50 East 57th Street @ Park Avenue (former Drake Hotel site)

[sfenn1117]

Could not find a thread on this so let's start it, as it's looking to be very large. Here is the original article from last year:

2 MORE TOP INNS GOING RESIDENTIAL


By BRADEN KEIL
January 17, 2006

The Mark and Swissotel's The Drake are the latest in a string of New York hotels going residential.

The notable inns will close to make room for apartments — following on the heels of The Plaza, St. Regis, Mayflower and Stanhope.

The owners of The Drake Swissotel, New York, at 440 Park Ave. at 56th Street, are accepting bids on the property for condos.

Offers are now running in the mid-$400 million range, The Post has learned.

"The Drake will be demolished for a condo or mixed-use building of close to 70 floors," said a source familiar with the proceedings.

"It's a big site, and they've bought a bunch of development [air] rights on 57th Street."

Eastdil Realty is handling the offering for the Host Marriott, the owner of the hotel's building.

Recently, the Mandarin Oriental International Ltd. agreed to sell its full leasehold at The Mark hotel, on East 77th Street between Madison and Fifth avenues, for $150 million for cooperative apartments.

The 176-room facility is bringing in about $850,000 a room. "That's just too good a price to pass up," said one broker.

The buyers are a group controlled by New York developers Izak Senbahar and Simon Elias. The Mark was bought by the Mandarin Group in 2000 as part of a $142.5 million acquisition.


Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.



And an article from cityrealty:

Drake Hotel on Park Avenue to be converted or redeveloped


20-JAN-06

Eastdil Realty has been retained by Host Marriott to sell the handsome, Swissôtel Drake Hotel at 440 Park Avenue.

The 495-room hotel was built in 1927 and designed by Emery Roth.

Various press reports indicated it may be sold for conversion to condominium apartments and one report by Brandon Keil in the January 17, 2006 edition of The New York Post, quoted a “source familiar with the proceedings” as stating that “The Drake will be demolished for a condo or mixed-use building of close to 70 floors.”

A mid-block addition to the hotel, which is on the northwest corner at 56th Street was erected in the 1960s.

It shares the Park Avenue blockfront with the handsome black office tower with arched windows at 450 Park Avenue. A spokesman at the hotel had “no comment” when asked about the reports and calls by CityRealty.com about the sale to executives at Eastdil Realty were not returned.

Mr. Keil’s article said that the sale also involves air rights from some properties on 57th Street between Madison and Park Avenues.

If the site were to be demolished, it is conceivable that a new tower utilizing air rights might become the tallest building on Park Avenue north of the MetLife Building at 45th Street.

Another very tall mixed-use tower has been designed by Sir Norman Foster for Aby Rosen nearby at 610 Lexington Avenue on the southwest corner at 53rd Street behind the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue.

The Drake has a polished red-granite one-story base beneath two limestone stories. Fauchon is the retail tenant on Park Avenue. The 21-story, beige-brick building and three setbacks and handsome three-story columns supporting large broken pediments on its avenue frontage at the top of its base and attractive façade decorations at its top. It has a large entrance marquee on the side street with sidewalk landscaping and a large lobby. In the early 1960’s, a nightclub and discotheque at the hotel, known as Shepheard’s, handsomely outfitted with Egyptian-style décor, became the city’s first major public disco.

In their brilliant book, “New York 1930, Architecture and Urbanism Between The Two World Wars,” (Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1987), Robert A. M. Stern, Gregory Martin and Thomas Mellins noted that “the apartment hotels of the 1920s fell into three notable categories: those that really did mix transient and resident tenants, and which were usually quite luxurious; those comparable in character to the era’s typical side street apartment houses that catered to a sophisticated and more or less permanent tenantry, usually single people and childless couples, many of whom were actively pursuing business careers; and those aimed at the many young, unmarried white–collar workers who were moving into the city to pursue business and professional careers, and which offered minimal quality of accommodation. In the first category, the Park Lane, the Barclay, and the Drake on Park Avenue and the Dorset and the Lombardy in the west and east fifties were among the most elegant….Emery Roth made a specialty of apartment hotels. The 1927 Drake at 440 Park Avenue…was in the superluxury category, with suites as large as twenty-eight rooms, large enough to constitute what Good Furniture described as ‘a whole self-contained city house.’”

The hotel is not an official city landmark.

Recently hotels in prime locations have begun to be converted, in whole or in part, to condominium apartments. The Stanhope on Fifth Avenue and 81st Street and the Mark on East 77th Street and Madison Avenue, for example, are being fully converted, while the Plaza Hotel on Fifth Avenue at Central Park South and the St. Regis Hotel at 2 West 55th Street are being partially converted.


Copyright © 1994-2006 CITY REALTY

[sfenn1117]

The latest:

Macklowes Mull East 57th Street Monster Tower

Harry and Billy Macklowe are so busy. Two months ago, they more than doubled their New York portfolio with a $7 billion buy from Blackstone. And now here comes their next prize.

We already know that the Macklowes are planning something at the corner of Park Avenue and 56th Street, where they own the soon-to-be-demolished Drake Hotel. But now it appears that the big development site is expanding even more.

According to city records, the Macklowes have purchased 44 and 50 East 57th Street for $41 million and have issued a declaration of development rights for 42, 44, 48 and 50 East 57th Street—all tiny buildings that border the Drake. In the declarations, those properties are bundled with 434 Park Avenue—the Drake’s address—to make up an L.L.C. named 440 Park Avenue Owner Associates.

That means the Macklowes’ prospective monster at the corner of Park Avenue and 56th will curve like an L and expand all the way to 57th Street. So, in addition to being pretty tall—it will reportedly be 70 stories—the new development’s going to have a huge base. (Conspicuously absent from the declaration of development rights is 46 East 57th Street; one wonders if the Macklowes are having a tough time nabbing that building. They would not comment.)

In any event, Harry and Billy Macklowe are quickly securing cash. According to a document obtained by The Observer, the Macklowes have signed an air-rights mortgage-spreader agreement with Deutsche Bank for the 440 Park Avenue project for $543 million.

So they’ve got the money, but what are they going to build there?

It was originally conceived as a mixed-use project that would be mostly residential. The proposed building, known as 50 East 57th Street on the Macklowe Properties Web site, is listed under residential properties and is described as mixed-use.

But at a time when every developer is trading in kitchens for cubicles, the Macklowes are still mulling it over. Billy Macklowe, the heir-apparent to his father’s robust throne, told a group of reporters in February that no decision had been made.

Nevertheless, they’ve got plenty of reason to think office. Their new tower will border 450 Park Avenue, the 32-story tower that owner Taconic Properties is selling for a record-breaking asking price of $1,500 per square foot. And the prospective 440 Park (a.k.a. 50 East 57th) will have one of its three entrances on 56th Street, directly across from the Park Avenue Tower, one of the eight buildings that the Macklowes acquired from Blackstone.

http://www.observer.com/20070416/20070416_John_Koblin_finance_commercialbreaks.asp

[londonlawyer]

Macklowe makes me sick. The little buildings on 57th that this creep is buying are little gems. Macklowe has no respect for NY's architecture or its history. He also is buying a block of beautiful, old townhouses on Lex and 73rd that he will raze.

Moreover, based upon the banal structure he's building at 510 Madison, I guarantee that this will be a lame box of no more than 750 feet, if that. In fact, since it will be lame, this is one instance in which I support a shorter building since it will be less conspicuous on the skyline.

http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/components/photo/pic_view.html?size=1&imgname=1-01292-0045.Y8DZL15W.jpg

http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/components/photo/pic_view.html?size=1&imgname=1-01292-0041.r52xbPC2.jpg

Macklowe atrocity rising at 510 Madison:
http://www.nycityscape.com/macklowe/p2.jpg

[londonlawyer]

PS: Since the jerk Macklowe has a large, square site between 56th and 57th streets, there's no reason for him to raze the original part of the Drake. He could incorporate it into the new structure. Of course, he won't do that because he's a jerk.

I still can't get over that this creep is razing nice, old buildings on 57th in addition to the Drake for this inevitably lame project.

[kliq6]

Macklowe makes me sick. The little buildings on 57th that this creep is buying are little gems. Macklowe has no respect for NY's architecture or its history. He also is buying a block of beautiful, old townhouses on Lex and 73rd that he will raze.

Moreover, based upon the banal structure he's building at 510 Madison, I guarantee that this will be a lame box of no more than 750 feet, if that. In fact, since it will be lame, this is one instance in which I support a shorter building since it will be less conspicuous on the skyline.

http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/components/photo/pic_view.html?size=1&imgname=1-01292-0045.Y8DZL15W.jpg

http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/components/photo/pic_view.html?size=1&imgname=1-01292-0041.r52xbPC2.jpg

Macklowe atrocity rising at 510 Madison:
http://www.nycityscape.com/macklowe/p2.jpg

I agree with some of what you saying but what on that site was really worth keeping up?

[londonlawyer]

The building on 53rd and Madison once was nice but was stripped of almost all of its ornamentation. Therefore, it was no loss. However, all of the buildings on 53rd were nice.

Also, can you think of one reason, other than greed, why Macklowe would construct such a cheap, lame box on such utterly prime land? Even if he wanted a box to maximize his space, he could have hired R AM Stern to construct an ornamented brick and granite box like the one that's rising on 86th and 3rd.

With guys like Chang and Macklowe tearing down gems and replacing them with junk, this is a very dark time for NY's architecture.

[MidtownGuy]

This is my neighborhood and I am very upset to hear that we will lose this beautiful row of structures in addition to the Drake. It was like salt rubbed into the wound. Can they not build the tower behind and above these buildings, set back from these facades? They add so much charm and scale to the area.
During the holiday season, the windows are all dressed with wreaths and lights and they create a magical streetscape.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/455781094_1e8f646f92_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/250/455781104_eb599e9d7e_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/247/455785620_c2d2b76ae0_b.jpg
^Evidently, #40 above is not included according to the article. Small relief because it isn't a solo player; the beauty really is in the whole group.

And here's the Drake today, waiting for it's date with oblivion...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/455781116_cdc43265be_b.jpg

[Alonzo-ny]

Are there any pictures of the Drake?

[Fabrizio]

Oh my God. That's pathetic. That's Holly Golightly New York. Chic little boutique buildings. Paris with some New York grit.

I'm sick.

MidtownGuy: let's get drunk.

[antinimby]

Seeing those pics filled me with so much anguish.

And the part that makes it doubly infuriating is that it's just so unncecessary to raze these while there are still plenty of sites in Midtown that could use redevelopment but aren't.

For example, eyesore sites like this (45 St. & Lexington Ave.) is still advertising lease space on RKF (http://www.rkf.com/listings/NEW/451lex_main.asp):

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4872/45lexingtonop1.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

:)
I guess tipping one back is the only thing to do in a time like this.
I feel hopeless sometimes, like people who care only about square feet and
$$$ will leave the next generation looking at old pictures of the 00's and wondering, WTF were they thinking? And cursing our selfishness.

Here is the Drake before it was covered:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/250/455880255_b76095e7dc_b.jpg
:mad: :mad: :mad:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/455880263_e373d5c998_b.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

Seeing those pics filled me with so much anguish.

I know...I had a lump in my throat while I was taking them. Felt like I was documenting the site of a known future crime.

[londonlawyer]

Seeing those pics filled me with so much anguish.

And the part that makes it doubly infuriating is that it's just so unncecessary to raze these while there are still plenty of sites in Midtown that could use redevelopment but aren't.

For example, eyesore sites like this (45 St. & Lexington Ave.) is still advertising lease space on RKF (http://www.rkf.com/listings/NEW/451lex_main.asp):

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4872/45lexingtonop1.jpg

I agree with you. That's what I've been saying. This massacre is due to Macklowe's avarice.

[Fabrizio]

Look at this image below. Will everyone please take a pause and soak this in. Look at how everything is right with the world.

Notice the iron work, the human touch in the tiny shrubs, windows that open with real panes and wooden frames. The fine taste of the little metal signs with gold lettering on the Juliet balconies. Notice how the modern facade totally works on the Parisian style building. The flags. The iron canopy on the left. The hanging coach lamps. The brass frames, the varnished wood frames. The initials in the windows.

There are layers of styles, the different materials (all good) and the patina of time.

You know at a glance this is NYC, somewhere on the East Side... almost a movie set recreation for a goofy RenéeZellweger-bags-JudeLaw kinda film.

Now replace it all with a sheet of reflective glass.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/247/455785620_c2d2b76ae0_b.jpg

[sfenn1117]

Thanks for the photos MidtownGuy. It would be a travesty if all those little buildings were razed. They are landmark worthy....and would be landmarked already if they were in the UES or UWS. Not all of midtown needs to be skyscrapers, there's no reason those buildings can't be preserved by simply transfering the air rights.

Like antinimby has shown us, and londonlawyer constantly points out, there are still many run-down buildings in the heart of midtown that will eventually succomb to development. These buildings, however, are as classy as it gets, and are essentially quintessential New York City.

Let's try to do something about this. With your permission, MidtownGuy, I will use your photographs in an email to the Landmarks Commission. We should all send emails.....it might not work, but at least we can say we tried.

[MidtownGuy]

PLease do use them.

[MidtownGuy]

Fabrizio, your description of the photo nearly made me cry when I got to the sheet of glass part. My God, this is really a wicked disgrace!

[Fabrizio]

Well now that I've got the chance: THANK YOU for your usual fine photos, critical eye, intelligent comments, cultured taste (not to mention your overall hunkiness).

[MidtownGuy]

Woo Hoo! that sure makes up for being called a little snot by another forumer!!:)

This is what #42 looks like at Christmas:

http://static.flickr.com/139/322484308_183df3fcc3_b.jpg

[NoyokA]

Woo Hoo! that sure makes up for being called a little snot by another forumer!!:)


MidtownGuy I already talked to that member about that post and if you'll notice he edited it. Case closed.

As far as the Drake site, I really am surprised that developers haven't looked at the great success of the Hearst Tower with its preservation efforts. I was sure it would have caught on and am disapointed that it hasn't to this point, perhaps developers are still thinking of it as more of a novelty idea than anything else. The nature of the beast that is New York City is sometimes very disheartening.

[MidtownGuy]

Stern, no worries, I was kind of amused.
I hope these guys do start to realize the benefits of developing sites creatively like at Hearst, for the long term benefit of the city.

[TREPYE]

This is my neighborhood and I am very upset to hear that we will lose this beautiful row of structures in addition to the Drake. It was like salt rubbed into the wound. Can they not build the tower behind and above these buildings, set back from these facades? They add so much charm and scale to the area.
During the holiday season, the windows are all dressed with wreaths and lights and they create a magical streetscape.


And here's the Drake today, waiting for it's date with oblivion...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/455781116_cdc43265be_b.jpg

<sigh!> This city is full of scumbag developers and spineless oblivious politicians...uneffingbelivable! They just dont realize that the historical character of NYC one of the things that makes New York the great city people wanna be in. Actually, they do realize but it is this disgusting "win at all cost" mentality that has devoured much of this city's past historical texture. :mad:

[Scraperfannyc]

New York architecture is entering into its dark ages. They are not building the tallest by a long run today and they are replacing beautiful buildings with sh!*.

New York is losing its battle for architectual progress with people like Macklowe. The more ugly things people like Macklowe put up, the uglier NYC will become.

[londonlawyer]

I noted this when the plans for the POS that Macklowe is constructing at 510 Madison were released, and, in response, some people criticized me and noted that I had something against Macklowe. I do. I can't stand the guy. As demonstrated time and time again, he does not care about NY. He cares about filling his greedy pockets. Obviously, he's not alone. Chang is another jerk, as is the creep who razed the 56th Street townhouses, the creep that will raze L&T's annex, etc.

Jackasses like Tierney who are busting developers' nads about mediocre buildings set to rise on the empty parking lot across from Bryant Park and about 400 Fifth Ave., etc. should focus their impotent efforts on halting travesties like the ones that Macklowe, Chang, etc. are perpertuating.

[lbjefferies]

My heart aches.

[NYCDOC]

Has anyone seen the major media outlets covering these developments at all? I wonder if the Times or other media did a story on what we all talking about with townhouses like these and projects like the Drake being taken down and likely being replaced with garbage if it would stir up any reaction.

I would love to see this forum organize to have an impact on the shape that the city is taking. I think alot of people here are informed and have the city's best interest in mind and I'd be happy to help any effort that anyone might suggest. If people like us don't take action I doubt anyone else will.

[Fabrizio]

"I wonder if the Times or other media did a story on what we all talking about..."

I've also asked the same thing here.

At one time, the Times DID report on such things with a weekly Sunday architecture report written by Ada Louise Huxtable (later by Paul Goldberger).

Huxtable was a force to be reckoned with and the Sunday Times gave her great exposure. She had an impact. From her Wikipedia bio:

"John Costonis, writing of how public aesthetics is shaped, used her as a prime example of an influential media critic, remarking that "the continuing barrage fired from [her] Sunday column... had New York developers, politicians, and bureaucrats, ducking for years."

He reproduces a cartoon in which construction workers, at the base of a building site with a foundation and a few girders lament that "Ada Louise Huxtable already doesn't like it!"

"Carter Wiseman writes, "Huxtable's insistence on intellectual rigor and high design standards made her the conscience of the national architectural community."

Today? We are currently living in the most self-satisfied, air-headed times I can ever remember. Who could ever image an architecture critic as a cultural force?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Louise_Huxtable

[ManhattanKnight]

This is my neighborhood and I am very upset to hear that we will lose this beautiful row of structures in addition to the Drake. It was like salt rubbed into the wound. Can they not build the tower behind and above these buildings, set back from these facades? They add so much charm and scale to the area.


Has anyone seen the major media outlets covering these developments at all? I wonder if the Times or other media did a story on what we all talking about with townhouses like these and projects like the Drake being taken down and likely being replaced with garbage if it would stir up any reaction.

I would love to see this forum organize to have an impact on the shape that the city is taking. I think alot of people here are informed and have the city's best interest in mind and I'd be happy to help any effort that anyone might suggest. If people like us don't take action I doubt anyone else will.

I, too, will mourn the loss of these wonderful buildings, if that happens. But, I suggest, outrage at this very late date is no substitute for dogged and usually thankless preservation efforts years before the wrecking ball comes over the horizon. How many of you who complain so loudly this week lifted even a finger during the last decade to identify and protect worthy buildings in this neighborhood? Sure, it would be lovely if Landmarks were proactive and developers aesthetes, but that's not the world we live in.

Incidentally, though this kind of 11th-hour hue-and-cry is usually ineffective, occasionally it works, as in the case of a nearby collection of buildings quite similar to those discussed in this thread, which was mostly saved. Carter Horsley -- love that name! -- describes what happened there (but isn't happy that moving a tall new tower back from the sidewalk to preserve old storefronts has blocked his view of the ESB):



http://www.thecityreview.com/712fifth.html

[Fahzee]

Macklowe makes me sick. The little buildings on 57th that this creep is buying are little gems. Macklowe has no respect for NY's architecture or its history. He also is buying a block of beautiful, old townhouses on Lex and 73rd that he will raze.


My apologies for going slightly off-topic, but i thought I'd give you a quick heads up. The block of townhouses on Lex & 73rd are part of the proposed "Upper East Side Expanded Historic District", which recently (2005) rec'd historic district status from both the state & national registers of historic places.

you can find the map that includes these townhouses here:
http://www.lexingtonexhibit.org/map_main.php

although being on the register does not give the townhouses full protection, it is an important step towards landmark status. If it is true that these homes are on the chopping block, then a letter writing campaign is absolutely in order

After all - the hard work of surveying these buildings has already been done by Friends of the Upper East Side - at this point, it is up to the landmarks committee to start holding hearings.

The one of the main unfortuante parts of this whole Macklowe fiasco is that there is no MIDTOWN historic organization, and therefore no midtown historic district (although that might be a chicken / egg situation)

[londonlawyer]

You guys should see the nice buildings on 73rd and Lex that Macklowe plans to raze. He's a jerk.

[Fahzee]

jinx londonlawyer :)

[ZippyTheChimp]

What a depressing thread.

[londonlawyer]

What a depressing thread.

It is depressing. Razing the Drake was bad enough, but razing the gems on 57th is an extra kick in the ba.lls. Excuse my color commentary, but it's warranted because this is so depressing. The impotent jerk Tierney should stop Macklowe.

[jacksom]

I have a couple questions for New Yorkers. You guys have a first hand/front seat view of the development going on in NYC. It’s been a while since I’ve been to the city.

Despite the recent lost of significant historic structures in the city (i.e. the Drake, townhouses… etc.), NYC still has a vast amount of beautiful historic structures within the city…. right? Is this destruction isolated to Mid-town Manhattan or is this problem affecting the entire city?

[londonlawyer]

I have a couple questions for New Yorkers. You guys have a first hand/front seat view of the development going on in NYC. It’s been a while since I’ve been to the city.

Despite the recent lost of significant historic structures in the city (i.e. the Drake, townhouses… etc.), NYC still has a vast amount of beautiful historic structures within the city…. right? Is this destruction isolated to Mid-town Manhattan or is this problem affecting the entire city?

NY has far more beautiful, old structures than any US city. Nevertheless, it is disheatening to see any destroyed.

[MidtownGuy]

You guys should see the nice buildings on 73rd and Lex

I'll go up and shoot some pics.

[londonlawyer]

Thanks.

The article from the Jan. 9, 2007 edition of the NY Post is set forth below. Amazingly, Weiss and Cuozzo seem to admire this jerk's demolition of nice structures.


Here's the article:
There seem to be no limits on the ambitions of Harry and Billy Macklowe. The father-son team own the GM Building, commanding the highest rents in the U.S.; they recently bought 1330 Sixth Ave. for $498 million; and they plan major new projects at 510 Madison Ave. and at the former Drake Hotel site on Park Avenue.

Now, the Macklowes are in the early stage of a new assemblage on Lexington Avenue. The company already controlled 1018 Lexington, one of six adjacent, four-story buildings on the north side of the western blockfront between 72nd and 73rd streets.

Now they've quietly bought No. 1012 as well for $5.5 million. Since the Macklowes are not in the business of managing tenements, we assume they have bigger game in mind.

[jacksom]

NY has far more beautiful, old structures than any US city. Nevertheless, it is disheatening to see any destroyed.

Londonlawyer, I agree with you 100%.

I'm just hoping that NY is not losing its old world charm at the expense of greedy developer. That's what I admire most about NY. I'm sadden by the lost of these pre-war beauties. It's these old structures that separates NY from Hong Kong, Dubai, to some extent Chicago (Chi-town has many but it's not close to NY in numbers) and all the other major skyscraper centers around the world.

I guest it makes me feel a little better knowing that NY still has thousands of these beautiful old structures within its city limits.

[TREPYE]

I guest it makes me feel a little better knowing that NY still has thousands of these beautiful old structures within its city limits.

It is worth preserving ALL of them, specially because these bastard developers nowadays will NEVER give us this type of intricate and beautiful architecture ever again; so if they are lost they will be lost forever.

[kliq6]

I understand all people views here, but this city is constantly changing and manythings will come and go as time goes by and there really is not alot anyone can do about it

[lbjefferies]

It is worth preserving ALL of them, specially because these bastard developers nowadays will NEVER give us this type of intricate and beautiful architecture ever again; so if they are lost they will be lost forever.

I believe there are some prewar buildings that are not absolutely essential to the city's fabric. Kliq6 is correct in pointing out that this city is always changing. In fact, I think I saw a Whitman or Irving quote about this very subject from well over a century ago. Lamenting about how one wouldn't be able to recognize the city they returned to after leaving for a generation. Its actually one of the reasons I love it here and one of the principal reasons this city is so alive. But, but, but, one would hope the buildings sacrificed to the monster that is New York real estate; would be buildings of lesser beauty. One would hope.

This building is a gem on a stretch of road with plenty of gems. St Barts, Seagram, Lever, PepsiCo. The Drake may not be on the level of those other buildings, but when you consider the same stretch has several godawful boxes constructed for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible; the frustration at seeing this wonderful building and others ready for destruction is depressing. This Drake should be protected.

[londonlawyer]

I understand all people views here, but this city is constantly changing and manythings will come and go as time goes by and there really is not alot anyone can do about it

I disagree. There are scores of sites with junk like the building on Lex near GCS that Antinimby posted. Nondescript garbage like this should be razed. The Drake and those old buildings should be preserved. Macklowe should be hung, drawn and quartered. (Not literally, of course.)

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4872/45lexingtonop1.jpg

[RandySavage]

What is happening to the townhouses and especially the Drake is criminal. I've sent Tierney an angry letter. The Landmarks Commission is government agency and they must be held accountable for this failure of duty.

[MidtownGuy]

I understand all people views here, but this city is constantly changing and manythings will come and go as time goes by and there really is not alot anyone can do about it

It is true that the city is always changing. Without some kind of ethos which says you can support robust development while at the same time saving things of lasting value for the benefit of future generations of New Yorkers, in the end we lose what makes New York unique from other world cities with endless skyscrapers. Let's keep building skyscrapers but let's do it in a way that preserves the interest of the streeetscape at sidewalk level. The remarkable aesthetic experience that a streetscape like the stretch on 57th provides can be easily preserved with a tower rising behind and above, especially in this case since the already doomed Drake that is a part of the project sits behind them.
If a relative left me 40 million dollars, it would seem like a lot at first. But then I'd start chipping away at it. Without wise development of my financial portfolio I might spend it bit by bit until my bank balance was no different than my neighbors.
New Yorkers "hit the lottery" with all this utterly irreplaceable architectural wealth that our forefathers created and left to us. Materials and craftsmanship that we will not see much of again. Some people might be cavalier and think we can knock these things down month after month, chipping away at the ol' bank account. There are so many of them, it is said. But it's shortsighted. The fact that they are sprinkled all around Manhattan is not something to be taken for granted and spent frivolously. Their presence and effect on the beauty of New York is cumulative and "greater than the sum of its parts". Our decendants could have the pleasure of enjoying this architectural wealth (and the real
$$$ wealth it generates in the long run) if we'd just have the common sense to think beyond our own short-term benefit; developing blocks that need it, and recognizing other blocks (like the one on 57th) as timeless and irreplaceable.
I thought we had mechanisms in place to help guide the process of change in a rational and long-term-beneficial way. One, for example, being the Landmarks Commision. Yet time and time again we have witnessed its inability (or willful negligence I'm beginning to believe) to save treasures like the townhouses on 56th street, which were destroyed for a banal 16- story residential. This is not the way to solve the housing shortage or to develop the city. It's not like they're building an 80-floor beauty there.
A little bit of common sense and New York will continue to change and develop, but in a thoughtful way. The goal should be overall improvement, we're intelligent human beings and we can guide these forces of architectural change to our collective benefit.

[kliq6]

I disagree. There are scores of sites with junk like the building on Lex near GCS that Antinimby posted. Nondescript garbage like this should be razed. The Drake and those old buildings should be preserved. Macklowe should be hung, drawn and quartered. (Not literally, of course.)

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4872/45lexingtonop1.jpg

Your right about other sites but many of these site have multiple owners and it takes a long time to get them to form a new development right. The Drake is a huge site and it comes at one quick buy.

Having said this however, I believe the Drake should be saved and done over like the Plaze was. AS for the 510 site, ill stick to my original opinion, nothing that was taken down was worth saving

[londonlawyer]

....New Yorkers "hit the lottery" with all this utterly irreplaceable architectural wealth that our forefathers created and left to us. Materials and craftsmanship that we will not see much of again....

I cannot agree with you more. Look at the magnificent old building that was replaced with the filthy and disgusting POS at 330 Madison. Countless examples like that exist. NY cannot continue razing these gems. Midtown is now a lost cause, but other areas south of 42nd Street that have scores of beautiful buildings must be preserved. For example, Trinity Church should not be permitted to raze its nice old buildings. The destruction of the L&T annex should be blocked, etc. Extell plans to raze a MAGNIFICENT Victorian townhouse on WEA just south of 86th Street. Rosen should not be permitted to raze the stunning building on 5th and 43rd. This is all horrific.

Also, Macklowe has a proven track record of building garbage. At least when Rosen rap.es a site, he hires Foster to create something nice. A 750 foot maximum POS will rise on the Drake's site. The fact that it's nearly 70 stories means nothing. Isn't Orion over 60 stories, and it's well under 700 feet. Even if the Drake's site contains 20 floors of offices, this won't be a 900foot tower. As I stated previously, I hope that it's as short as possible because cheapskate Macklowe will hire SLCE to produce a cheap, glass box, and we don't need a conspicuous POS looming on the skyline.

[kliq6]

In Midtown its very hard to not redevelop sites as in terms of the commercial market we can only build incertain area so buildings will be lost. Basically from 3rd to 8th from 42nd to 59th many buildings there today may not be tommorow

[ManhattanKnight]

What is happening to the townhouses and especially the Drake is criminal. I've sent Tierney an angry letter. The Landmarks Commission is government agency and they must be held accountable for this failure of duty.

Among the windy rants bloating this thread, someone who actually did something!

I hope that you sent Tierney some photos with your letter; unclear how often he emerges from his burrow and opens his eyes. While you're at it, it certainly can't hurt to let his boss know about your views:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007

FAX: 212/788-8123
nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html (http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html)

And, if you have a few more minutes, these, too:


The Municipal Art Society of New York
457 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022

FAX: 212-753-1816
info@mas.org (info@mas.org)

Preservation League of New York State
44 Central Avenue
Albany, New York 12206-3002

FAX: 518-462-5684
info@preservenys.org

National Trust for Historic Preservation
Northeast Office
Seven Faneuil Hall Marketplace
Boston, MA 02109

FAX: 617-523-1199
nero@nthp.org

Historic Districts Council
232 East 11th Street
New York NY 10003

FAX: 212-614-9127
hdc@hdc.org

Community Board Five
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2109
New York, NY 10123

FAX: 212-465-1628
office@cb5.org

[londonlawyer]

Among the windy rants bloating this thread, someone who actually did something!...

Randy Savage's effort is admirable, but these buildings will be razed. Macklowe apparently is very well connected and has carte blanche to do what he wants. Also, Tierney's inability to do anything is as well-settled as Sam Chang's failure to construct a decent building.

[RandySavage]

I heard back today from someone at the Landmark's Commission. The response at this time is "those buildings are still being studied." Today I am sending emails (including photos) to everyone listed in ManhattanKnight's post (thanks for the information). I hope all who care about this issue have done or will do the same.

[Adyton]

Bless you Randy Savage and Manhatten Knight!!:)

Once you get responses... please let the forum know if "MORE THE BETTER" from other outraged citizens will help ... and I'll be the first in line to do whatever you instruct us to do!!:D

[RandySavage]

You shouldn't hesitate to contact the aforementioned organizations and let them know your feelings. The more, the sooner, the better. You can use this link:

http://nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maillpc.html

[londonlawyer]

A reliable source reports that The Drake will be replaced with a 30 to 40 story office building. I knew that Scmucklowe would produce something short and lame, notwithstanding reports of a 69 story tower. I guarantee that it will be even lamer than 510 Madison because cheapskate will maximize every square inch of the L-Shaped plot yielding an moronic building. The real kick in the groin will be if he actually razes the beautiful buildings on 57th Street. Macklowe is as bad as Sam Chang.

[krulltime]

How freaking sad. :( So much dissapointment lately. I was expecting something great and tall to replace this Drake beauty.

[londonlawyer]

How freaking sad. :( So much dissapointment lately. I was expecting something great and tall to replace this Drake beauty.

It took serious chutzpah for this jerk to raze The Drake to begin with, but his constructing an absurd, cheap glass POC on some of the most expensive real estate in the world adds insult to injury. The real kick in the groin will be if and when he razes the beautiful townhouses on 57th St.

http://static.flickr.com/139/322484308_183df3fcc3_b.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

I have an idea that I want to present. What if I create a leaflet with photos and info about this impending destruction. I could briefly describe how the Drake around the corner is already slated for destruction and that the row of townhouses that are adjacent to the property are now in danger as well. Then
give some kind of contact info or suggestions on how concerned people could express their views. Is it pointless? Distribute the flyer around the neighborhood, leave it in foyers, hand it to people directly, I don't know. I would need help from you guys in deciding the "headline" to go across the top in large print, and maybe what info should be included. Maybe encourage contacting Macklowe's team?
If it's likely to be without merit, please tell me, guys. It will take a lot of time
to design and distribute these, and if I'm going up against a lost cause then I'd as soon spend my sunny May afternoons some other way.
I just feel like I should do something more than contacting the worthless landmark people who always find some loophole to explain why they won't do anything about it.

[kliq6]

anything is worth a effort, but Billy M has been lining D Doctoroffs pockets for years, he was his biggest 2012 supporter and donated most of his staff for " manadtory" volunteering efforts

[londonlawyer]

I have an idea that I want to present. What if I create a leaflet with photos and info about this impending destruction. I could briefly describe how the Drake around the corner is already slated for destruction and that the row of townhouses that are adjacent to the property are now in danger as well. Then
give some kind of contact info or suggestions on how concerned people could express their views. Is it pointless? Distribute the flyer around the neighborhood, leave it in foyers, hand it to people directly, I don't know. I would need help from you guys in deciding the "headline" to go across the top in large print, and maybe what info should be included. Maybe encourage contacting Macklowe's team?
If it's likely to be without merit, please tell me, guys. It will take a lot of time
to design and distribute these, and if I'm going up against a lost cause then I'd as soon spend my sunny May afternoons some other way.
I just feel like I should do something more than contacting the worthless landmark people who always find some loophole to explain why they won't do anything about it.


I applaud your effort, Midtown Guy, but I agree with Kliq. This buildings will be razed, and a terrible glass box will rise in their place. Macklowe is worse than Sam Chang.

[Harvick2933]

This is such a shame...

Macklowe should really take a cue from the Heritage @ Millennium Park residential tower that was built in Chicago's Wabash Ave Historical District. That building preserved practically all the facades of the low-rise buildings that previously occupied the site. In fact, the taller, soon-to-be-built Legacy @ Millennium Park, which will also be built in the same neighborhood, will also preserve the existing street wall. Why Tierney and those incompetent boneheads at the LPC is not at least ordering Macklowe to do that is simply beyond me.

The site that Macklowe has his hands on almost takes up a good half of the block. Heck, that's more than enough room for him to preserve the Drake and the facades of the historical townhomes and still build a decent-sized residential tower over the plots of the townhomes and annex it to the Drake. Only an architecture-hating jerk would still resort to such destructive acts even with all the space he's given to work with, and Macklowe is definitely one of them.

[MidtownGuy]

Yeah... kliq6 is probably right. Any efforts I could make won't amount to a hill of beans in the face of all that influence.:mad:

[kliq6]

sorry to be the party pooper, im just trying to be a straight shooter with everyone and share any inside info I can

[londonlawyer]

Macklowe really is worse than Chang.

[Ed007Toronto]

Yeah... kliq6 is probably right. Any efforts I could make won't amount to a hill of beans in the face of all that influence.

I wonder if Jane Jacobs had the same attititude when she went up against Moses?

[MidtownGuy]

I appreciate it kliq6.

[NYCDOC]

Midtown, I would be willing to help with your effort . . . .

I think all of us should stop throwing our hands up in the air on all these issues that we keep bringing up on this site and DO SOMETHING!!! I'm not saying that I have all answers or time to go 100% on this, but if all of us who are concerned with these type of issues do something I'm sure we'd get somewhere or at least know that we tried.

[RandySavage]

^ I agree. Better to go down fighting than just be fatalistic.

As far as the leaflet goes:

"SAVE THE DRAKE

[Insert Before/After Photo]

PARK AVE. JEWEL TO BE RAZED AND REPLACED BY CHEAP BOX

In a lose-lose deal for New Yorkers, developer harry Macklowe will soon raze the irreplaceable Drake Hotel and build in its place a mid-size glass tower unworthy of our City, much less this esteemed address. As the Drake, a historic and architectural treasure, is reduced to rubble, the only true beneficiary will be Macklowe, who stands to make millions at the expense of Manhattan’s heritage.

If you care about New York City's legacy, contact _______ to oppose the 510 Madison Ave. project and demand landmark protection for the Drake.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD"

[BPC]

Sign me up. Just tell me what to do.

[macreator]

Madison Avenue Jewel? I thought we were talking about the Drake on Park Avenue, and the townhouses on 57th street.

[antinimby]

^ I agree. Better to go down fighting than just be fatalistic.

As far as the leaflet goes:

"SAVE THE DRAKE

[Insert Before/After Photo]

MADISON AVE. JEWEL TO BE RAZED AND REPLACED BY CHEAP BOX

In a lose-lose deal for New Yorkers, developer William Macklowe will soon raze the irreplaceable Drake Hotel and build in its place a mid-size glass tower unworthy of our City, much less this esteemed address. As the Drake, a historic and architectural treasure, is reduced to rubble, the only true beneficiary will be Macklowe, who stands to make millions at the expense of Manhattan’s heritage.

If you care about New York City's legacy, contact _______ to oppose the 510 Madison Ave. project and demand landmark protection for the Drake.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD"I was hoping we could include the shops on 57 St. as well. Surely there's a way to preserve the fa&#231;ades of those shops ala the Henry Miller theatre in the Bank of America tower or One York, for example.

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2190/1york04cst4.jpg

[londonlawyer]

I was hoping we could include the shops on 57 St. as well. Surely there's a way to preserve the façades of those shops ala the Henry Miller theatre in the Bank of America tower or One York, for example.

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2190/1york04cst4.jpg

The difference is that Durst and some other developers want to build great new buildings that enhance the city. Schmucklowe is interested only in profits and will not spend the money to preserve the facades of the nice buildings. I am really sick and disheartened about this.

[Alonzo-ny]

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2190/1york04cst4.jpg

they have been preserving facades like this on buildings throughout my whole life in glasgow i dont see why they cant do it in NY.

[Harvick2933]

Preserving the old facades of existing buildings are certainly doable under practically all circumstances. Unfortunately, most of the current developers in NYC are too pig-headed to spend some extra bucks to do so. Heck, the mentality of most of the current NYC developers and LPC officials are little better than their predecessors (well, no predecessors for the latter I guess) in the 50's and 60's. It's a disturbing trend, and I just can't see how we can get back to the preservationist eras of the 80's and 90's any time soon unless heads start rolling in the LPC.

[infoshare]

The Architecture geeks are pissed! (http://www.curbed.com/) :D

[RandySavage]

Good for Curbed for bringing more attention to this. Regarding my earlier post, it's probably better to use the correct address and name of developer... that's what you get when you rush.

[londonlawyer]

The Architecture geeks are pissed! (http://www.curbed.com/) :D

I wrote them the e-mail in question. We should write a joint letter to Tierney the Loser.

[RandySavage]

And to the Mayor as well. If Tierney isn't protecting buildings like these then he needs to go.

[londonlawyer]

I sent the following e-mail to Macklowe:

Macklowe's greed is an utter disgrace. I was appalled when I saw the cheap box that "Billy" and Harry are constructing at 510 Madison. My disdain was particularly keen in light of the fact that they razed many beautiful structures in order to obtain that site.

When I learned that they were razing The Drake, I was utterly nauseated. However, their planned destruction of several beautiful townhouses on 57th Street deals an even graver injury to our city's architectural heritage. I understand that these magnificent buildings and The Drake won't even be replaced with a great new building, but rather with a cheap, glass box.

Macklowe's avarice and lack of concern for the city is reprehensible. At least other developers, like Rosen and Silverstein, hire world class architects, such as Foster and Rogers, in an effort to create new landmarks. The Macklowes, by contrast, destroy New York's architectural treasures and replace them with the lowest quality buildings. Your company is an anathema and should be banned from "developing" in New York.

[Scraperfannyc]

I sent the following e-mail to Macklowe:

Macklowe's greed is an utter disgrace. I was appalled when I saw the cheap box that "Billy" and Harry are constructing at 510 Madison. My disdain was particularly keen in light of the fact that they razed many beautiful structures in order to obtain that site.

When I learned that they were razing The Drake, I was utterly nauseated. However, their planned destruction of several beautiful townhouses on 57th Street deals an even graver injury to our city's architectural heritage. I understand that these magnificent buildings and The Drake won't even be replaced with a great new building, but rather with a cheap, glass box.

Macklowe's avarice and lack of concern for the city is reprehensible. At least other developers, like Rosen and Silverstein, hire world class architects, such as Foster and Rogers, in an effort to create new landmarks. The Macklowes, by contrast, destroy New York's architectural treasures and replace them with the lowest quality buildings. Your company is an anathema and should be banned from "developing" in New York.


What is his e-mail address. I would like to send him my commentary of what I think he is doing in NYC as well.

[londonlawyer]

It's used to be listed on their website, www.macklowe.com. However, I recall that it's wmacklowe@macklowe.com. They removed it from the website recently. They now list only alazarus@macklowe.com.

[pianoman11686]

This block of 57th street sure has some rich history. I found this old article from nearly 20 years ago about the development battle between Zeckendorf and the townhouses opposite Macklowe's development. I'm pretty sure they were all demolished and in their place rose the Four Seasons Hotel (57 East 57th Street).

STREETSCAPES: #53-63 East 57th Street; A Holdout Battle Over a Vestige of Victorian Elegance

By CHRISTOPHER GRAY
Published: June 12, 1988

A HOLDOUT drama appears to be unfolding in the row of six, five-story town houses at 53-63 East 57th Street that went up in the 1870's and saw new life as elegant shops in the 1920's. The Zeckendorf Company is now demolishing 57-63 East 57th Street for an unspecified building project.

Zeckendorf also owns the land under 55, where Baccarat has its showroom on the first two floors and is the only occupant of the building the crystal firm owns. The house at 53 is vacant, but has a different owner.

In the 19th century the address of choice, if a family could not live on a fashionable avenue like Fifth or Madison, was a wide cross street; 14th, 23d and 34th Streets all had their periods of genteel occupancy. Forty-second Street was compromised by Grand Central terminal, established there in 1869.

In 1877, a speculative developer, Duggin & Crossman, put up a row of brownstones at 32-50 East 57th Street, selling and renting to families like that of Emma Lazarus - the poet who wrote ''The New Colossus,'' now engraved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty - at 32 East 57th Street in 1883.

But the sunny north side was more desirable, and lots there were sold to individual owners who built their own town houses. First was Moses Ingersoll, treasurer of the Pottier & Stymus furniture concern, who built a brownstone at 53 East 57th Street in 1877. Henry C. Tinker, a banker, and Charles W. Durant Jr., a sugar broker, built 55 and 57 East 57th Street in 1878.

The Rowe family put up a neo-Grec house at 59 East 57th Street in 1879, designed by Jardine & Jardine, with exquisite incised carving that still survives. The family of tea broker George Dominick built the Victorian Gothic-style double house at 61-63 East 57th Street in the same year, designed by John G. Prague.

Gradually, 57th Street became an only slightly less luminous residential address than the Fifth Avenue of the Vanderbilts, Whitneys and others. But by the turn of the century even the Fifth Avenue palaces were fighting a holding action against the invasion of retailers and businesses from points farther south.

In 1910, the Vanderbilts gave up a decade-long battle to keep Fifth Avenue above 50th Street residential, although they remained in occupancy for some years afterward. In the same year, Maria Chapin, who founded the private girls' school that still bears her name, altered 32 and 34 East 57th Street for school purposes, the first nonresidential alteration on this block of 57th.

Because of its proximity to the residential section farther north, 57th became an art center and elite shopping district. New storefronts were installed, like that at 59 East 57th Street designed by J.E.R. Carpenter in 1917 and occupied in 1920 by the Stair and Company antiques firm.

The contrast of the 1917 Renaissance-style storefront on the first two floors with the intact 1879 neo-Grec carving and cornice on the upper floors was typical of the rich visual contrast of the new district, in which residential and commercial elements coexisted.

Stair was later joined on the block by Israel Sack, at 61, and other important art and antiques firms such as Ackermann, George Wittenborn and Parke-Bernet.

In 1924, Joseph Brummer, a sculpture dealer, rebuilt 53 East 57th Street with a new Italian-style facade designed by I.N. Phelps Stokes. The new facade provided an elegant echo of the residential origins of the street.

GRADUALLY, the row became sandwiched between the giant Fuller Building (1929) at Madison Avenue and 460 Park Avenue (1954). As the last vestiges of the residential character of the 50's just east of Fifth Avenue began to disappear in the 1950's, the 57th Street row came to represent a sort of symbolic demilitarized zone between the midtown skyscrapers and the Upper East Side residential district.

But with the I.B.M., A.T.&T. and other nearby building projects, the 57th Street row became simply another attractive site for redevelopment.

The Zeckendorf Company acquired 57-63 East 57th Street and the land under 55 last December. The developer will not discuss its ideas for the site, but it appears that it wants to buy 55 and the now-vacant 53 East 57th Street, owned by a partnership that includes a Dr. M. Rubin.

Current zoning would permit an office or mixed-use tower of 30 to 40 stories on the six-building site with a floor-to-area ratio of 15 - or 15 square feet of space for every one square feet of the building's footprint.

Reached at her office, Dr. Rubin declined to discuss the status of her building. And Franccois de Montmorin, president of Baccarat, said that he was ''not at liberty to discuss anything.''

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[londonlawyer]

This block of 57th street ...

It's sad. However, at least the Four Seasons is a beautiful, lavish building. Schmucklowe, by contrast, will build a cheap glass box.

[pianoman11686]

BTW London, I don't think writing letters to Macklowe and/or continuing to deride him as a schmuck is going to accomplish anything. If you really want to make an impact, I'd suggest doing some research on some previous attempts by preservationists to incorporate similar small buildings into new highrise projects. 712 Fifth Avenue (http://www.thecityreview.com/712fifth.html) might be a good place to start. Maybe then you can have a more persuasive argument for Macklowe doing something that, in all likelihood, he has no interest in.

[londonlawyer]

BTW London, I don't think writing letters to Macklowe and/or continuing to deride him as a schmuck is going to accomplish anything. If you really want to make an impact, I'd suggest doing some research on some previous attempts by preservationists to incorporate similar small buildings into new highrise projects. 712 Fifth Avenue (http://www.thecityreview.com/712fifth.html) might be a good place to start. Maybe then you can have a more persuasive argument for Macklowe doing something that, in all likelihood, he has no interest in.

I agree that writing to Schmucklowe will accomplish nothing, but it's nice to insult the SOB. I hate to sound like a pessimist, but no one can stop this project. These buildings will be razed. The 56th St. townhouses were more beautiful than these, and no one stopped the philistines on that project.

[infoshare]

............I'd suggest doing some research on some previous attempts by preservationists to incorporate similar small buildings into new highrise projects.

This is another example (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID010.htm) of where a high-rise was combined with an existing building that was worthy of preserving; there are many other similar projects around town.

Excerpt taken from nycarchitecture.com -
"Although the developer wanted to demolish the Villard Houses for his new building, the Landmarks Preservation Commission fought -- and won -- to save the original structures. As a result, the facade of the Villard Houses was incorporated into the new hotel and the wings of the building were given over to non-profit organizations including the Urban Center, the Landmarks Conservancy, and the Municipal Arts Society."

[NYguy]

I sent the following e-mail to Macklowe:

Macklowe's greed is an utter disgrace. I was appalled when I saw the cheap box that "Billy" and Harry are constructing at 510 Madison. My disdain was particularly keen in light of the fact that they razed many beautiful structures in order to obtain that site.

Macklowe's avarice and lack of concern for the city is reprehensible. At least other developers, like Rosen and Silverstein, hire world class architects, such as Foster and Rogers, in an effort to create new landmarks. The Macklowes, by contrast, destroy New York's architectural treasures and replace them with the lowest quality buildings. Your company is an anathema and should be banned from "developing" in New York.

LOL, win'em over with charm...

[londonlawyer]

LOL, win'em over with charm...

I wasn't trying to persuade Macklowe to reverse an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. That's obviously not going to happen. I was trying to insult the schmuck.

[Turboff]

I'm not a New Yorker, but I have visited the city many times, and these kind of buildings (Drake and the townhouses) are always my favorite parts of the city. I couldn't care less for glass boxes. I can find them in any major city in the country. New York is special because of its past, its history.

These building's destruction is just awful. Capitalists have no souls; no care for anything besides making money. The sooner people realize this, the sooner mankind can continue making progress.

[kliq6]

BTW London, I don't think writing letters to Macklowe and/or continuing to deride him as a schmuck is going to accomplish anything. If you really want to make an impact, I'd suggest doing some research on some previous attempts by preservationists to incorporate similar small buildings into new highrise projects. 712 Fifth Avenue (http://www.thecityreview.com/712fifth.html) might be a good place to start. Maybe then you can have a more persuasive argument for Macklowe doing something that, in all likelihood, he has no interest in.

no matter what is sent or written Macklowe was not calling off plans, London just expressed his freedom of speech, which is all of our rights

[kliq6]

I'm not a New Yorker, but I have visited the city many times, and these kind of buildings (Drake and the townhouses) are always my favorite parts of the city. I couldn't care less for glass boxes. I can find them in any major city in the country. New York is special because of its past, its history.

These building's destruction is just awful. Capitalists have no souls; no care for anything besides making money. The sooner people realize this, the sooner mankind can continue making progress.

Yeah but Capitalisim is what makes America the power it is.

[pianoman11686]

And it was capitalists who originally put up all the historic buildings that we now all treasure...

[Fabrizio]

And what's the point?

Historic preservation spurs economies.

Tribeca? Soho? Now the most expensive addresses in the US.

The Miami Beach Art-Deco district? It put Miami back on the map... added glamour and started a chain-reaction of development in the rest of the city.

Historic-preservation = a flourishing economy.

Capitalism indeed.

http://www.achp.gov/economic-statewide.html

[pianoman11686]

And there's a right way, and a wrong way, to go about it.

[Scraperfannyc]

Yeah but Capitalisim is what makes America the power it is.

There is good good and constructive Capitalism and Bad and corrupt Capitalism. The Capitalism that is creating the new WTC and the Chicago spire is very good, and Macklowe is at the opposite side of the spectrum.

[investordude]

Midtown Manhattan used to be a residential street with mansions that were beautiful. If you guys were around back then, you'd have stopped them from tearing that down and building the Drake, or the rest of high rise Manhattan.

This is an old city - there's lots of cool old stuff here. But I think you really need to pick and choose what you preserve and also allow the city to reinvent itself and flourish. On balance, these seem like sensible investments - the Drake doesn't seem to be historically distinctive compared to similar buildings which are all over Manhattan.

[Fabrizio]

"Midtown Manhattan used to be a residential street with mansions that were beautiful. If you guys were around back then, you'd have stopped them from tearing that down and building the Drake, or the rest of high rise Manhattan. "

The preservationist movement was born after WWII for a reason. It was at the height of the glass and steel International Style era. We were losing the fine materials, craftsmanship, the details, the artistry seen in previous styles. Even "modern" buildings built up until the War, like the Empire State, Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building etc. made lavish use of limestone, marble, decoration, murals, sculptures... but by the 1960's it was obvious that an era had come to a close. And that's why so many are interested in preserving this legacy.

NYC needs the Drake just as much as it needs Norman Foster, Frank Ghery, Renzo Piano... and great modern architecture.

(BTW: see the tread about London to see how an ancient city can remain vital, up-to-the-minute and how it can incorporate modern developement.)

[RandySavage]

^ Aside from its being the only crafted and architecturally interesting building on a block composed of 2-3 other non-descript, cheap-looking, even hideous, modern boxes, the Drake allows for the amalgum of old and new that gives the City its appeal.

[kliq6]

There is good good and constructive Capitalism and Bad and corrupt Capitalism. The Capitalism that is creating the new WTC and the Chicago spire is very good, and Macklowe is at the opposite side of the spectrum.

you caught what I was thinking, thanks

[kliq6]

"Midtown Manhattan used to be a residential street with mansions that were beautiful. If you guys were around back then, you'd have stopped them from tearing that down and building the Drake, or the rest of high rise Manhattan. "

The preservationist movement was born after WWII for a reason. It was at the height of the glass and steel International Style era. We were losing the fine materials, craftsmanship, the details, the artistry seen in previous styles. Even "modern" buildings built up until the War, like the Empire State, Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building etc. made lavish use of limestone, marble, decoration, murals, sculptures... but by the 1960's it was obvious that an era had come to a close. And that's why so many are interested in preserving this legacy.

NYC needs the Drake just as much as it needs Norman Foster, Frank Ghery, Renzo Piano... and great modern architecture.

(BTW: see the tread about London to see how an ancient city can remain vital, up-to-the-minute and how it can incorporate modern developement.)


Curious to see peoples opinion on this fact, ESB was built on the lot of the old Waldorf Astoria, should we have stopped that?

[RandySavage]

The answer is obviously no, because the ESB was a superalitve building in terms of size and design. If a spectacular building were going up on the Drake site, fewer of us would be outraged... instead a great, classic, crafted building - of a kind that will never be built again - is being replaced by a short, cheap, ugly glass box.

[Fabrizio]

Is anyone sorry that the Mayfair Hotel, built in 1927, was replaced with Robert Stern's magnificent 15CPW?

No.

Why?

[lofter1]

Partly ^^^ because the Mayflower Hotel had been stripped of much of its facade detail back in the 70's. Plus there was the eyesore of the rubble strewn lot (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2005/02/07/mayflower_hotel_construction_begins_taunting_lone_ tenant.php) along Broadway, which had sat fallow for 10+ years ...

[Fabrizio]

Following the thread. My point (in responce to Klig's post... and adding to RandySavage's argument) is that a fine old building, the Mayflower(and for sake of argument, let's imagine that the ornamentation had not been previously stripped off) was replaced by a FINE new building. A NEW landmark. And of couse that's fine with everyone.

( The Mayflower with ornamentation: http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=486378 )

[londonlawyer]

Developers in NY suck. Lois Weiss reported in the Post today that someone bought four buildings on 3rd between 78th and 79th and will replace them with a condo. I looked them up on propertyshark, and they're beautiful. Third has so many filthy, unornamented walk-ups that beg for redevelopment, and this creep decides to raze the nice ones. It's BS!!

[fioco]

I'm having great difficulty jump-starting a Preserve New York to pre-Henry Hudson times. Everyone looks at me like I'm a crackpot, but it would resolve your dispute: how do you determine what to landmark and preserve . Hey, it's sure to be LEED Platinum (maybe they'll even establish a Titanium level just for my idea), plus it will have a negative carbon footprint. Any takers? I didn't think so. Well, time to hug a tree; catchya later.

[pianoman11686]

There is good good and constructive Capitalism and Bad and corrupt Capitalism. The Capitalism that is creating the new WTC and the Chicago spire is very good, and Macklowe is at the opposite side of the spectrum.

Sorry, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The new WTC is saddled with billions in federal aid money, as well as huge commitments from federal and state governments to lease space once it's built. Plus, the Port Authority is heavily involved. There may be certain aspects of the plan that are capitalistic, but calling it "very good capitalism" is just plain wrong.

I have yet to see any definitive evidence showing that form of capitalism produces better results (read: nicer architecture) than the so-called bad/corrupt form of Macklowe et al.

[Fabrizio]

"I have yet to see any definitive evidence showing that form of capitalism produces better results (read: nicer architecture) than the so-called bad/corrupt form of Macklowe et al."

Well if you're talking about Macklowe, yes, certainly the new WTC will have nicer architecture than what Macklowe is producing. I'll put my bets on: Foster, Calatrava, Rogers etc.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The city needs a Bureau of Architecture - not to dictate any particular style, but to set minimum standards for appearance relative to the location.

A DOB for the way a building looks.

[kliq6]

Agreed on that point, as long as David Childs is not named commisioner or kaufman

[antinimby]

Knowing this city, I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Kaufman would be appointed Commissioner and O'Hara the Chair.

They are licensed in this city (even people like Calatrava or Foster aren't!) and they have lots of experience.

[pianoman11686]

Well if you're talking about Macklowe, yes, certainly the new WTC will have nicer architecture than what Macklowe is producing. I'll put my bets on: Foster, Calatrava, Rogers etc.

In this one case, yes: but considering the profile of the WTC project, it'd be a tragedy if the results turned out to be at or below Macklowe standards. Imagine hiring SLCE to design the whole thing!

[londonlawyer]

I can't wait to see how lame this building will be. When Lois, "the moron," Weiss was predicting some 900 landmark, I knew that Macklowe, a.k.a. Robert Moses Reincarnated, would build a 600 foot (maximum) piece of garbage, cheap, glass box.

[Fabrizio]

Pianoman writes: "In this one case, yes"

In this ONE case?

"That form of capitalism" ...aid from "federal and state governments".... has also helped produce some of America's finest architecture.

In NYC: the original WTC complex... love it or hate it , it was an iconic symbol of NYC... the view of it recognized around the world.

How's about Lincoln Center and it's theatres....the UN complex ... and let's remember the private/public relationship of New York's great museum & library buildings.

The great bridges, tunnels, the subway, the parks.... all great architecture too.

Let's not forget the City Hall building. How about the Manhattan Municipal Building? "one of the largest governmental buildings in the world.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Municipal_Building

And let's not forget this baby:

http://www.anders.com/pictures/public/04-views/27&#37;20-%20Brooklyn%20Bridge%20-%20New%20York%20City_sm.jpg

And this is just NYC.


---

[MidtownGuy]

The city needs a Bureau of Architecture - not to dictate any particular style, but to set minimum standards for appearance relative to the location.

AMEN to that!

[investordude]

Back in the real world, a government bureacracy on personal taste, aside from an unreasonable intrustion on artistic expression, would become a way to block projects until bribes were paid to city officials. It would also be expensive to implement and raise costs, driving builders out of the city.

When was the last time a government bureau created value artistically? Maybe you guys are confusing New York City with Moscow?

[stache]

It's a city that rightly or wrongly has decided to reduce construction in the interest of very demanding building codes. Your reference to Moscow is about fifteen years late. There's lots of hideous residential construction going on there and many old buildings are being torn down illegally without proper due process.

[Scraperfannyc]

Here is good capitalism with the help from the good will of the city of Chicago:

The Chicago Spire Receives Final Approval from The Chicago City Council

Construction on Calatrava’s Architectural Icon to Begin within the Month

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Shelbourne Development Group, Inc. announced that The Chicago Spire, an iconic building designed by internationally renowned architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava, received final approval today from the 50-member Chicago City Council. This action follows unanimous approval from both the City Council Planning Commission and the Zoning Committee in April. The Chicago Spire is scheduled for completion in late 2010 with construction expected to begin this month.

“The city of Chicago has enthusiastically embraced Mr. Calatrava’s vision, and we are both thrilled and humbled by the opportunity to add another architectural icon to the city’s skyline,” said Garrett Kelleher, executive chairman of Shelbourne Development Ltd. & the Shelbourne Development Group, Inc. “The Chicago Spire will be the world’s most celebrated address, and we look forward to beginning construction in a matter of weeks.”

The Chicago Spire, designed by a development team with experience in constructing some of the most prominent properties in the world, will provide a lifestyle unsurpassed by any other distinguished residence in the United States or abroad. Located at 400 North Lake Shore Drive, where the Chicago River meets Lake Michigan, the 2,000-foot tall elegantly twisting tower will house 1,200 unique residences with the finest amenities available anywhere in the world.

The Chicago Spire extends Santiago Calatrava’s artistic vision to create a modern and technologically advanced residential experience. Among its many extraordinary features, The Chicago Spire will include a spectacular four-story transparent glass lobby, unparalleled views from all residences, a six-story underground resident parking garage for 1,350 cars, and a one-acre landscaped public plaza.

The building will feature several innovations in engineering, including the world’s longest elevator run, a steel perimeter and concrete core. Also, The Chicago Spire will be engineered to meet the gold standard of LEED certification, which dictates among other things that rainwater be recycled for landscaping treatments, river water be used for cooling and special glass be included to protect migratory birds. Shelbourne is currently receiving bids for the caissons, which are part of The Chicago Spire’s support structure.

The Chicago sales center will be located in the NBC Tower, which overlooks The Chicago Spire site. The sales effort will be led by United Kingdom-based Savills, Plc. and will launch in early fall 2007 with a global marketing campaign. Savills is a leading international property advisor with experience marketing some of the finest residences around the globe, including One Hyde Park in London, and the Four Seasons Ocean Residence, a private ship.

For more information about The Chicago Spire and Shelbourne Development Group, Inc., see http://www.shelbournedevelopment.com/ and http://www.thechicagospire.com.

About Shelbourne Development

Shelbourne Development, headquartered in Dublin, is one of Ireland's leading property development companies, widely regarded as one of the country’s most professional and progressive developers. In the past three years, Shelbourne’s experienced team, known for its track record in evaluating and capitalizing on cycles in property markets, has completed in excess of 1.5 million square feet of construction in Ireland. It currently has a development pipeline in Dublin in excess of $2 billion US. Shelbourne is currently pursuing developments and projects in Ireland, UK, France and Chicago. Garrett Kelleher, executive chairman of Shelbourne Development Ltd & the Shelbourne Development Group, Inc. holds significant investment properties in Europe.

[investordude]

Chicago is a city with a high crime rate that has managed to use patronage and corruption to keep a single family in office for 50 years, and where police can beat a girl up in a bar and they only get fired because it was on national news. My problem is your proposal generates patronage and corruption, which is unacceptable - Chicago proves this. Why not have government approve what movies we can watch to make sure they are also tasteful? It's been tried, ya know.

And I simply don't believe the city council was the creator of grand design here. This is a "super tall" building. When people build super tall buildings, they make them nice because their visibility and grace is part of what you're selling. They're not doing it to please government bureaus.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Back in the real world, a government bureacracy on personal taste,I said this:
not to dictate any particular style, but to set minimum standards for appearance


When was the last time a government bureau created value artistically?It's been done in New York with historic districts. And landmark laws are much more restrictive on developers than what I'm proposing.


Maybe you guys are confusing New York City with Moscow?Can't you think of other examples besides Moscow?


Why not have government approve what movies we can watch to make sure they are also tasteful?Overblown. Reads like a anti gun-control argument.


When people build super tall buildings, they make them nice because their visibility and grace is part of what you're selling. They're not doing it to please government bureaus.Then why are so many of them not nice?

[lbjefferies]

The city needs a Bureau of Architecture - not to dictate any particular style, but to set minimum standards for appearance relative to the location.

A fantastic, but by no means original idea. The fact that a city of New York's beauty essentially has only the landmarks commision and NIMBYs (who can't be trusted to make decisions on quality) to check development is frightening. And with the current construction boom I feel like there is a real urgency to the issue. All we need is a few celebrities to champion our cause and make this a high priority political issue.

[kliq6]

A fantastic, but by no means original idea. The fact that a city of New York's beauty essentially has only the landmarks commision and NIMBYs (who can't be trusted to make decisions on quality) to check development is frightening. And with the current construction boom I feel like there is a real urgency to the issue. All we need is a few celebrities to champion our cause and make this a high priority political issue.

Call Alec Baldwin, he needs to do something to help his image

[pianoman11686]

"That form of capitalism" ...aid from "federal and state governments".... has also helped produce some of America's finest architecture.

In NYC: the original WTC complex... love it or hate it , it was an iconic symbol of NYC... the view of it recognized around the world.

How's about Lincoln Center and it's theatres....the UN complex ... and let's remember the private/public relationship of New York's great museum & library buildings.

The great bridges, tunnels, the subway, the parks.... all great architecture too.

Let's not forget the City Hall building. How about the Manhattan Municipal Building? "one of the largest governmental buildings in the world.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Municipal_Building

And let's not forget this baby:

http://www.anders.com/pictures/public/04-views/27%20-%20Brooklyn%20Bridge%20-%20New%20York%20City_sm.jpg

And this is just NYC.

---

I think you're really reaching here. Bridges, tunnels, and parks? Please - as if the government doesn't have and hasn't always had a monopoly on building those.

On the Public Library (pretty much all private money): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astor_Library

It's funny you found the need to make a list of the best. I couldn't even begin to make my own list. For starters: the great apartment buildings around Central Park. The grand-dame hotels (Plaza, St. Regis, etc.). Grand Central and Park Avenue. The great skyscrapers. The lofts of SoHo and Tribeca. The great old department stores. Need I go on?

Of course, in your list, you conveniently left out such beauties as the Mitchell-Lama and other Moses-era housing projects. Fortress-like federal buildings. Airports. The New York Coliseum. All garbage. Let's face it: pretty much everything government-built post-Beaux-Arts era has been downright ugly, but we've still gotten plenty of beautiful private buildings despite Modernism, etc.

Even the World Trade Center is no hallmark of architectural success. Haven't you been following along in those threads? The government building - the Freedom Tower - is widely regarded as the worst. The ones built by the private sector (Silverstein) - are on a higher playing field.

[pianoman11686]

Back in the real world, a government bureacracy on personal taste, aside from an unreasonable intrustion on artistic expression, would become a way to block projects until bribes were paid to city officials. It would also be expensive to implement and raise costs, driving builders out of the city.

Pretty much right on. We already complain about how some developers use their political connections to get their projects through zoning approval and community review (see Trump, Ratner, Macklowe?). What'll happen when these new "minimum standards" get put in place? Guaranteed: the big guys will get around them, and the little guys will keep losing out. Such a system is destined to be unfair. If anything, the best solution to this problem would probably be to start some kind of annual architect re-certification program where a sample of every architect's work is reviewed to make sure he/she is representing their profession well.

What else will happen when these standards are made into law? One of the first things to be addressed will doubtless be blank walls - an aspect of many new residentials/hotels that is already the product of zoning regulations. Who's really going to benefit from this? People who have nothing to do with the development industry: NIMBY's and pedestrians who get angry when they see bad architecture. Who's going to lose? Developers, who'll have to spend more money; prospective buyers and renters, who'll have to pay more to offset the costs; all residents, who will feel an additional increase in the price of housing. The city will probably lose out too: they'll be forced to increase the number of affordable units in new construction, and to do that, they'll give out more subsidies, more tax breaks, more 421a programs, etc.

This is not a good idea. Someone brought up the example of San Francisco, which already has the highest (or second-highest) average cost of living in the country. I've been to San Fran twice, and their residential districts were nice. But the business district was nothing special, easily uglier than any chunk of Midtown or Downtown. It's not worth it.

[sfenn1117]

June 1, 2007 -- Macklowe Properties will put up a new office building at the former Drake Hotel site, The Post has learned - rather than an apartment project or hotel as had been widely speculated.

Insiders said the father-and-son team of Harry Macklowe and his son, Billy Macklowe, have decided on a commercial project with about 30 floors at Park Avenue and 56th Street, one of the world's most valuable corners.

Although they had earlier considered a 70-story condo/hotel scheme, the shorter height will enable them to create larger floor plates required by office tenants.

"Park Avenue is the best location for either an office or a residential building," said an industry analyst. "But Park Avenue, particularly below 57th Street, is especially prime for office space."

The Macklowes are not ready to identify their architect, but are expected to file plans with the city Department of Buildings.

As The Post first reported in January 2006, Macklowe Properties bought the 80 year-old Drake for around $440 million. It is now being demolished.

The Macklowes subsequently purchased multiple properties on 57th Street to expand the project into an L-shape that will run from 56th to 57th streets.

The Post's Lois Weiss reported in February that the Macklowes had yet to decide at the time whether the Drake site would be used for offices, apartments, a hotel, or some combination of those.
Neither Billy Macklowe nor reps for Macklowe Properties returned calls yesterday.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06012007/business/plan_for_drake_site_business_braden_keil_and_steve _cuozzo.htm

:rolleyes:

[ablarc]

Short and fat.

[londonlawyer]

Macklowe atrocity rising at 510 Madison:
http://www.nycityscape.com/macklowe/p2.jpg

Macklowe makes me sick. The little buildings on 57th that this creep is buying are little gems. Macklowe has no respect for NY's architecture or its history. He also is buying a block of beautiful, old townhouses on Lex and 73rd that he will raze.

Moreover, based upon the banal structure he's building at 510 Madison, I guarantee that this will be a lame box of no more than 750 feet, if that. In fact, since it will be lame, this is one instance in which I support a shorter building since it will be less conspicuous on the skyline.
[/QUOTE]

I think I might be the reincarnation of Nostradamus. Notwithstanding the predictions of brain-dead Lois Weiss, I knew that a short, unspired box would rise on this site.

Once again, given Macklowe's proclivity for cheap buildings, I am pleased that this building will be short and will not be visible on the sklyine.

[sfenn1117]

I'm sure it will be a lovely box, perfectly befitting of Park Ave. Macklowe wouldn't dare take the opportunity to build something great or tall at such a prominent intersection.

[kz1000ps]

sorry to post this, but.. 6/16

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5370/img5011sw5.jpg

[Scraperfannyc]

Construction workers should have their flags at half staff.

[MidtownGuy]

that's INFURIATING:mad:

[londonlawyer]

that's INFURIATING:mad:

The loss of the townhouses on 57th St make this project even more intolerable.

[JohnFlint1985]

Too many people don't care about old buildings -- for them it is a competition with Dubai or Hong Kong. So their philosophy is to build as at whatever price and where ever place. The only thing that matters is height -everything else is irrelevant. it is really sad.

[londonlawyer]

Too many people don't care about old buildings -- for them it is a competition with Dubai or Hong Kong. So their philosophy is to build as at whatever price and where ever place. The only thing that matters is height -everything else is irrelevant. it is really sad.

I don't think that's true. The problem is that NY has greedy developers like Macklowe, Rosen, Gershon Barnett and Chang that care only about their profits and not about preserving the old buildings that make NYC great.

[JohnFlint1985]

I don't think that's true. The problem is that NY has greedy developers like Macklowe, Rosen, Gershon Barnett and Chang that care only about their profits and not about preserving the old buildings that make NYC great.

That too plays a major role. But as I know from a different forum http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=96689&page=9 a lot of people like that this building is going to be demolished. Hard to believe -- watch. Check for yourselves.

[stache]

That forum is crass.

[JohnFlint1985]

Well majority of people there don't like the idea of saving it. It is quite heated --it is actually quite funny, because I am probably the only one still telling my point of view. But seriously is there anything we can do to save it except talking about it? Any ideas. Please submit them.

[TREPYE]

Too many people don't care about old buildings -- for them it is a competition with Dubai or Hong Kong. So their philosophy is to build as at whatever price and where ever place. The only thing that matters is height -everything else is irrelevant. it is really sad.


That too plays a major role. But as I know from a different forum http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=96689&page=9 a lot of people like that this building is going to be demolished. Hard to believe -- watch. Check for yourselves.


Well majority of people there don't like the idea of saving it.


In that regard I think this site offers a hell of a lot more of genuine NYC flavor that most of us who comment here are REAL New Yorkers. So please dont compare that site to this one because there are huge differences between the 2.

[Scraperfannyc]

June 1, 2007 -- Macklowe Properties will put up a new office building at the former Drake Hotel site, The Post has learned - rather than an apartment project or hotel as had been widely speculated.

Insiders said the father-and-son team of Harry Macklowe and his son, Billy Macklowe, have decided on a commercial project with about 30 floors at Park Avenue and 56th Street, one of the world's most valuable corners.

Although they had earlier considered a 70-story condo/hotel scheme, the shorter height will enable them to create larger floor plates required by office tenants.

"Park Avenue is the best location for either an office or a residential building," said an industry analyst. "But Park Avenue, particularly below 57th Street, is especially prime for office space."

The Macklowes are not ready to identify their architect, but are expected to file plans with the city Department of Buildings.

As The Post first reported in January 2006, Macklowe Properties bought the 80 year-old Drake for around $440 million. It is now being demolished.

The Macklowes subsequently purchased multiple properties on 57th Street to expand the project into an L-shape that will run from 56th to 57th streets.

The Post's Lois Weiss reported in February that the Macklowes had yet to decide at the time whether the Drake site would be used for offices, apartments, a hotel, or some combination of those.
Neither Billy Macklowe nor reps for Macklowe Properties returned calls yesterday.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06012007/business/plan_for_drake_site_business_braden_keil_and_steve _cuozzo.htm

:rolleyes:

I knew it. The 70 story lie that Macklowe made everyone believe he will replace the Drake with is really going to be a 30 story short and fat box built to maximize profits. There is no NYC development god controlling development today for the good of NYC. There are bad developers such as Macklowe destroying our lovely buildings and replacing them with modern smokestacks which I call them. They make everyone believe they will build marvels, get the approval to wreck our precious buildings, and redesign the buildings into s--t to feed their greedy minds.

NYC----where S--T happens!

[Derek2k3]

Funny that Macklowe will live in the Ritz. If it were not landmarked and he owned it, he'd demo it too.

A couple months ago we were awaiting 3 exciting proposals, a near 700' tower at 510 Madison, a 70 story tower at the Drake, and a Piano designed tower on First. All dead.

Unlikely but I seriously hope these buildings sit empty.

[antinimby]

I think you meant the Plaza hotel but yes, there is no doubt that if given the opportunity, Macklowe would have razed it as well.

And herein lies the problem...why didn't LPC landmark the Drake and why is there just so much indifference and apathy from the people and preservation groups in this city toward this and the Pennsylvania?

I just don't get it.

[londonlawyer]

Funny that Macklowe will live in the Ritz. If it were not landmarked and he owned it, he'd demo it too.

A couple months ago we were awaiting 3 exciting proposals, a near 700' tower at 510 Madison, a 70 story tower at the Drake, and a Piano designed tower on First. All dead.

Unlikely but I seriously hope these buildings sit empty.

I predicted all along that the Drake site would be short and crappy.

[MidtownGuy]

How disgusting.:mad:

[JohnFlint1985]

I think you meant the Plaza hotel but yes, there is no doubt that if given the opportunity, Macklowe would have razed it as well.

And herein lies the problem...why didn't LPC landmark the Drake and why is there just so much indifference and apathy from the people and preservation groups in this city toward this and the Pennsylvania?

I just don't get it.

Probably money, lot's of it. Someone is looking the other way or get paid to look the other way. The oldest story in the world. That is why I want to know if there is anything we can actually do to stop this BS? If someone knows -- please share it.

[JohnFlint1985]

In that regard I think this site offers a hell of a lot more of genuine NYC flavor that most of us who comment here are REAL New Yorkers. So please dont compare that site to this one because there are huge differences between the 2.

Well I am not comparing, you got me all wrong. There is no comparison , you are right. I am just analyzing how people think. And I am trying to argue with them even there. And it seems to me that someone from the developers office paid those sycophants to say what they are saying. I just don't see why they are doing it and honestly I am quite concerned because today it is Drake, tomorrow it is Pennsylvania, after tomorrow -- what? If people are really so stupid then it is a problem, but if they are supporting this new "creation" because someone is telling them to do so, I would like to know about it.

[Derek2k3]

I think you meant the Plaza hotel but yes, there is no doubt that if given the opportunity, Macklowe would have razed it as well.

And herein lies the problem...why didn't LPC landmark the Drake and why is there just so much indifference and apathy from the people and preservation groups in this city toward this and the Pennsylvania?

I just don't get it.

Yea, the Plaza. Thanks.

I don't really get it either. I think a lot of preservation efforts are generated by Nimyby's fearful of new development. Not many people live around the Drake or Hotel Penn.

Then again 2 Columbus Circle had plenty of fans. I guess this building isn't popular enough. Personally, I've never heard of the Drake until it was slated for demo.

There are still many buildings that look similar to it around the city and I bet only when enough of them are gone, will more effort go towards preserving each one. Wasn't this part of Park lined with these kinds of buildings. The Drake is only getting this much attention because it's among the last.

[sfenn1117]

I just wish the replacement was larger. It hardly seems worth it to demolish a 20 story structure for a 30 story one without much additional square footage. It's such a waste and will hardly put a dent in office space demands. At least with Hotel Penn, a 2.5 mil sq foot tower is to be developed, here I think it's around 400,000. The Drake might have just been better off as a hotel.

[ASchwarz]

Blame the NIMBYs, who downzoned this portion of Midtown in the late 1980's.

Macklowe is actually building a slightly larger building than the original hotel/residential proposal, but it is of course now shorter and bulkier.

[antinimby]

^ Downzoning Midtown was retarded. For what? Is that suppose make the city better somehow?

Naturally, this city would listen to them and do it, too.


I think a lot of preservation efforts are generated by Nimyby's fearful of new development. Not many people live around the Drake or Hotel Penn.Bingo! That is precisely the reason. The Drake isn't in anyone's 'backyard' per se.

Another point I want to make...

Regardless of whether one believes the Drake is worthy of being saved or not, one cannot argue the irreparable damage to the streetscape and the city when you one by one, replace these elegant and grand old buildings with sterile glass.

Look at this picture:

http://image.pegs.com/images/SL/HSLNYCS/hslnycs_b1a.jpg

Now, imagine it without the Drake and instead, imagine in its place, a stumpy all-glass tower similar to any of the three flanking the Drake in that picture.

How much duller is that now?

[Punzie]

In future history books, the new millenium will be labeled "the dark days when people lived in glass houses and cast stones."

[antinimby]

That is why I want to know if there is anything we can actually do to stop this BS? If someone knows -- please share it.Send a letter to each of the following people:


Landmarks Preservation Commission Chair, Robert Tierney (http://nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maillpc.html).
1 Centre St., 9th flr
New York, NY 10007


The Municipal Arts Society of New York
457 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Fax: (212) 753-1816
info@mas.org


Historic Districts Council
232 E. 11 St.
New York, NY 10003
Fax: (212) 614-9127
hdc@hdc.org


Community Board 5
450 Seventh Ave., Suite 2109
New York, NY 10123
Fax: (212) 465-1628
office@cb5.org


...and last but not least,

Mr. Harry Macklowe
Macklowe Properties
General Motors Building
767 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10153
Fax: (212) 554-5893

[kz1000ps]

I've never heard of the Drake until it was slated for demo.

Ditto. Although I had noticed the building when walking Park Ave before, it was more because it wasn't a glass box than it was because it had any outstanding architectural merit. However, I have to agree that its loss is a net loss for that area.


Downzoning Midtown was retarded. For what? Is that suppose make the city better somehow?

Well, back then big new towers (Sony, Trump, IBM, Park Ave Plaza, ect.) were sprouting up all around Madison and the surrounding midblocks, and it seemed the area was becoming oversaturated, thus the response. You can argue with it if you want, but I personally am glad that some steps were taken to save the midblocks (even if there was little left to save).

[Fabrizio]

Well, back then big new towers (Sony, Trump, IBM, Park Ave Plaza, ect.) were sprouting up all around Madison and the surrounding midblocks, and it seemed the area was becoming oversaturated, thus the response. You can argue with it if you want, but I personally am glad that some steps were taken to save the midblocks (even if there was little left to save).

This is an exellent point and very true. In the 1980's the NYTimes Sunday Magazine ran a cover-story on these block-buster buildings written by Ada Louise Huxtable that caused quite a stir. Mid-town traditionally had a mix of tall and small and side streets that were charming. And you could count on that.

Suddenly a street like 53rd between 5th and 6th (as an example) was eaten up by towers. And so the out-cry.

---

And now let's take Antinymby's quote about the Drake:


^ Regardless of whether one believes the Drake is worthy of being saved or not, one cannot argue the irreparable damage to the streetscape and the city when you one by one, replace these elegant and grand old buildings with sterile glass.

Now, imagine it without the Drake and instead, imagine in its place, a stumpy all-glass tower similar to any of the three flanking the Drake in that picture.

How much duller is that now?

(ooops... theres that word "streetscape" again...)

This is EXACTLY my point about the Hotel Penn. With new buildings coming in... it would be nice to maintain the contrast of the old.

---

When the new MSQ complex etc is finally developed this also could apply to the Hotel Penn:


Although I had noticed the building when walking Park Ave before, it was more because it wasn't a glass box than it was because it had any outstanding architectural merit. However, I have to agree that its loss is a net loss for that area.


---

[Derek2k3]

There will be no more than two consecutive modern towers on each side of Seventh once Hotel Penn and everything else on Seventh is built out. Old buildings stretch nearly continuously from 23rd to 41st Street.

[Fabrizio]

For how long? Is it zoned/landmarked that way... or is everything up for grabs? What will the next 10 years bring?

[Derek2k3]

The city seems intent on preserving the garment district by not uzponing it or changing its usage.

South of 28th many of the older buildings are larger than what zoning allows. The Chelsea Centro at 26th (17 st.), Chelsea Royale at 26th (12 st.), and that H&M store at 34th are the only new developments in the past few decades. Only 2 or 3 blocks north and south of Penn Station can new towers rise.

[antinimby]

Well, back then big new towers (Sony, Trump, IBM, Park Ave Plaza, ect.) were sprouting up all around Madison and the surrounding midblocks, and it seemed the area was becoming oversaturated, thus the response. You can argue with it if you want, but I personally am glad that some steps were taken to save the midblocks (even if there was little left to save).I'm sorry but the idea that downzoning will preserve midblock buildings is flawed as evidenced by a number of developments, particularly recently.

The only thing that downzoning in that part of town accomplishes is to force developers to assemble more lots and thus raze even more small buildings than would have been necessary and all we'll get in return are more stumpy towers.

Case in point is the short, recently unveiled, IM Pei-designed building (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14225) that replaced a bunch of very beautiful townhouses on 56 St.

Did the lower FAR's on the block save those townhouses? No.

Same here with the Drake and those 57 St. townhouses/stores. They too will be gone to make way for another short, filler tower and all for what?

If you want to save midblocks or anything else in this city, landmarking and/or regulating use is the way to go, not downzoning.

[Derek2k3]

That's true, but in a way it did work. There hasn't been much development in the area since the 80's.

A better idea would've been to landmark the midblocks and allow their air rights to be transferred to the avenues. Rents for new buildings are getting to the point where you can demolish an old building, build a slightly larger one and still make a profit.

Her article is very convincingly written.
http://www.archpaper.com/feature_articles/19_05_on_criticism.html

[antinimby]

That's true, but in a way it did work. There hasn't been much development in the area since the 80's.The downzoning only temporarily delayed development in those areas because as long as there are higher FAR'd areas nearby that are available for redevelopment, the developers would naturally gravitate to those sites first, but once those areas are eventually filled up, the downzoned midblocks are just as vulnerable, especially in heated markets like we are in now.

Then nothing is sacred, not even those lovely townhouses and the lavish hotels such as the Drake, all simply because of the valuable locations that they occupy.

This goes to show that downzoning is not a long term nor effective way to preserve buildings/areas. Your idea below is much better.


A better idea would've been to landmark the midblocks and allow their air rights to be transferred to the avenues. Rents for new buildings are getting to the point where you can demolish an old building, build a slightly larger one and still make a profit.

Her article is very convincingly written.
http://www.archpaper.com/feature_articles/19_05_on_criticism.html

[NYguy]

Don't dry out those tears just yet...
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07112007/business/roosevelts_up_for_sale_at_cool_1b_business_lois_we iss.htm

ROOSEVELT'S UP FOR SALE AT COOL $1B

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/loisweiss_btb.jpg

July 11, 2007

NO sooner did we whisper the Roosevelt Hotel as being a potential development site last Friday then we were tipped that it was actually coming to market - and could sell for, gulp, $1 billion as an office development site. Just over a year ago, the Pakistani government, which owns the 1,013 room hotel as PIA Investments, bought out its 50/50 Saudi partner, Prince Faisal bin Khalid of Saudi Arabia.

Infighting and Pakistani political factionalism stopped an earlier sales effort in 2003 that would have brought in around $225 million slated to be used to purchase new jets for its airline.

Sources said Cushman & Wakefield will be marking the hotel through its Fab Foursome: Richard Baxter, Ron Cohen, Scott Latham and Jon Caplan. The company declined comment.

At a breakfast meeting at Michael's yesterday morning, C&W executives were bullish on the ongoing sales and leasing markets, as vacancy rates have dropped to 5.3 percent and asking rents are up to $75.79 a foot in Midtown, a 35 percent jump since this time last year.

The hotel occupies nearly a full-acre block just north of Grand Central Terminal bounded by 45th and 46th Streets, Vanderbilt and Madison avenues.

Its 43,000 foot site can be built to 800,000 feet as-of-right, but attorneys say that special district air rights can be piled on to create a skyscraper that could leap to 1.5 million feet.

Potential bidders are being advised to compare the hotel to the site next to the Museum of Modern Art which sold for $775 a buildable foot, but is mid-block near Sixth Avenue.

Over a number of years making strategic land and air rights purchases, Macklowe Properties paid around $950 a foot for the Swisshotel Drake New York at Park Avenue and 56th Street, which they have changed from a residential hotel to offices.

Office rents have since climbed markedly in the city with 18 deals completed at over $125 a foot this year alone versus 16 in all of last year.

___________________________

The hotel site, just south of the Bear Stearns tower...

http://www.hotelz.com.au/hotel/image/7783/034605A.jpg
hotelz.com


http://www.thecityreview.com/roose2.gif
thecityreview.com


http://www.thecityreview.com/roose.html
Now let the bitchin begin...

[JohnFlint1985]

http://www.thecityreview.com/roose.html
Now let the bitchin begin...[/quote]

I thank you for your information, you are quite good in that, I have to admit. But I simply don't get why are you so insensitive?

[ASchwarz]

^
I think I could ask the same about yourself. If you have a fetish for decay, there are many, many American cities to fufill your wishes. The beauty of New York is that it is constantly reinventing itself.

Lately it seems that everything on Wired NY is an anti-development screed. One thread even now supports preserving a vacant lot over a new hotel, so I guess some hate development whatever the site. People are entitled to their opinions, but this worldview is something I will never understand, especially in the context of NYC.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Anti-development, or is it anti-crappy development?

[ZippyTheChimp]

And it's not like there's a lack of development - crappy and anti-crappy - throughout the city.

I remember reading somewhere that we're in some sort of a building boom. Am I mistaken?

[ASchwarz]

Anti-development, or is it anti-crappy development?

IMO, it's anti-development, period. Crappy is in the eye of the beholder. On this forum, lately 90% of the new is considered crappy, while the same people wax poetic about rundown tenements and potholed parking lots. I'm sure the same people would be the first to complain if there were city budget problems, which is ironic to say the least.

[ASchwarz]

And it's not like there's a lack of development - crappy and anti-crappy - throughout the city.

I remember reading somewhere that we're in some sort of a building boom. Am I mistaken?

I think you're mistaken. In historical perspective, we are doing well, but we are certainly not in a building boom. Compare office and residential growth today to that of past decades. Not even close.

The only reason people think we are in a boom is because there were here during the years of decline, from the late 60's to the mid 90's. In every other decade, there was far more growth. I have data on housing permits (which I am happy to post) and know that, in historical terms, we are not building much.

[ZippyTheChimp]

One thread even now supports preserving a vacant lot over a new hotel, so I guess some hate development whatever the site.No, not a hotel, this particular one.

http://i13.tinypic.com/5z6e2kl.jpg

Or do you think this is appropriate across the street from one of the most anticipated downtown towers in decades.


Crappy is in the eye of the beholder.Well, then judge our aesthetic tastes; don't dismiss them as anti-development.

[elfgam]

I think the whole nature of the debate up above, about the downzoning of mid-blocks and the quest to preserve certain sites (such as these grand-dame hotels) speaks to two fundamental problems that grip NY architecture and urban planning... problems that have been solved in Europe, but only recently:

1) ZONING is not PLANNING: you can down-zone or up zone or whatever, but in the end with no plan all you can do is "discourage"... that means developers can still do things that make them a profit (like the im pei project) even if it is so obviously not a part of the intent. Things like landmark designation aren't much better because they are merely a more powerful "discouragement." If used too liberally in areas that aren't deserving of "landmarking" necessarily, landmark status will either a) discourage investment or b) provoke a well-deserved back-lash. What the city needs to do, in certain cases (i still like the flexibility zoning provides, by and large) is come out and say exactly what it wants. It did so, almost perfectly, along the high-line, and look what happened.

2) In terms of what the city might want... the other thing it has not learned is out to integrate old and new in the same building. While I love some of these old hotels, I think (as the Hearst and Porter House and vornado tower just north of rock center and the foster proposal on madison all demonstrate) that it is possible to combine old and new in very innovative ways. They do this in Europe all the time, because they realized they had to provide modern office space while preserving their old fabric. In nyc this should be even easier, since a certain degree of height is OK... so what would be wrong with preserving the base/exterior/lobbies of these old hotels and very skillfully (aka not gene kaufman or costas) adding to the top?

[ZippyTheChimp]

I think you're mistaken. In historical perspective, we are doing well, but we are certainly not in a building boom. Compare office and residential growth today to that of past decades. Not even close.

The only reason people think we are in a boom is because there were here during the years of decline, from the late 60's to the mid 90's.The 60s to the 90s was decades, not years.


In every other decade, there was far more growth. I have data on housing permits (which I am happy to post) and know that, in historical terms, we are not building much.Post the data. Make sure to factor in post WWII public housing projects, which we all love today. And note how much construction was done in other decades on undeveloped rural land. Also include office and hotel space added.

[JohnFlint1985]

All I want to say that it is sad to see these 3 hotels (Drake, Pennsylvania and Roosevelt) gone. And they are not " another ugly" masonry building in my mind.

[JohnFlint1985]

^
I think I could ask the same about yourself. If you have a fetish for decay, there are many, many American cities to fufill your wishes. The beauty of New York is that it is constantly reinventing itself.

Lately it seems that everything on Wired NY is an anti-development screed. One thread even now supports preserving a vacant lot over a new hotel, so I guess some hate development whatever the site. People are entitled to their opinions, but this worldview is something I will never understand, especially in the context of NYC.
This is not decay with all due respect. it is quite far from it. I am for development -- but with taste and style, not just whatever as long as it is big and shiny.

[ASchwarz]

The 60s to the 90s was decades, not years.

Post the data. Make sure to factor in post WWII public housing projects, which we all love today. And note how much construction was done in other decades on undeveloped rural land. Also include office and hotel space added.

As promised, the attached shows that the alleged NYC residental boom is just exaggerated NIMBY posturing. We are doing fine, but we need to to better.

See page 12:

http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/07HSR.pdf

We are building less than half the housing we built in the early 60's. Until we are building something approaching 70,000 units annually, we are not in a boom by historic standards.

[MidtownGuy]

This is not decay with all due respect. it is quite far from it. I am for development -- but with taste and style, not just whatever as long as it is big and shiny.

That's right. Some of us have brains, not just knee-jerk reflexes.

Ashwarz:
I guess some hate development whatever the site. People are entitled to their opinions, but this worldview is something I will never understand,

Bullocks. You don't have to try to understand it, because I can't think of anyone on this forum with that opinion. You're just talking out of your butthole.

[ZippyTheChimp]

We are building less than half the housing we built in the early 60's. Until we are building something approaching 70,000 units annually, we are not in a boom by historic standards.Extrapolating for data from 45 years ago, when land availability was vastly different than today, is ridiculous.

Look at contemporary comparisons, when conditions are comparable.

1996 - 7118
2006 - 23,768

Manhattan:
1996 - 1582
2006 - 5199

[JohnFlint1985]

I posted a reply on Roosevelt hotel thread so I don't want to repeat myself. But one thing is obvious -- we are risking to loose something that is making this city so charming -- its old aroma. Like an old wine it gets better with age and only true connoisseurs can understand it -- so lets not throw it out.

[MidtownGuy]

It's pathetic to watch, because it is so damned shortsighted. There are so many places to develop, it's not like preserving these old gems will harm the city's future or deprive it of revenue like people on this forum are saying. If these are off limits, the development WILL STILL HAPPEN, but in areas that actually need it. Believe me, developers aren't going to stop building if the need is there and there's money to be made.

The Drake is being demolished as we speak, so this one is a goner.

[JohnFlint1985]

It's pathetic to watch, because it is so damned shortsighted. There are so many places to develop, it's not like preserving these old gems will harm the city's future or deprive it of revenue like people on this forum are saying. If these are off limits, the development WILL STILL HAPPEN, but in areas that actually need it. Believe me, developers aren't going to stop building if the need is there and there's money to be made.

The Drake is being demolished as we speak, so this one is a goner.

Words of a true New Yorker

[JohnFlint1985]

<sigh!> This city is full of scumbag developers and spineless oblivious politicians...uneffingbelivable! They just dont realize that the historical character of NYC one of the things that makes New York the great city people wanna be in. Actually, they do realize but it is this disgusting "win at all cost" mentality that has devoured much of this city's past historical texture. :mad:


True

[pianoman11686]

Extrapolating for data from 45 years ago, when land availability was vastly different than today, is ridiculous.

Look at contemporary comparisons, when conditions are comparable.

1996 - 7118
2006 - 23,768

Manhattan:
1996 - 1582
2006 - 5199

I've danced this dance on several occasions already.

Two things you didn't take into account with that response:

Our previous population peak was almost precisely at the same time that new construction peaked. It makes sense to compare two historical periods where several factors coincide. The early 90s do not compare that readily to the 2000s.

Land availability has been a problem for much longer than 45 years. In fact, countless real estate entrepreneurs made their entire fortunes just by speculating on rising land values. John Jacob Astor did it way back in the mid 19th century.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^

Land availability has been a problem for much longer than 45 years.Half of Kings County was rural after WWI. The entire neighborhood I grew up in was built on undeveloped wetlands in the 50sw and 60s.

What brought this about is whether or not NYC is in a building boom.

Housing starts are at their highest levels in over 30 years.

Record prices are being paid for property.

There are several huge projects in the works:

Atlantic Yards
WTC
Westside railyards
Penn Sta.

Do you think we are experiencing a building boom?

Or should we just compare everything to the first decades of the 20th century, when both building and population growth were unprecedented, and dismiss every other period.

[Derek2k3]

2) In terms of what the city might want... the other thing it has not learned is out to integrate old and new in the same building. While I love some of these old hotels, I think (as the Hearst and Porter House and vornado tower just north of rock center and the foster proposal on madison all demonstrate) that it is possible to combine old and new in very innovative ways. They do this in Europe all the time, because they realized they had to provide modern office space while preserving their old fabric. In nyc this should be even easier, since a certain degree of height is OK... so what would be wrong with preserving the base/exterior/lobbies of these old hotels and very skillfully (aka not gene kaufman or costas) adding to the top?

Very expensive to do however. The city should provide some kind of bonus so this could happen more. Developers now are basically penalized in lossed square footage by preserving a building. The building that is being demolished at 105 Washington is a perfect example. The city would be better off just letting him add the sq. footage to the tower without demolition.

[JohnFlint1985]

Very expensive to do however. The city should provide some kind of bonus so this could happen more. Developers now are basically penalized in lossed square footage by preserving a building. The building that is being demolished at 105 Washington is a perfect example. The city would be better off just letting him add the sq. footage to the tower without demolition.

Actually - interesting idea. Like this building in Upper Harlem on Broadway, forgot the number, the facade is old, but on top there is a new addition. Combination of old and new -- nice idea.

[elfgam]

Very expensive to do however. The city should provide some kind of bonus so this could happen more. Developers now are basically penalized in lossed square footage by preserving a building. The building that is being demolished at 105 Washington is a perfect example. The city would be better off just letting him add the sq. footage to the tower without demolition.

I completely agree -- to encourage preservation, they should add a bonus... now that's making zoning work for us.

[antinimby]

But unfortunately in this city, extra bulk and density is viewed as a negative and so they (the city and the community) would rather risk losing an older building than see a slightly larger new building built somewhere else.

We all know how a couple extra more floors can be so detrimental to the city!

[londonlawyer]

Macklowe has a rendering on his site. It appears to be a general outline to show the shape. It's a short, fat box. Typical!

[Derek2k3]

Just terrible. I bet this is exactly what we get except sheathed in MdeAS glass.

Also, being one of the last sites left in Midtown East, I wish the city would just allow Macklowe to build a larger building. The city handcuffs itself with its own zoning laws.

[NYguy]

Just terrible. I bet this is exactly what we get except sheathed in MdeAS glass.

Also, being one of the last sites left in Midtown East, I wish the city would just allow Macklowe to build a larger building. The city handcuffs itself with its own zoning laws.

So why then would the developer be to blame for what he's allowed to build?

[NYguy]

AUGUST 18, 2007

Shroud of darkness...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/84197974/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/84197976/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/84197978/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/84197980/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/84197983/original.jpg

[RandySavage]

^ A travesty.

[kliq6]

This is bad, no I take that back Awful. Now im not against taking down old for the new, but if you take down a great building like this, youve got to put something better up.

[NoyokA]

Perhaps its time we bring back AGBANY.

[londonlawyer]

Perhaps its time we bring back AGBANY.

What's AGBANY?

[NoyokA]

AGBANY was an acronym for the Action Group for Better Architecture in New York. It was a group of concerned citizens and architects that protested the demolition of Penn Station, arguably because of their involvement the Landmark Preservation Commission was created, although Penn Station was inevitably demolished. With the demolition of the Drake and its lame replacement I think a call to action is not only appropriate but imperative, if a group with influence like AGBANY is brought back and turns the tide against McSams, Macklowe’s and other uninspiring developments, then the loss of the Drake won’t totally be in vain. Who knows maybe this group could start from WNY?

[londonlawyer]

AGBANY was an acronym for the Action Group for Better Architecture in New York. It was a group of concerned citizens and architects that protested the demolition of Penn Station, arguably because of their involvement the Landmark Preservation Commission was created, although Penn Station was inevitably demolished. With the demolition of the Drake and its lame replacement I think a call to action is not only appropriate but imperative, if a group with influence like AGBANY is brought back and turns the tide against McSams, Macklowe’s and other uninspiring developments, then the loss of the Drake won’t totally be in vain. Who knows maybe this group could start from WNY?

It's a good idea.

I've heard that Macklowe is having financial problems and may lose the GM Building. I really hope that he is forced to sell The Drake site.

[Scraperfannyc]

It's a good idea.

I've heard that Macklowe is having financial problems and may lose the GM Building. I really hope that he is forced to sell The Drake site.

I've looked at Mackowe's website and I saw that his 510 Madison Avenue and 540 madison buildings are largely available for rent. Is this correct? They are clones of the dullest and cheapest buildings today. This is what will replace the Drake. Macklowe is a gremlin developer.

[londonlawyer]

I've looked at Mackowe's website and I saw that his 510 Madison Avenue and 540 madison buildings are largely available for rent. Is this correct? They are clones of the dullest and cheapest buildings today. This is what will replace the Drake. Macklowe is a gremlin developer.

Check out the schematic for The Drake site on www.macklowe.com. You will be nauseated.

I predicted this from the outset when the morons at the Post were predicting a 70 story masterpiece.

[Alonzo-ny]

. Who knows maybe this group could start from WNY?

I doubt we would agree enough about what to try and protect and what not.

[Scraperfannyc]

I doubt we would agree enough about what to try and protect and what not.

I say if we can prevent Macklowe from developing anything anymore, then this should take care of alot of the issues relating to bad developers destroying NYC. Not only are his designs hideous and short, they are empty according to his website, or at least ready to be leased. They are ugly to look at and nobody wants to be in them. His projects are as interesting as strip malls and they maybe useful for third world countries, but not much more than that.

Separately, the Roosevelt is much too nice to destroy.

Also, the replacement for the Penn Hotel should be certainly nothing less magnificent than the original Penn Hotel when it was all new. When they destroyed the original Waldorf to build the empire state, they built a much bigger and better Waldorf to take its place. This is the kind of development tactics I would like to see...

[londonlawyer]

I doubt we would agree enough about what to try and protect and what not.

We can all agree that Macklowe is the worst thing to happen to NYC since Robert Moses.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4703&d=1187446256

[Alonzo-ny]

ok we would agree on macklowe but i doubt we'd agree on the hotel penn for example.

[krulltime]

So sad about the fate of this classic old building and what it seems likely to get built.

[londonlawyer]

So sad about the fate of this classic old building and what it seems likely to get built.

The really painful part is the loss of all of the beautiful townhouses on 57th St. Macklowe sucks.

[macreator]

This thread made Curbed (http://www.curbed.com) today: Macklowe's Drake Replacement Revealed, To Much Chagrin (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/08/21/macklowes_drake_replacement_revealed_to_much_chagr in.php)

Those pictures of the demolition are so disturbing for me. :mad:

I'll never understand how a man like Macklowe, who could spend a little, or a lot, extra on architecture if he wanted to, is able to live with himself.

[RandySavage]

I place more blame on the Landmark Preservation Commission than the developer. There are always going to be greedy b----rds like Macklowe who will happily make the world worse for their own financial gain.

The LPC should have been a check against something like this happening.

To reiterate, it's not just the building itself that is a big architectural loss, but the juxtaposition of that crafted 1930's style with the ugly modern glass boxes that surround it.

To paraphrase Field of Dreams, this building is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and what could be again.

http://image.pegs.com/images/SL/HSLNYCS/hslnycs_b1a.jpg

[ASchwarz]

Can someone explain why Macklowe is being criticized, given the fact that:

1. There are design critcisms despite no public rendering;

2. There are height critcisms despite Macklowe building out the entirety of the allowable F.A.R. (plus air rights?);

3. There are bulk criticisms despite the fact that office buildings need larger floorplates than residential buildings.

Nobody has addressed these issues and nobody has given a rational reason for the anti-Macklowe talk.

Seems to me the problem is the City, which needs to increase F.A.R. in East Midtown. You can thank the NIMBY crowd, which cut the F.A.R. back in the late 1980's.

[RandySavage]

^ I think the Drake is landmark-worthy and shouldn't be taken down.

But if it had to be razed for an office building (of limited size due to F.A.R), maybe replace it with something of architectural worth, like this:
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/01/greenskyscrapers/image/6_hearst01_screen.jpg

While there haven't been official renderings, it's safe to say, based on Macklowe's history, that the outcome will be along these lines:
http://www.nycityscape.com/macklowe/p2.jpg

[Scraperfannyc]

[QUOTE=ASchwarz;182993]Can someone explain why Macklowe is being criticized, given the fact that:

1. There are design critcisms despite no public rendering:

His website shows buildings all of the same cloned cheap stripmall quality type for the ones that HE built.


2. There are height critcisms despite Macklowe building out the entirety of the allowable F.A.R. (plus air rights?);
I am sure Macklowe could build much bigger and better buildings elsewhere in the city if he wanted to but he chooses not to. He is the worst developer I have seen and his work is terrible. All of his buildings that he built lack height and architecture. He only seems to choose to build by destroying buildings that are much better designed than the designs he would ever build. To me, he is an F (fail) quality developer who is loose in NYC. People are not crying about Macklowe for no reason you know.

[londonlawyer]

Exactly, the rough sketch of what's posted on Macklowe's site approximates what will be built there. A building with angles and a crown will not be.

Macklowe is cheap, and he's also too stupid to realize that maximum rents can be generated by a landmark. A entity like Caxton, Blackstone or KKR that can afford to pay $175/s.f. wants to be in a tropy building, not in a building that has a clone in White Plains or Stamford and rents for $30 /s.f. there.

[Fabrizio]

ASchwarz: please show us some commercial buildings done in the last few years by this firm that are attractive.

http://www.macklowe.com

[elfgam]

I doubt we would agree enough about what to try and protect and what not.

I'm for this group --- and it doesn't just have to be about protecting certain things -- it could also be about promoting good architecture (i.e. actually campaigning to support TALLER buildings... or buildings with forms as opposed to just dumb blocks...) ;-)

[kliq6]

Landmarks are to be honest irrelevant. Most of the members are UES residents that only concern is to make sure park Ave stays the same. They often can care less about the city besides there area. Case in point, Yankee Stadium never being made a landmark. Last good person on Landmarks was Joan Gerner.

To lose the Drake for this is a disgrace. Losing it is okay in my book but for something grand, especially with its address.

[londonlawyer]

Landmarks are to be honest irrelevant. Most of the members are UES residents that only concern is to make sure park Ave stays the same. They often can care less about the city besides there area. Case in point, Yankee Stadium never being made a landmark. Last good person on Landmarks was Joan Gerner.

To lose the Drake for this is a disgrace. Losing it is okay in my book but for something grand, especially with its address.

I am hopefully optimistic that this will not be built and that creepLowe will sell the site. How can he build a spec tower in the current market? Many spec towers are rising at the moment incl:

1. creepLowe's own 510 Madison;
2. The new spec tower across the street on Madison;
3. SJP's tower;
4. 1095 6th; and
5. 2 spec towers by Extell (i.e., Diamond and Medical).

BP is smart enough not to proceed without a tenant commitment. Could Macklowe be dumb enough to do so?

[ASchwarz]

ASchwarz: please show us some commercial buildings done in the last few years by this firm that are attractive.

http://www.macklowe.com

I'm not sure if ANY of Macklowe's current buildings were actually built by his firm. I'm pretty sure most were acquisitions (GM building, for example). If the company did build some of these towers, we are talking decades past and the previous family generation.

Anyways, it's irrelevent because none of the commercial buildings on the website were built in recent years.

[kliq6]

Boston, Brookfield and Vornado are public and wont make a fast move sinc ethey have shareholders that will kill them. Macklowe are private and its really his money so he will do what he wants.

AS for Extell Medical, dont expect that this year anyhow. they wont go spec on 1.5 million sf.

[londonlawyer]

Boston, Brookfield and Vornado are public and wont make a fast move sinc ethey have shareholders that will kill them. Macklowe are private and its really his money so he will do what he wants.

AS for Extell Medical, dont expect that this year anyhow. they wont go spec on 1.5 million sf.

Nevertheless, financing problems are affecting everyone. Therefore, I can't see anyone financing this POS (even if Macklowe is dumb enough to proceed) without his securing a major tenant commitment. Why would anyone pay $150-$175/s.f. for this dump when they could get space in SJP's tower for $80 s.f.?

[ASchwarz]

Because 57th and Park is just about the best office location on the planet.

[londonlawyer]

Because 57th and Park is just about the best office location on the planet.

Not in a lousy building.

The guys who would be tenants build palaces in Greenwich for their homes -- not lame 5,000 s.f. houses that one could buy for $500k in Atlanta or Dallas. They want their offices to be similarly spectacular. For example, the building that Foster designed for Rosen on Madison would be an enormous success here. Cheapskate Macklowe's box will not be. Macklowe really is dumb.

[sfenn1117]

Because 57th and Park is just about the best office location on the planet.

Which is why this should be a trophy building worthy of the location, and a standout among the dozens of other boxes in the area.

Hearst, NY Times, and BOA all built spectacular headquarters in less glamorous locations (the former two at least). Why can't the same be done here? The rents in this new tower could very well be the highest in the city.

Of course I think it should be bigger too, but obviously that's not Macklowe's doing.

[antinimby]

Because 57th and Park is just about the best office location on the planet.Why is that?

[ASchwarz]

Why is that?

This is easily the best part (Plaza District meets Park Avenue) of the world's largest business district (Midtown).

Macklowe can get serious $$$.

I am with everyone else, and hope he hires a first-rate architect this time.

[antinimby]

Yes, but what exactly about that part of town that makes it "the best?"

[ASchwarz]

Yes, but what exactly about that part of town that makes it "the best?"

Many reasons:

1. It's next to the "best" residential neighborhood (Upper East Side), so walking distance (or short black car ride) for big shots.

2. It's close to Grand Central and the FDR for an easy commute for wealthy types in Westchester and CT.

3. The best shops, restaurants and services in Midtown.

4. Proximity to the biggest concentration of fancy hotels, clubs, societies and other client amenities.

5. Biggest concentration of high-end financial services and related employment (especially VC and Hedge Funds). These types like to cluster.

6. East Side is traditionally "fancier" than the West Side. The gap has narrowed, but many decision makers still prefer East Side.

[londonlawyer]

It's good to see that Curbed and The Real Deal reported on this greedy bastar.d's POS. It villifies him.

[antinimby]

Okay, good. Thanks. That was exactly what I was looking for.

Now, let's examine (if you don't mind :)) a couple of these points that you made.


3. The best shops, restaurants and services in Midtown.I would say the shops like these fit into that category, right?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/250/455781104_eb599e9d7e_b.jpg




4. Proximity to the biggest concentration of fancy hotels, clubs, societies and other client amenities.You mean fancy hotels like these?

http://image.pegs.com/images/SL/HSLNYCS/hslnycs_b1a.jpg

http://www.travelpost.com/MainImages/hotels/53708/The_Roosevelt_Hotel_42800_0_07012006_1207376372_50 0.jpg http://images.hotel-rates.com/hotels/NYC_ROOS-lobby-2.jpg

They sure make a neighborhood and a city great don't they?

Cause we know these certainly wouldn't:

http://www.gkarchitect.com/GKA%20assets/project%20images/108w24th.jpg

http://e.yimg.com/tr.us.o.yimg.com/imgs/T/T03045/T03045_EXT_01_J.jpg




6. East Side is traditionally "fancier" than the West Side. The gap has narrowed, but many decision makers still prefer East Side.Again, the word "fancy" comes up again. I would guess endless rows of vapid modern office boxes don't make a place fancy, does it?

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/43580957/large.jpg

Anyone else see what I'm getting at?

[Fabrizio]

Interesting that this part of mid-town is now called "The Plaza District" by realtors.

[stache]

Because it's business, the renters don't care if the construction looks average. They want new, for the most up to date wiring etc. I think you see better construction when a corporation builds its own headquarters. They want to make a statement.

[londonlawyer]

Let's keep our fingers crossed that he will be forced to sell The Drake site to a competent developer and that that horrific box will not rise!

"Developer’s Big Manhattan Move Faces a Time and Credit Squeeze"
By TERRY PRISTIN

Published by The New York Times on August 22, 2007

Harry Macklowe, the New York developer, was flying high in February when he decided to buy a portfolio of prime Midtown Manhattan office towers for nearly $7 billion, using only $50 million of his own money.

Skip to next paragraph

Don Hogan Charles/The New York Times
Harry Macklowe bought the General Motors Building in 2003.

Enlarge This Image

The New York Times; Rendering by Microsoft Virtual Earth
Mr. Macklowe was already well represented in the Midtown market, where rents were rising at a staggering rate. His 2003 purchase of the General Motors Building on 59th Street and Fifth Avenue for $1.4 billion, though derided at the time as reckless, had been vindicated as the value of the building soared, enhancing Mr. Macklowe’s reputation as a visionary tycoon.

But as the crisis over subprime residential mortgages spills over into other real estate sectors, causing a severe tightening of credit, there is widespread talk in the industry that Mr. Macklowe is in deep trouble — so much so that he could lose control not only of the newly acquired portfolio but also of the G.M. Building and other properties that were used as collateral for short-term debt that must be repaid six months from now.

Through a spokesman, Mr. Macklowe, who lost the Hotel Macklowe in a real estate squeeze in the mid-’90s, declined a request for comment. But his son, William S. Macklowe, expressed confidence that their company, Macklowe Properties, would be able to pay off the debt.

Some real estate specialists say that the February acquisition of the seven Manhattan buildings — a deal consummated in just 10 business days —will be remembered not just as a feat of financial derring-do but also as a watershed that ended two years of frenzy in the commercial real estate market.

“If you’re looking for a poster child for what’s been going on, it could well be that deal,” said Mike Kirby, a principal of Green Street Advisors, a research company in Newport Beach, Calif., that specializes in real estate investment funds. “It had all the elements of the froth in the market — assets flipping left and right at ever-higher prices and excessive amounts of debt at ultracheap prices.”

Recently, many sales have been postponed, canceled or restructured, according to investment brokers and lawyers. As with residential mortgages, commercial loans are pooled and packaged into bonds that are sliced into portions carrying different degrees of risk. In recent weeks, investors have largely shunned these securities backed by commercial mortgages.

Highly leveraged loans “are not being made or are very rare now,” said Robert O. Bach, a senior vice president at Grubb & Ellis, a national brokerage company. “So, some people would say, there’s been more of a return to sanity.”

As the credit markets tighten, capital is expected to become more expensive, causing building values to drop. So far, however, there is no evidence that sales prices have declined, and brokers say there is still plenty of money available for real estate investments from foreigners attracted by the cheap dollar as well as from cash-rich pension funds and insurance companies.

In a deal completed this month, Prudential Real Estate Investors paid $280 million in cash for the Democracy Center in Bethesda, Md., according to the seller’s broker, William M. Collins, a managing director at Cassidy & Pinkard Colliers, a brokerage firm in the Washington area.

But in other signs of how the credit squeeze is affecting sales transactions, Tishman Speyer and Lehman Brothers recently postponed the completion of their $22 billion acquisition of Archstone-Smith, a real estate investment trust that owns interests in nearly 88,000 apartments, from late this month until early October. (Shareholders approved the sale yesterday.)

And a REIT that specializes in office buildings in Silicon Valley, Mission West Properties of Cupertino, Calif., said last week that its planned $1.8 billion acquisition by a private equity company had fallen through because the buyer’s lender had withdrawn from the transaction and no substitute lender could be found.

To be sure, the leasing market in many cities has been strong, nowhere more so than in Midtown, where landlords are now asking an average annual rent of more than $81 a square foot, a record, according to the brokerage firm CB Richard Ellis. Few large blocks of space are available. The default rate for commercial buildings has remained low.

But for several months, bond ratings analysts and others have warned that competition among commercial lenders has become so feverish that many are willing to finance 90 percent or more of the cost of the transaction based on overly optimistic projections that rents will continue to rise at a furious pace. In recent transactions, including Mr. Macklowe’s, the expected initial income from the buildings was less than 4 percent a year, with cash flow projected to rise significantly as leases expired and rents reached market levels.

[kliq6]

Building a 800,000 sf tower on spec now in this shaky market, would not be a good move at all. Expect alot of the towers we have talked about to be put on the back burner if market keeps this way for a few more months

[londonlawyer]

Building a 800,000 sf tower on spec now in this shaky market, would not be a good move at all. Expect alot of the towers we have talked about to be put on the back burner if market keeps this way for a few more months

Awesome!

I hope that a competent developer takes control of The Drake site and builds a masterpiece residential project which would still sell well given the dollar's plunge against other currencies.

I also hope that someone competent replaces Tierney and landmarks The Roosevelt and the Hotel Penn before greedu developers raze them.

[Dan C]

Awesome!

I hope that a competent developer takes control of The Drake site and builds a masterpiece residential project which would still sell well given the dollar's plunge against other currencies.

I also hope that someone competent replaces Tierney and landmarks The Roosevelt and the Hotel Penn before greedu developers raze them.

That's a 'glass-half-full' way of looking at things. I agree, hopefully the market will do what preservationists couldn't (or wouldn't).

What's so sad, however, is that it didn't happen fast enough to save the Drake. What a waste. :(

dan c

[TREPYE]

We can all agree that Macklowe is the worst thing to happen to NYC since Robert Moses.




You dont have to go back that far LL. Amid a crowd of inept and disgraceful developers that have robed this city of its character and architectural taste IMO the one that stands out the most is Donald Trump. Therefore you may wanna amed that as the worst thing to happen since Trump.

[Alonzo-ny]

I dont think trump is that bad, trump tower the original looks better than some current buildings.

[londonlawyer]

As set forth in bold below, Macklowe's quote in The NY Times article is among the most ironic
statements that I've heard. These guys really take the cake!

"Developer’s Big Manhattan Move Faces a Time and Credit Squeeze"
By TERRY PRISTIN

Published by The New York Times on August 22, 2007

Harry Macklowe, the New York developer, was flying high in February when he decided to buy a portfolio of prime Midtown Manhattan office towers for nearly $7 billion, using only $50 million of his own money.....In an interview in his sleek corner office at the G.M. Building overlooking Central Park, the younger Mr. Macklowe, who is known as Billy, shrugged off the concerns and said the company had always planned to take on new partners. He said it was in “advanced discussions” with three groups that could replace the bridge loan with permanent capital.

“That’s how we always looked at the deal,” he said. The company’s next steps may also include “one or two divestitures” of some of its buildings, he said.

He said the tightening of the credit market is likely to discourage “the speculative construction that’s planned — which means that the market would only get tighter.” And in such a market, he said, high-quality buildings like the ones owned by the Macklowes would have the most appeal to investors. “In brief moments of uncertainty,” he said, “one tends to find a flight to quality in terms of investing.”

[londonlawyer]

I am sad to report that as of Aug. 24, 2007, several buildings on 57th St. have signs stating that the tenants have moved or will soon move. I really hope that this creep does not get financing.

[JohnFlint1985]

I hate to say this, but I think it is too late for Drake. Too many greedy developers and too little action from the city and it's citizens I guess. Pity
We have to try and concentrate our efforts at saving Roosevelt and Penn. There is a petition fro those who want to landmark the Roosevelt building. let me know if you want one fro yourself.

[TREPYE]

I dont think trump is that bad, trump tower the original looks better than some current buildings.

Yes he IS that bad. And this sentiment is exacerbated by the fact that he is so freaking cheap!

[Alonzo-ny]

how much cheaper would twt have been if he didnt build with 14' ceilings? Im guessing alot. 860' compared to maybe 700' not too many developers doing that.

[londonlawyer]

I seriously believe that Macklowe will be forced to sell this site due to his financial difficulties.

[sfenn1117]

^Macklowe

[GreenwichBoy]

8/31/07

[TREPYE]

how much cheaper would twt have been if he didnt build with 14' ceilings? Im guessing alot. 860' compared to maybe 700' not too many developers doing that.

Much chaper and not as profitable. The only reason he did this was to generate more profit as higher ceilings in a condo command a higher price tag.

Dude stop, please STOP with this Trump apologist stuff. This guys makes a S--- load of money realy estate. Loves to gloat about how succcessful, profitable he has been, meanwhile he still builds mediocrity. The designs for his scrapers are cheap and mundane; why do you think he loves Klondys so damn much. Trump (and Mackenlowe,for that matter) is one of the worst thingfs that happened to NYC; specially when other developers such as Forest City Ratner, Durst have demonstrated that you can build well designed elegant buildings and still make a pretty penny.

[Alonzo-ny]

I dont appreciate the picture you're painting of me so you can stop that right now. Im not a trump apologist i was making a point and mackenlowe would take the less cost less profit approach. I was trying to have a reasonable discussion from my objective standpoint but you have some issues which is obvious as is your over the top reply.

And you might want to spell check your posts unless i live in a fantasy land of realy estate and forest city ratnet.

[Scraperfannyc]

Dude stop, please STOP with this Trump apologist stuff. This guys makes a S--- load of money realy estate. Loves to gloat about how succcessful, profitable he has been, meanwhile he still builds mediocrity. The designs for his scrapers are cheap and mundane; why do you think he loves Klondys so damn much. Trump (and Mackenlowe,for that matter) is one of the worst thingfs that happened to NYC; specially when other developers such as Forest City Ratnet, Durst have demonstrated that you can build well designed elegant buildings and still make a pretty penny.[/QUOTE]

My view is that Trump and Macklowe are two very different animals.

Trump in most instances buys out unused land and creates new buildings where there were none. Trump creates something nice out of nothing. Trump will at least try to build buildings that stand out among the crowd, although he at times does not achieve this. I am very impressed with his Trump Chicago building. Wish he would do the same for NYC.
Trump will also buy older buildings and fix them up for updated uses, such as 40 wall street in downtown NYC.

Macklowe on the other hand will just destroy the best we have just to get the best location, and replace it with something much worse and much more cheap for just profit. The average New Yorker will probably never know a building built by macklowe, nor would they ever want to.

Neither Trump or Macklowe is a shining star when it comes to developing new and great buildings, but at least Trump tries to do this at times, and he does not go out of his way to destroy good things in NYC for his own profit like Macklowe does.

[Alonzo-ny]

I also like the subtle addition on trump park avenue.

[TREPYE]

I dont appreciate the picture you're painting of me so you can stop that right now. Im not a trump apologist i was making a point and mackenlowe would take the less cost less profit approach. I was trying to have a reasonable discussion from my objective standpoint but you have some issues which is obvious as is your over the top reply.

Alonzo I was not trying to demean you or anything all I said is that you cannot excuse many of the things he does.




My view is that Trump and Macklowe are two very different animals.

Neither Trump or Macklowe is a shining star when it comes to developing new and great buildings, but at least Trump tries to do this at times, and he does not go out of his way to destroy good things in NYC for his own profit like Macklowe does.

I never said Trump was worse than Macklowe, I agree with both of you. Please find my original statement about the two:

You dont have to go back that far LL. Amid a crowd of inept and disgraceful developers that have robed this city of its character and architectural taste IMO the one that stands out the most is Donald Trump. Therefore you may wanna amed that as the worst thing to happen since Trump.


I dont think trump is that bad, trump tower the original looks better than some current buildings.


Yes he IS that bad. And this sentiment is exacerbated by the fact that he is so freaking cheap!

Mackelowe is worse because he destroys old architecture, which is a point I probably should have added on to my previous posts to clarify.


And you might want to spell check your posts unless i live in a fantasy land of realy estate and forest city ratnet.

Thanks....;)


...specially when other developers such as Forest City Ratner, Durst have demonstrated that you can build well designed elegant buildings and still make a pretty penny.

[Alonzo-ny]

cool!

[MidtownGuy]

The top quarter of the Drake was gone by yesterday afternoon, I stopped and watched in sad disbelief for a moment as the destruction proceeded, then shuffled home.:mad:

[londonlawyer]

The top quarter of the Drake was gone by yesterday afternoon, I stopped and watched in sad disbelief for a moment as the destruction proceeded, then shuffled home.:mad:

Macklowe makes me sick. He is a greedy, low class bast...d. He's basically a slum lord at heart.

[Alonzo-ny]

Whats the chances or an architectural zoning bonus before the city is full of crap.

[londonlawyer]

There is still hope that this creep will be forced to lose the Drake site and that something nice will be built there by a competent developer as opposed to Harry "the Slumlord" Macklowe.


Macklowe borrows $500M against GM building
September 18, 8:38 am
Macklowe Properties has borrowed another $500 million against the value of its prized General Motors building, even as Harry Macklowe's company reportedly faces financial pressure following its highly-leveraged purchase of eight Manhattan buildings for $7 billion earlier this year. Macklowe Properties upped its mortgage, sold by the German American Capital Corp., from $800 million to $1.3 billion, the city Department of Finance Web site revealed yesterday. more By Adam Pincus

[kliq6]

Sadly most likely we will get a repeat of Vornado Alexanders site here as with a potetial downturn in the economybecoming stronger, leasing will continue to slow

[londonlawyer]

Sadly most likely we will get a repeat of Vornado Alexanders site here as with a potetial downturn in the economybecoming stronger, leasing will continue to slow

By that, do you mean that this site will remain empty? If so, that's awesome news!

I'd rather have an empty site than the cheap box that Creeplowe planned to build. Due to his financial problems, this site may very well be sold to someone that will build the masterpiece that belongs there.