it’s a rock.
let’s face it, this planet will eventually look like the Death-Star. I’m all for it!
4
The old adage fits, “if you want to control what’s done on property, it’s best to own it”.
10
I support the efforts to develop this lot and hope it can eventually include housing.
All those people posting here that it should be made into a park never bought the lot themselves when they had the chance. Presumably they already own a house too. Let's build more housing that this city needs.
4
A rpck of Ages - taking no notice of man and his petty bickering and self-serving strivings; let it, its birds and other small creatures and plants stay and stand as a testament to the folly of man, all the while reminding the humans that they, and their condos too, shall pass.
30
You can only place so much of the blame on developers for wanting to build on every square foot of the city. Most of the blame rests of the shoulders of the city officials who allow it to happen with no thought of how it will change the character and quality of the neighborhood or whether or not Manhattan really needs one more expensive address.
It's sad to think that the city or the co-op could have purchased the land for pennies, instead of a company who flipped it to a developer for a quick buck.
32
It is too bad that the developer didn't get better legal advice. Adverse possession has to be adverse. All the developer had to do is give the co-op written permission to plant on his property. What a shame!
16
How about Landmarking the Rock?
26
@Tom How about building some well-needed housing?
2
Why don’t they swap lots?
3
This is a great quintessential NYT story, the kind of article I relish as an exiled New Yorker. Any chance to preserve the native geology of NYC should be seized. The city should declare eminent domain and convert the double lot to a park that can be protected by covenants but still allow the neighbors full access and use. This is a no brainer.
52
@malabar
You're suggesting that the most densely populated city in America, in the midst of a housing shortage, should rob a lot from a developer who could build actual housing on it and instead let no one ever develop it? Far from being a "no brainer", your suggestion boggles the mind.
3
@20002
Rather than a housing shortage, think of it as a tenant overage.
24
There is loads of high priced housing being erected in midtown, we need protections from developers. We actually don’t need every square inch of this city filled in, we need to leave a little space for all of earths creatures too
38
Really, does everything have to be developed for a quick profit? The city government should do the right thing and buy it as a park or open space. More condos? No, thanks.
42
@CP
More condo, yes please. Some of us actually rent in the city on a working salary and would appreciate the opportunity for additional housing.
4
A word from Washington Heights. We have had at least three projects attempted over our rocks in the past decade or two. All fail. The money dries up. And you will be left with a rock again. Even in the hottest of markets no one can make these things work.
28
I know that rock. Don’t let it go of it. Once it’s gone it’s gone for good.
41
There are two articles in the last few days about disappearing birds in this country. Nature always gets sacrificed for a buck. Westerners complain that "eastern liberals" want them to give up land and take predators on so they can come out for a couple of days to drive around and look at the pretty scenery. Well, this is your chance "eastern liberals". Cough it up. Condemn, tax, but whatever you do, save a small piece of the natural world. It's good for you, it's good for nature. It's also the right thing to do in a world that is fast going under to development. If Idaho can preserve a couple million acres, you should be saving 30' of boulder.
49
Designate it as a historic site
20
This rock is clearly not a glacial erratic of pleistocene provenance. It is ancient Cambrian Mahattan schist, bedrock, a routine construction issue in NYC.
8
One person’s schist is another’s treasure.
30
@Anthony Horan, MD So it is true: Manhattan is full of schist! Actually, in comments below, the prevailing opinion is that this outcrop is marble or limestone.
15
It was pretty shortsighted to not buy the other half of the rock for $ 350,000 in 2004 no less to have been considering selling your half. That about sums up a co-op for you.
5
Instead of tearing out the garden and posting "No Trespassing", the owner could have sent the Coop a registered letter saying something to the effect that "I own this property and I am giving you permission to maintain a garden on it". Legal rights maintained. Sounds like a developer in the mold of POSOTUS.
26
So it begins.
3
Why go through the trouble of building parks when there are already treed and flowered lots in the city maintained ( for free ) by local residents? "Rock Park" would be a great destination park . The rock should remain.
26
The comments are all over the place. The co-op should just buy the property.
As part of the real estate due diligence, the developers should contact an experienced, NY-licensed Geologist/geologic engineering firm plus hire an intern (college level) to assist in the interpretation. There are too many unknowns - Is the rock bedrock or a glacial erratic? The "rock" and underlying bedrock can be sampled to determine rock type and determine age dating. An engineering firm was identified earlier. Not certain if their document is public record. That is one place to start.
5
@Susan A. Green. So you think the Co-op won the lottery and are hiding the money so that their ordinary dwellers can share the winnings instead of buying a lot with a rock on it? My father would say, “ . . . You think money grows on trees?”
17
Love the article and comments. Here is some more geological insight from my geologist brother...
Marble does have the same chemical composition of limestone but they are different in that marble is a contact metamorphic derivative of the sedimentary rock limestone (ie- limestone cooked at either high or low pressure).
Regarding the other rocks mentioned, there is a progression of the metamorphic process which takes the sedimentary rock of shale and, with pressure and temperature, converts it first to slate (Vermont), then phyllite, and finally schist. And a gneissic rock is a metamorphic derivative of the igneous rock granite.
Thus Inwood and Manhattan had limestone and shale first, resp, then metamorphosed to their current products; and the Bronx was original continental crust granite that was cooked into gneiss. The takeaway (worth nothing really) is that the original rock in the Bronx is several hundred million years older than that on Inwood and in Manhattan.
21
I'm definitely an environmentalist at heart and in deed, but I don't think it's fair to ask someone with a resource worth millions to walk away from that. There is so much more going on here. Livable cities with green space and islands of relative diversity demand more forethought and planning. This is a job for city planners and legislators. If you want spaces like this rock to exist, vote for candidates who support your vision.
9
@Josh
Nope. Save the rock. You can always pave a place over and we usually do. Another example of the greater good.
10
@Josh. It’s not like Tavor inherited it. He bought it and knew what was there. The company that made the killing bought it for $10,000 and sold it for $350,000 without doing a thing to it.
11
The residents should stop whining and cough up the dough to buy the other side of the rock. If they fix it up it will enhance their property and its value.
16
Related article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/science/bird-populations-america-canada.html#commentsContainer
5
Along with rats, cockroaches and other New York vermin another perennial pest once again raises its ugly specter: Real Estate Developers.
73
I feel like we should also take a moment to remember why the Coop started tending to the rock and planting on it in the first place — that the Buryiak’s lost their 4 day old infant son, Alexander to SIDS and his father began clearing it as part of his grieving. And from that came this beautiful space and community for the residents that they are now fighting for.
92
Thank you
15
The remaining ice-age boulders in Washington Heights and Inwood are by no means a simple engineering project to flatten. Further down the road, in Washington Heights, at least two building projects have gone bust in the process. So, given that, it is very likely that the Cooper Street Rock will get to stay exactly where it is!
20
@Another teacher
See my comment above re: the rock outcropping that used to to occupy the other side of the street. I wish you were right, but history does not bear you out.
8
@Another teacher
Given the tax breaks, corruption and other incentives to always "build, baby, build" my money is on the boulder getting pulverized. Out here, huge multi million dollar projects from dams that benefit a few farmers, to sale for a loss timber sales, we have a long history of the tax payer subsidizing wasteful destructive projects. It's the American way.
12
To those of you who are lamenting the possible demise of this rock: Come visit me in Manhattan. I can take you for a walk and sell you some beautiful rocks of your choice at a good price. If you have a bit more money, you may wish to look to the purchase of a bridge.
6
@JerryV
The lot next to the building where I grew up had a jagged rock field. About twice a year a sizable group of geology students from NYU, which then had a Bronx Campus, would show up and chip away to take samples. We would all yell derisively, “Hey, it’s the Rock Heads!” Growing up in New York was so much fun.
7
Where are the billionaire environmental activists when we need them?
Bill, Jeff, and other (Apple, Google, Facebook) gigantic company heads, step up to the plate, in this case boulder. Buy it; donate it to a preservation land cause. Cheech!
30
I grew up in Inwood in the 60s, and, this outcropping, while of interest to the coop residents, is not something that, if gone, then, Inwood is lost.
One block west is Inwood Hill Park, the last "natural" park in Manhattan. It's far prettier and interesting than the outcropping, which is of little practical use in any event.
It should be noted that the last, very large outcropping in Inwood was the "white rocks" at the corner of Nagle Ave and 204 St. 240 Nagle Ave. was constructed on top of this outcrop in 1968. Those rocks were tons of fun to play on! Behind the parking lot of 240 Nagle is a remnant of the outcrop, if you're interested in seeing it.
14
@Bill Israel
Well said Bill. I too grew up in Inwood in the 60’s and have fond memories of the park.
I always point out to people that the view of the park they have from the west side highway is much like Henry Hudson’s when he sailed up his namesake river. It’s a shame there’s not more natural surroundings on this island I call home.
9
Oh for god sake people it's just a rock! The planet is made out of them. There's exactly zero shortage of them around. It would be cool however if it could be utilized into a building or even become a home. NYC's one and only cave home! Quick, someone kickstart me $10 mil so I can buy it and get a Batcave built!
11
Those with no past, have few friends and no future. Tearing up and trashing everything they can get their hands on, in order to make a buck, have given developers a nasty reputation that precedes them where ever they go.
36
"In July 2004 Ms. Galbally sold the lot to a company called Homeside Development for $10,000. That December, according to real estate records, Homeside sold it to Mr. Tavor’s company, Cooper Development, for $350,000."
Looks like Mrs. Galbally got a raw deal. This all looks shady.
38
@msd agreed - that’s the story right there.
12
@msd It's funny that we speculated about that detail in exact opposite ways. You saw Ms. Galbally getting ripped off, and I was wondering what kind of tax benefits were realized by first selling the home to a corporate entity.
2
Shady? No. It’s no different from someone seeing a valuable item at a yard sale and making a killing on it. Societies are full of people seeing a profit hidden in plain sight, where others don’t.
2
It’s no wonder our country and our world are in such dire straights, what with greed-induced sociopathy being legitimatized.
16
How about instead of Shakespeare's "first thing is kill all the lawyers"....change it "kill all the developers"....
What they do, in ruining the neighbors and live of people around them, should not allowed.
22
@RLiss -
You do realize that Shakespeare's point was PRO-lawyer, so may I assume that you are in favor of development?
1
It seems that only a rock in NYC would have its own web page.
10
@Angela, It's a rock star. Why not?
17
The dramatic picture of Natasha Bunten is funny
7
The headline is misleading -- it is bedrock NOT a glacial erratic (boulder)
9
@Lee
Lee,
Then it is likely a roche moutonnée (aka sheepback).
Next time I'm back in the Big Apple, I'll have ti take a look at its orientation.
2
The reporter tried to tie this story to the rezoning, but it is not. The upzoning was to the east - this area went from R7-2 to R7A, which have equivalent FAR.
2
It is heartwarming to read that the residents of 60 Cooper St. turned down a $2.5M offer for the lot. Bravo to them for making a decision based on quality of life issues rather than financial gain.
28
San Francisco has an infamous (but largely unknown) elevated garden/trail - called "Barbary Lane", with a switchbacked wooden entrance from the street - the sign on the real entrance says Macondry Lane, & you can actually "Google/walk through it, if you start on Jones Street, going east to Taylor Street...(the Google access from Taylor is blocked at the top of the staircase)- this was the intro. to the tv show, "Tales of the City", which ran on PBS years ago...a beautiful, & undoubtedly expensive block of real estate.....
6
@DMc -- or you can read Armistad Maupin's novel of the same name which started the whole long-lived saga
https://www.amazon.com/Tales-City-Novel-Armistead-Maupin/dp/0061358304/ref=sr_1_2?crid=347K0BPZ0QOT2&keywords=tales+of+the+city+armistead+maupin&qid=1569073038&s=books&sprefix=Tales+of+the+City+%2Caps%2C148&sr=1-2
1
@PY
or you can Google/walk through that Lane, and realize (& one assumes you've seen all the videos) that all the immediacy, the humanity shown by the experience just re-enforces the humanity/humility those experiences invigorate....the experience of Macondray Lane is unchanged, all these decades later...
2
So, is this rock "an Ice Age Boulder" as the title says, one if the "outcrops deposited 21,000 years ago, when glaciers last reached the area."? Or is it "a lot that consists entirely of a 30-foot-tall mound of bedrock."? The two things are mutually exclusive, as bedrock has basically never moved from its location relative to the surrounding geology other than through millions of years of continental drift. Please consult a geologist for a ruling. It looks much too big to be a glacial erratic, pushed there from a great distance.
24
@Hydraulic Engineer
It'll be an outcrop of Inwood (aka Westchester) marble from a seam stretching north through Morrisania, Tuchahoe, Eastchester, Hastings, Ossining and Pleasantville.
That to the south was poorer quality. Tuckahoe and Pleasantville were the best for building purposes.
Best local examples of Westchester marble include St Patrick's Cathedral, Brooklyn Burgh Hall, Federal Hall and Grace Church. The marble was also sent to DC and New Orleans.
13
Whenever someone says "its not about greed", greed is absolutely what its about.
42
Magnifying pet rock☺️
4
Mr. Tavor bought the property as an investment, with the (unrealistic?) expectation of making a very large profit. Unless you are a Wall Street Banker, investments have an inherent risk. If everything goes as planned, your investment pays off, if not, you have bought an albatross that hangs around your neck. I like albatrosses, but the Rock is Mr. Tavor's albatross, even with rezoning. He bought it for $10,000 and he has probably put in over a few hundred thousand dollars in taxes and legal fees. Too bad for Mr. Tavor.
4
@Maurie Beck
You don’t sound like you understand local real estate. It looks very developable to me given today’s prices for a pristine Manhattan location a block away from Inwood Hill Park, an immaculate 200 acre expanse every bit as beautiful as Central Park. Once considered a middle/working class ethnic neighborhood, Inwood is now one of the most desirable areas in the city. I am not in favor of it becoming hoity toidy, I am just saying.
5
Wait, wait.
Can't the city take over the lot if it hasn't been developed for decades?
It could be a wonderful affordable housing project.
Or the neighboring residence could object that and crave into their greediness to lean for a natural garden in their backyard.
Say who is greedy now?
1
@Hongbo Not developing a property means that it is up for grabs by the city?
I hope not.
3
Central Park has many rock outcroppings as do the other buroughs. I never thought or understood much about these odd things suddenly poking out of the ground, but now I do. I love how knowledge of the past acquired by scientific studies informs us about the true meaning of the world. And we also get better at knowing what's in store for us in the future.
11
@A Goldstein
Bedrock is why New York has a skyscraper skyline in what is called midtown then nothing that and Lower Manhattan Financial District where there is more bedrock.
3
@Patrick That has been the received wisdom for decades and I’ve shared it with many visitors myself.
However, recent studies make a convincing argument for real estate development trends and demographics having been a more powerful influence than geology.
For all the details on this, see BUILDING THE SKYLINE: the Birth and Growth of Manhattan's Skyscrapers by Jason M. Barr, published by Oxford University Press in 2016.
5
@Moshe Feder
Just read the Amazon summary. Looks interesting but Barr is an economics professor, not an engineer. So I’m sticking with the accepted wisdom for now. Why would a builder drive hundreds of piles into unstable and shifting marshland of say the Canal Street area when not far away there is solid rock? When you dig not even very deep in Manhattan, you hit the Hudson River. Does he know about the Tower of Pisa?
2
Garden space is expensive in New York. It's not fair to complain about losing access to the half of the boulder that they do not own or contribute to financially.
7
How terrible to practically live without trees. My trees have cooled the house each summer to where I only keep AC on half the time. I feel sorry for people who have to go to Central Park to see a tree. How sad that beautiful flowers so lovingly tended are moved or destroyed.
13
@Eli - I suspect you have never been to northern Manhattan. Inwood and nearby Washington Heights actually have a good number of parks, in addition to over a thousand street trees.. A couple blocks from this rock is a 200 hundred acre park with an old growth forest and a salt marsh. (Search for images of Inwood Hill Park - it does not look like most people's idea of Manhattan, but it is.)
So although it would be a shame to lose this green area, upper Manhattan is definitely not tree deprived.
13
@PM: True, except the trees in the Clove aren't really old growth. The trees there were cur during the Revolution by Hessians who camped in the area. They haven't been cut since , though, and the present mix of species, mostly oak and tulip trees, is about what was there before the war.
9
@Eli
Thank you for your concern, but New Yorkers don’t have to go to Central Park to see a tree. Inwood Hill Park just a block away for example, is nearly 200 acres of natural wonders including, I’ve heard, large tracts of the indigenous native forest that occupied North America before colonial times. In fact, per Mother Jones, “New York City leads the pack [in North America] with 27 percent public green space followed by Austin, Texas (15 percent), Montreal (14.8), San Francisco (13.7) and Toronto (12.7 percent). https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/blogs/global-cities-most-and-least-public-green-space
9
Lovely if sad story. Yes it can be demolished and a building erected here but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Geologically speaking, however, if the rock is part of an outcrop (of bedrock - don't you just love geology) then it isn't a glacial erratic and wasn't deposited by a glacier. No matter it's a lovely rock and garden to those who live nearby and have worked hard to preserve this bit of old Manhattan nature.
24
Just sold a 1/4 acre lot for $18,000. Too bad it was not in Manhattan as I could have gotten a lot more.
4
If the garden was planted on both plots in 2005, the co-op may have title by adverse possession. While adverse possession usually requires 20 years in most states, this article indicates that it may be 10 years in NY.
11
@Bob R
Unless something's radically changed (again), I'm afraid NY law requires one's possession to be quite a bit more "hostile"/adverse than planting a garden, and also requires that the folks asserting such a claim have a reasonable belief that the property is theirs (whether it be not understanding where property line is or an actual deal whereby they think it's theirs - and that's not the case here, since 60 Cooper folks understand which is which).
5
This reminds me of the dynamiting of the boulder on the corner of Fort Washington and 165th Street more than 5 decades ago. I recall seeing the boulder from my late Aunt's apartment. It was amazing to me as a child that the boulder could just 'disappear.' Now there sits cardiology buildings associated with the Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. At the time, it seemed like the 'natural' progression of the city. However, now we are aware that these transitions are not necessarily signs of 'progress.'
32
Is every square inch of Manhattan to be turned over to developers, they will start in on Central Park
If we’re not careful
The city should buy it back and let the residents of Inwood have their little garden to remind them that
Not everything is for sale........
56
Perhaps the CO-OP should offer $250,000 for the property? As a co-op president, I would.
10
@MJB Yeah, and then the offer is rejected because it is so woefully deficient. Then what?
@MJB
Curious how you came up with that numbers since the asking is three million.
1
@MJB: He paid $350,000 for it, and he's offering it for around three million. Still, I think they should consider making an offer, since he hasn't had any takers for a while.
4
The cheap co-op residents should have bought the adjacent lot with 1/2 of the rock when it was cheap enough for them to afford.
Greed is what makes the city.
Greem is what saves the city.
4
@BSmith What makes you think the co-op could afford something or that they even knew the lot was for sale?
Since you are anti-greed and altruistic, please send some of your San Francisco super-salary to the co-op board so they can buy out the rock. I'm sure you won't mind.
3
A 7-Eleven enclave selling coffee and donuts round the clock is generally a long-term solution in such cases.
2
Interesting that this article appears on Climate Day. I hope the city manages to retain this small natural haven after so many others have been lost.
28
@Cal
It is not a city owned property.
2
I'd say stop adding value to natural places and stop building. Stop transforming every rock and tree into a money business and real estate project. It should be protected. It's a rock left over by the glaciers. That's what should be done.
30
My old building. Stand strong 60 Cooperites! You are fighting a battle for the entire neighborhood.
22
647 W207th Street looks as though it was built on part of that rock, or another rock. Use Google maps, street view to see if you think so.
2
@Pete
Yes, though I think you are referring to 640-646 W 207th. There are four three story apartment houses on top of the rock. I have climbed the numerous stairs leading up to 642 more than once to visit a member of my family living there. Since all of the apartments are floor-through, they are more like three family houses.
If it was "deposited" by glaciers, it's not an outcrop: it's an errratic.
7
@Nancy: It surely looks like an outcropping to me.
@Nancy, it matters less what kind of rock it is and more that it is green space that will be lost forever for a quick profit. Has anybody noticed all of tomorrow's adults demonstrating in favor of the climate? This is the kind of short-sighted thing they are protesting, and this older American is with them. Keep The Rock Green!
5
What did happen to quality of life for residents? More concrete will bring more vehicle congestion, more heat, more ugliness and less greenery and opportunity to people and animals to co-exist. This is in my neighborhood. I love to pass by this little garden and enjoy what the change of seasons do to the plants. What a shame it will be destroyed.
17
60 Cooper is caught between a rock and a hard place.
27
@Steve
That is a very astute observation--it works on several different levels.
"Rocks" are a girl's best friend.
6
It's probably not intentional on the part of the NYT, but it is an odd coincidence that this story is published on the same day as the Global Climate Strike. Come on, really? Just leave the boulder and garden there. The city and the planet don't need another "development." Let it remain a witness, sitting undisturbed long after humans have "developed" their way out of existence. Maybe the city could buy it with all the revenue they've gathered from the billionaire's luxury towers (that have spoiled the NYC skyline). Oy!
18
This is a crazy New Yorker story to me. That rock is an eyesore and needs to go. Let’s not be maudlin. It’s marble, a 4 on the Mohs Scale, and will bust up easily. Granites are an 8 on the Mohs Scale. There is no shortage of metamorphic rocks to look at in New England. A new structure will generate tax dollars for the city. The people worrying about that rock need to get a life.
3
@wildcat . Just look at your city. The view including flood water improves the petrie dish of pollution Houston has become.
12
@wildcatwow. and you're serious....i thought at first you were being ironic. tragedy.
7
@wildcat
And some need to get a soul.
8
Let's ask the rock.The stories that could be told by an exotic rock left behind 21 million years ago. If only it could speak with a thick Manhattan accent what would it say about being carved in two.
10
This rock should be preserved for the generations of New Yorkers to come as a reminder of why Manhattan’s skyscrapers were able to be built. No bedrock, no Rockefeller Center. This is an opportunity, like the High Line, to preserve a part of New York’s history. Do it, Mr. Mayor!
23
@Donald Weekes
Maybe they could just preserve the 60 Cooper half of it for generations to come. I bet they would think that a capital idea.
2
@Donald Weekes
Central Park's exposed bedrock fills this need.
2
@Donald Weekes - Outcroppings of bedrock are far from rare in Manhattan. Many parks feature them. The only thing unusual about this one is that is sandwiched between buildings on a residential street.
3
Reading the Comments. There is another distinctive property with the same issue. THE CHURCH with the garden. Either build housing for hundreds if not more, or keep some breathing space, some of the beautiful landscape which is IRREPLACEABLE.
Today is Climate Recognition Day. Millions around the world are speaking on behalf of our natural world. If this is not an example of continued plunder contributing to urban devastation I don't know what we are talking about.
23
It's NOT a boulder, it's bedrock. The glaciers and ice sheets of the ice age had no part in its formation. The bedrock formed 450 million years ago. There are boulders left by the ice age glaciers all over the NYC area, but bedrock was there way before the ice age.
22
@Alan, You are correct. You can still see the effects of the glaciers moving along bedrocks. The grinding with small pebbles carried along by the glaciers leave parallel grooves know as "glacial striations". Google this to see photos of these "scratches" on bedrock outcroppings of Manhattan Schist in Central Park. You can look for them when you visit the park. You will not see these on the Inwood Marble discussed in this article. Marble and the limestone from which it is formed are much softer than schist and more easily eroded.
7
@Alan Yes, you are right. The lines in the article
"But the Inwood Valley has a rich geologic history. Many neighborhood parks and streets in the city still feature outcrops deposited 21,000 years ago, when glaciers last reached the area."
suggest the writer has a lack of understanding of basic geology. Outcrops are simply areas where bedrock rises above the ground surface. Boulders are deposited by glaciers, not bedrock or outcrops. This article should have been reviewed and edited by a geologist, or someone with some basic knowledge of geology.
21
I remember this from the early 1950s when I took a field geology course at City College at about 1953. It is made up of "Inwood Marble" (or limestone), one of the 3 main bedrocks in New York City. (Rock outcroppings are usually named after the area in which they were first described.) The other formations are "Fordham Gneiss", (pronounced nice") characteristic of the Bronx and "Manhattan Schist", easily recognized by its tiny bits of shiny mica. Not far from Inwood is the community of "Marble Hill", also with huge outcroppings of Inwood Marble. The geological saying at the time (forgive me) was "the Bronx is Gneiss but Manhattan is full of schist".
115
@JerryV
Wonderful and so true!
10
@JerryV - I took a number of walking tours with the late great AMNH geologist Sidney Horenstein (an Inwood resident). That was one of his favorite expressions!
12
@JerryV
That's a good one, Jerry. Thanks for the laugh.
9
I've always known there were two New York Cities - One is glitzy and shallow and is populated by Donald Trump, Carrie Bradshaw, and the like. The other is Manahata, the granite archipelago stretching across the mouth of the Hudson River. This is populated by James Baldwin, Pete Hamill, and the millions of nameless humans who have traipsed and worked there for four centuries.
The short sighted inability of the Glitzy and Shallow to see past a couple of million dollars will never cease to astonish. The boulder is a not merely a historical monument. It is a monument from Deep Time which serves as a humble reminder we are small and short lived. Putting a condo on top of that is an ecological sin.
177
@Jack McNally Well, New York developers have been sinning for a long time. And the wages of sin is lots of $ (and getting elected President, in one case).
22
@Marco Ribeiro Americans have been sinning for a long time. Remember, they tried to flood the Grand Canyon.
8
The city should buy it as a precious and irreplaceable public benefit.
60
Couldn’t the residents of the Cooper Street Co-op get together and buy the rest of the rock? It they all contributed, the cost would not be that high.
18
Or swap sides with the guy to save the half by their building and let him develop the far side! Too bad they didn’t buy the other half for $10,000 when they (presumably) had the chance.
8
There are some elements of nature worth preserving and which should be priceless and protected. The Cooper Rock, the Amazon rain forest, the Arctic and Antarctic.....
Must every inch of Manhattan be mined and developed for profit? We aren't even content to allow 700 foot office buildings built in the 50s (270 Park Ave.) remain standing - they must be demolished with materials and labor laid to waste for something bigger. It's no wonder people are protesting climate change globally today.
60
The plants are spelled lariope and nepeta. The latter was the name my botanist grandfather chose for his catboat.
13
Thank you! This article should have been reviewed by both a botanist and a geologist. I’m disappointed in the Times.
5
It should be re-zones as a historical monument. Who needs another building in the city? But the profit is too large to ignore I suppose.
64
@T. Maarte, I like the idea of a Cooperate Group to buy it, since no one wants to purchase. Perhaps the neighborhood can get together.
13
@T. Maartin
There are tons of bedrock outcroppings in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan. There is nothing historical about them since they have been there practically forever ; Manhattan schist (1/2 billion years) and Fordham gneiss (a billion years). Not sure why someone is trying to claim that it is a boulder dropped by receding glaciers. This doesn’t look like that at all. Any geologists on board?
6
@T. Maartin Totally agree
1
I knew this rock from the picture instantly! -- our house keeper in the late '40s and early '50s, a Mrs. Margaret Murphy, originally from County Cork in Ireland, lived on 207th street and would occasionally treat us to a trip to her apartment and Inwood. (We lived down in Washington Hgts, in Hudson View Gardens at 183rd St. and Pinehurst Ave.) Whenever we passed that rock, "Mussy" (a nickname coming from a 2-yr. old's inability to pronounce Mrs. Murphy) would always tell us that when St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland, he sent them to the rock, where they were turned into stone. It was probably a tale used control two active youngsters on a walk -- she also kept us away from the incinerator shoot door in our own apartment with the threat that "Jack Soot" (again from Ireland) also lived in the incinerator and would certainly come to haul us down should he spot us peering in. I fondly remember both tales frequently.
132
@Virginia McMillan Carr
I recall that in the 40s and 50s atop the Cooper Street rock was a private house, a garden, and a long flight of wooden steps leading up to it. In time, the house was pulled down, but the rock remains and I can understand why its presence is special to its neighbors and the neighborhood.
We all have our version of Ben Bulben
Next to where I lived in those decades, at 153 Seaman Avenue and 207th Street, was a massive rock formation, apparently important enough to be included in field trips that NYU geology students took when they came to Inwood. I remember when explosives were used to remove the rock, section by section. Mesh "blankets" covered the areas being destroyed--all to clear the area for an apartment building. In my mind's eye I can see that rock whenever I visit Inwood and walk down 207th.
Where Ms. Carr lived in the 40s and 50, I live now. Maybe even in the same apartment?
15
@madlar
I just moved from 181st and Riverside, and Love that neighborhood especially the wisteria so thoughtfully preserved in the garden at the based of the steps from Pinehurst- have pint at Le Cheille for me;)
3
Has nothing any value anymore except dollars?
Such a quaint question, have to ask for a friend.
86
Made me think of Big Yellow Taxi:
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot
[Chorus]
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise, put up a parking lot
(Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop
Shoo-bop-bop-bop-bop)
69
$10,000 in 2004. What a shame.
27
@Richard Schumacher It's a pity the coop group didn't get a chance to buy it for that price. (Or that they passed on the opportunity, thinking no one would ever buy it.)
12
We weren’t told it was for sale
4
If the co-op people want to preserve their whatever, buy the rock. Stop trying to control what you don't own.
28
Typical real estate developer in NYC: destroy and profit, bathe in dollars and self soothe.
115
According to the article: 60 Cooper started their garden on Lot 27 in Fall 2005. The owner of Lot 27 made no effort to exclude them from Lot 27 until July 1, 2019. That's nearly 14 years of use/occupation by 60 Cooper.
Whatever rights 60 Cooper might obtain through adverse possession or prescriptive easement have matured and can't be lost unless and until they are excluded from Lot 27 for ten years beginning July 1, 2019. Because of "tacking," their rights remain even if Lot 27 is sold to someone else. Tavor's "No Trespassing" signs are too little and much too late.
152
@Ken
Posting so that folks won't come away from the comment thinking adverse possession law in general and NY in particular is as simple as you're making out.
I haven't read all the details, but did the 60 Cooper folks have a reasonable belief that they owned the property on which they started the garden?
At any rate, NY law is such that a garden would be a “non-structural encroachment[ ]” and those don't count as "possession".
Even had 60 Cooper been paying the taxes on the property in question, that wouldn't make a slam-dunk case for them in NY.
9
@Fallen There's actually a case about a comparable situation involving a community garden on Norfolk street. The garden won, so I believe that the co-op should assert adverse possession -- although their argument will be strengthened if they actually turn the rock into a regulated community garden with regular public access under the aegis of something like Green Thumb.
21
@Ken
Posting so that folks won't come away from the comment thinking adverse possession law in general and NY in particular is as simple as you're making out.
It appears the 60 Cooper folks have no reasonable belief that they owned the property on which they started the garden (in fact, the article points out that they've put up signage acknowledging which side they own), so ... I see no viable adverse possession claim here.
At any rate, NY law is such that a garden would be a “non-structural encroachment[ ]” and those don't count as "possession".
Even had 60 Cooper been paying the taxes on the property in question, that wouldn't make a slam-dunk case for them in NY.
2
I'm a former New Yorker. There's nothing unusual about New Yorkers getting down in the dirt to fight over a Nickel. Read Henry Miller's thoughts on NY.
5
You can protect a fragment of NYC that’s there since the Ice Age or you can build another building. How did a piece of bedrock go from $10,000 to $3 million in 15 years? What is your history worth?
134
gf,
I wish it were $3 million.
I'd settle for $2 million.
The Cooper Street Rock was also famous for New Yorkers as a "Sunday Outing" in the early 1900"s. Supposedly, one could make out the petrified body of a giant snake swirling in the rock formations. I think I kind of see what they mean...
http://myinwood.net/the-mysterious-rock-snake-of-cooper-street/
31
Very impressed with the research, tone and seriousness of the article. Not the typical paean to impending-gentrification-of-Inwood article that appears in the NYT regularly.
25
A technical point regarding the article and headline: I do not believe the Cooper Street Rock can simultaneously be both a boulder and bedrock. It's one or the other.
20
@William
Indeed. If it is truly bedrock, then it has been there for hundreds of millions of years. If it is a boulder, then most likely it was deposited there during the last ice age.
18
@R.F. - Whichever it is, it's certainly been there longer than any of us!
19
@William, very true, so I'm not the only one confused by this in the article.
The seller of 1/2 the rock for $2,990,900 actually may have rocks in his head.
20
“Trees are very often the home of Elemental beings which you would call nature spirits, intelligences of primeval age which enjoy drifting through your world and others in a more amorphous manner. Rocks, mountains, crystals, bodies of water – these too are homes of conscious beings.”
― Elizabeth S. Eiler Ph.D., Singing Woman: Voices of the Sacred Feminine
24
There is a huge housing shortage in this city. No way should people be blocked from shelter because of a rock. Remove it and build (and preferably as high/dense as possible).
6
@Osito do you think it will be affordable housing?
22
I greatly doubt that whatever is built there will have any affordable housing - lack of that is where the "shortage" is.
51
@Osito\
Right because as we all know that affordable housing will be built. Affordable to hedge fund managers and foreigners with money to burn. IF that's your idea of affordable....it's best to keep the rock.
9
A small map including the location of the rock would help.
17
@Andrew
You're right, but go to Google Maps, as I did, and it will be pretty clear. The satellite view shows a big green square that can't be missed on the west side of Cooper Street below 207th Street. Google Street View from July 2018 captures the plantings along the sidewalk and even the sign "Alexander's Garden" behind a white minivan (zoom in to see it).
9
@Andrew It's on Cooper Street, between 204th St. and 207th St. in Inwood, upper Manhattan
Mr. Tavor could probably get a pretty nice tax write off for several years if he donated the property to the city as suggested by Portlandia, below.
43
@Rob D
At this stage he could probably erect a glamping tent and put it on AirB&B far a thousand a night. Staying on the famous rock in Inwood would be the conversational highlight of any gala cocktail benefit for climate change.
4
I hope that the Times will soon write about the other big controversial project that's in the works in Inwood: the demise of the huge old garden at Holy Trinity Episcopal Church. The property itself is actually mentioned in passing in this story (at Cummings and Seaman), but not the fact that is about to be destroyed.
The garden is going to become a luxury high-rise, I believe. The church sold the whole property -- the old stone church building and the enormous park, which long served the neighborhood as an informal community garden -- to a developer just around the time the rezoning was approved.
The loss of the garden is going to fundamentally change the neighborhood, but the big highrise that's going to replace it is going to do far more damage.
Finally, one important thing about the livability is neighborhoods is whether the balance of green space to developments can be maintained. In Inwood, that balance has long created a beautiful, livable, desirable neighborhood but that's all about to end, I fear.
88
@GraffitiGrammarian I live close to that site, and have not heard about this - any further info on that you can provide? I had thought that the re-zoning plan restricted high-rise construction on these particular streets. Not so?
7
@Selva Oscura I believe that the church property fronts on Broadway, and because of that, the new owner can build to the new height limits which I believe is 11 stories.
The new limits apply to properties on commercial sts like Broadway. It's hard to tell exactly where the church property ends. The garden obviously extends all the way to Seaman, and the church itself on the other side seems to run up to the rear of the storefront on Broadway -- I think a pharmacy. Does the church also own that storefront? That's the question. I gather that it does, but I don't know for sure.
The church, it seems to me, has gone to some lengths to keep quiet about what is going to replace the existing property. They've put up signs on the fence around the garden that are purposefully vague and lack any specific language.
But neighbors who've attended the rezoning meetings tell me that the church sold out for top dollar to a developer that plans to build out that site to the maximum height and square footage allowed by the new zoning law.
I'm sorry that you live nearby as the construction noise will probably be awful and prolonged. I live about two blocks away and I will miss seeing the trees and birds and greenery on that elevated rock of the garden. But mostly I fear for the neighborhood. Once there is a big ugly highrise there instead of a beautiful garden, it will encourage other property owners to sell out and other developers to bid top dollar.
Not to mention the parking!
9
@GraffitiGrammarian - Did the neighbors who so enjoyed the church's gardens ever donate any funds to the church to maintain the grounds?
4
I would like for the rock to remain. But I would also prefer that almost all the new construction going on in Manhattan halt. And I know that is not right, or feasible. So I ask myself, what at bottom is really different about this piece of property? Someone owns half of it, and wants to sell his half. It is not landmarked. It is not a city park. It's a rock on a piece of privately owned property. Why should he not be able to sell it? People call him a "greedster." Well, isn't anyone who hopes to profit from the sale of real estate, then? Developing this rock wouldn't displace anyone. In fact, it would provide for new housing in a city starving for it. So, yeah, keep the rock! But that's just my personal preference, and unfortunately, I am not king.
41
@Roger
I have recently saw an article - I think it was in the NYT that much of the newly constructed apartments in the city are unsold.
10
@Maureen the ones going for many millions of dollars, yes. Inwood is booming, precisely because it caters to low and middle income people. And there the folks who need housing.
4
@Roger Realistically, do you think the hypothetical development company who would pay $3 million for a half of a rock is going to build low and middle income housing?
10
blessings on that garden and that young boy that passed, hope the rock stays there and all nyc sacred ghosts protect it and others.
73
Great story. I have two words: eminent domain.
52
@Richard Rubin
Exactly. Pay the greedster that owns the half that's for sale what he paid for it with enough extra for him to buy a nice dinner and bottle of wine, then request the group that had adopted the rock, cleaned it up and kept it that way to continue as they had done.
88
@Richard Rubin
Here are two other words: generosity and greed. Mr. Tavor could opt for generosity and donate the land to NYC in perpetuity, call it Tavor Park, and be remembered as a community philanthropist. Or he could embrace greed, one of the seven deadly sins, and be vilified as the man who destroyed one of the few remaining natural areas in New York. It will be interesting to see which path he chooses.
231
@Portlandia If the Coop wishes him to take the first path, they could set the example and agree to do the same with their half.
22