceed without the full public review that would normally accompany a project of this scale?
• The existing Independence Plaza towers are already among the tallest buildings in the immediate area. This new tower would be more than twice their height. How is that compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?
• The filings claim the tower is consistent with the context of Lower Manhattan, but this site is also next to Washington Market Park, historic townhouses, existing residential buildings, and BMCC. Why is the relevant context being defined so broadly when the impacts will be felt so locally?

Sixth, on Vornado’s broader plans for Tribeca:

• Is this project the beginning of a larger Vornado strategy in Tribeca?
• What other properties has Vornado acquired or explored in the surrounding area?
• Has Vornado considered additional residential development near BMCC or on nearby sites?
• Can Vornado commit that this is not the first step in turning Tribeca into the next Billionaires’ Row?
• And if Vornado is not willing to answer those questions tonight, then the Community Board should not treat its filings as a sufficient basis to move forward.

Closing

Based on what we know today, CFDC does not support this project.

We do not support demolishing homes in a formerly affordable housing complex to make way for an ultra-luxury tower. We do not support using the promise of affordable housing when those units may be built somewhere else, may not meaningfully replace what has already been lost, and may not be available to the community bearing the burden of the development. We do not support treating one of the tallest towers in New York City as a technical modification that can avoid the full public review this project plainly deserves.

And we are fearful about what Vornado wants to do to this community.

Independence Plaza was once a major source of affordable housing in Tribeca. Over time, that affordability has been allowed to disappear. Tenants have been bought out. A public school has left. Community space has sat vacant. The complex is being rebranded and repositioned for the luxury market. And now the developers are proposing a 1,090-foot tower that would permanently change the scale, character, and future of this neighborhood.

The community is being asked to accept this as progress because the developer says it will improve the streetscape. But retail, plantings, and a more polished sidewalk are not a fair trade for the loss of affordable housing, the demolition of existing homes, years of disruptive construction, risks to neighboring landmarks and residents, and the transformation of a once-affordable complex into a luxury enclave.

This is not just about one building. It is about whether Tribeca will remain a real neighborhood with long-term residents, families, seniors, schools, parks, and public life—or whether it will be treated as a development frontier for some of the most powerful real estate interests in the city.

So, we respectfully ask Community Board 1 to take the following position:

• The developer should be required to appear publicly before this Board and answer questions directly.
• The Board should request a full written response to the questions raised tonight.
• The Board should oppose any effort to treat this as a minor or technical modification.
• The Board should call for full public review, binding on-site affordability commitments, real protections for existing residents, independent construction and landmark-safety oversight, and a transparent accounting of the affordable housing and community assets that have already been lost.

Until those answers are provided, this project should not move forward. And the developer’s decision not to appear tonight only underscores why this community needs stronger oversight, not less.