50 West Street - by Helmut Jahn [Archive]

lofter1

February 23rd, 2007, 10:21 AM

A 1996 article from the NY Times regarding 47 West:

New Residential Space Arrives in Lower Manhattan

PERSPECTIVES

NY Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5D61739F937A35751C0A9609582 60)
By ALAN S. OSER
February 4, 1996

BEFORE the year is over, about 1,000 apartments are expected to be in construction in older office and commercial buildings in lower Manhattan. Developers are taking advantage of relaxed zoning regulations and new tax incentives aimed at assisting economically stagnant properties and bringing in more round-the-clock occupancy.

Some of these projects will be large-scale conversions. But as it happens, the first to begin marketing space after a construction start is a small-scale project that exemplifies the offbeat specimens of mixed residential, office and industrial use that the new incentives may occasionally produce. It will also test the market for large for-rent live-work spaces in the financial district.

The property is 47 West Street, close to the entrance to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel and directly across from Battery Park City. It is actually three buildings on one tax lot. The tallest is the 12-story 47 West Street, named the Crystal Building for the family that once owned it. It is internally connected to 74 Washington Street, which is five floors lower. Combined they create 160,000 square feet of space, with lower floors of 15,200 square feet for printers and other businesses. The small third building is the three-story 50 West Street.

The Crystal Building was 90 percent occupied until about 1989, said Francis Greenburger, principal of Time Equities, the owner, a major co-op converter in the 80's but a commercial owner as well.

"Then one tenant went bust, two moved to Brooklyn and another went out of business," he said. "We had 26,000 square feet of nonresidential loft space vacant for two years." A tenant on the eighth and ninth floors of the West Street building was moved to the large fifth floor, which runs through to the shorter building on the Washington Street side. That freed two floors for residential conversion.

Now the 8th through the 11th floors of the West Street building are being converted to live-work space, with a sizable 3,000 square feet in each space, two to a floor, and sunlight from four directions. The units will rent for $4,000 a month, or $16 a square foot a year. Residents will share a modest-sized lobby, redecorated in Art Deco fashion, with the commercial tenants. The Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh is financing the construction.

The long-term tenant on the 12th floor of 47 West Street is the Superior Group (formerly Superior Reproduction Systems), a copying, microfilm and imaging service that signed a new lease only a year ago.

"I have no heavy presses," said Michael S. Darvin, the chief operating officer. "I have no problem with people living below us as long as the people moving in know we're a functioning business, 24 hours a day."

NOR is Donald Kern dissatisfied. He and his partner, Arthur Baron, run Admiral Communications (formerly Admiral Photo Offset Company), a printing company founded by their fathers in lower Manhattan 50 years ago. Three weeks ago Admiral signed a 15-year, $10-million lease renewal for 49,100 square feet on three-and-a-half low floors. Time Equities agreed to build a new heavy-duty freight elevator for Admiral on the south side of the building, along Joseph P. Ward Street.

Does residential occupancy disturb Admiral? "It doesn't bother me one way or another," Mr. Kern said. "My machines are noisy but they're down in the building, on the Washington Street side."

The live-work units of 47 West Street are a modest precursor of residential projects to come in lower Manhattan. Crescent Heights Investments, a partnership of Bruce A. Menin, Russell Galbut and Sonny Kahn, has gutted the interior of the 500,000-square-foot 1901 building at 25 Broad Street, at Exchange Place, in preparation for construction of a residential building of 345 family-sized high-ceiling apartments. Crescent Heights has developed close to 6,000 apartments in 20 former apartment buildings or hotels, mostly in South Florida.

Another redevelopment candidate is 127 John Street, the 32-story, 550,000-square-foot office building completed only 25 years ago by the Kaufman Organization. It was purchased out of foreclosure last November by Rockrose Development Corporation, a large residential owner-builder. A major tenant, Prudential Securities, moved out of 150,000 square feet three years ago and the space was not rerented.

A few blocks away is the 66-story, 1.4-million-square-foot 40 Wall Street, recently purchased by Donald Trump. Despite speculation that its upper floors might be converted to residential use, Mr. Trump said that it would remain a pure office building. Most of it is vacant, a big reconstruction has started and Cushman & Wakefield has been retained by the Trump Organization as the leasing agent, Mr. Trump said.

Creating an environment that attracts residents requires more than apartments. "The key is to create a restaurant destination that makes people want to be there," said Tony Goldman, principal in Goldman Properties, who said he was prepared to open five of them over the next 24 months. Mr. Goldman owns 70 Broad Street and other nearby property. A brownstone converter, he owns and operates three hotels in the South Beach section of Miami.

The zoning changes that are fueling the residential conversion activity were adopted last summer. They affect pre-1961 buildings below Murray Street west of Broadway, and below the Brooklyn Bridge east of Broadway. One change allows apartments in these buildings to have an average gross square footage of 900. Previous zoning discouraged conversions with a provision that the average apartment size in a large portion of the building had to be 1,800 square feet. Also, developers are now allowed to provide on-site parking for 20 percent of the units, up to 200 spaces.

Another zoning change makes it easier to create live-work space in lower Manhattan by permitting up to 49 percent of the dwelling units to be used for the home occupation. The previous limit was 25 percent. Three employees may work in the space.

SPECIAL tax incentives were also introduced for lower Manhattan conversions. After completion of construction, a 12-year tax exemption is provided. It applies to the assessment established at that time for buildings that are wholly or substantially (more than 75 percent of the total space) converted to residential use. It phases out after the first eight years at a rate of 20 percent a year.

In addition, taxes attributable to the preconstruction assessment are abated for 14 years. The abatement is 100 percent for 10 years, and it phases out over the next. (Landmarked properties get an extra year on both the exemption and the abatement.) The exemption and abatement together let the converted building to start out tax free. Then, until the benefits phase out, it pays taxes only on the portion of subsequent assessments that reflect a rise in value.

To qualify for the full initial tax benefits when less than 75 percent of the property is converted, developers are likely to attempt to establish the residential space as condominiums. Their expectation is that then both the exemption and the abatement would be available. On this principle, the converted floors at 47 West Street are likely to become a condominium.

Other tax incentives in lower Manhattan benefit office and commercial lessees. One runs for three years and applies to new arrivals in pre-1975 buildings in lower Manhattan, or to tenants signing renewal leases renewals in such buildings. This benefit helped Admiral Communications at 47 West Street. Mr. Kern said it would save the business $250,000 over five years, and was a factor in its decision not to move.

Mr. Greenburger said that he got the idea of converting several floors in 47 West Street two years ago when he was visiting a friend at Battery Park City. "I looked out and saw the empty floors in my building, and I thought residential might work," he said. "It took two years to get a bank to agree to finance it."

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

sfenn1117

February 24th, 2007, 09:50 PM

The first is 50 West Street, located between West and Washington Streets at J.P. Ward Street (just north of the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel Entrance). The project involves abatement and demolition of the location's three existing buildings, which will be replaced by a new 65-story residential tower and hotel. Pending abatement and demolition-plan approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/global/contact/#us) (EPA) and other agencies, the developer hopes to begin several months of deconstruction work as soon as spring 2007, followed by 32 months of construction.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_196/undercover.html

Meanwhile, at 50 West St. (and 47 and 48 and 49 West St.), Francis Greenberger’s Time Equities plans to spend an estimated $345 million to demolish its current property and create an enormous hotel-condo combo. Sources say the project could include as many as 310 condominium units and that Community Board 1 is currently looking into ways that Time Equities might “contribute to the community” in exchange for the board’s support for the project.

antinimby

February 24th, 2007, 11:32 PM

Just when you want that freakin' community board to protest (so 47 can be saved), not only do they not protest but they even ask for a kickback.

This place is just too insane for me.

NoyokA

March 2nd, 2007, 03:55 AM

Two New High Rises Coming to WTC South

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/news/022107_WestSt_BBT_hd.jpg Work may begin soon on a new West Street Tower Real estate development is on the rise in the area south of the World Trade Center, with two new towers recently added to the construction slate.
The first is 50 West Street, located between West and Washington Streets at J.P. Ward Street (just north of the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel Entrance). The project involves abatement and demolition of the location's three existing buildings, which will be replaced by a new 65-story residential tower and hotel. Pending abatement and demolition-plan approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/global/contact/#us) (EPA) and other agencies, the developer hopes to begin several months of deconstruction work as soon as spring 2007, followed by 32 months of construction.
Nearby at 111 Washington Street (at Carlisle Street), abatement and demolition of the parking garage and two neighboring buildings (numbers 109 and 107) are planned in the coming months. The project's start also depends on EPA approval, with plans to rebuild the site as a 50-story residential tower and hotel. The developer expects construction to last approximately two years.

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/two_new_high_rises_85333.aspx

I'm thinking that perhaps this most recent addition to Frank Williams' website and the fact that the building is 65 storeys, that this is the building mentioned in the article. If the building was to be 65 storeys at 50 west it would require the transfer of air-rights, presumably from the Battery tunnel, its my guess that perhaps 50 west is to be spared and the 65 storey building will be built above the tunnel entrance instead, as shown above.

londonlawyer

March 2nd, 2007, 09:01 AM

It seems like its almost every week that Frank Williams updates his website with new and ambiguous projects. This 65 storey building is proposed for the top of the tunnel entrance and looks to be around 800 feet. Its not the best of his ability but it would probably look nice on the skyline nevertheless.

http://www.archfwa.com/files/project_images/WESTSTREET03.jpg

The tower pictured is shown at top, the footprint for three other towers are shown at the bottom picture.

http://www.archfwa.com/files/project_images/WESTSTREET04.jpg

This looks like the Greenwich Street South project. It would be awesome if that occurs.

THe little building with the mansard roof that will be razed (as was discussed in an earlier post) is seen to the left of this one.

ZippyTheChimp

May 25th, 2007, 09:20 AM

Developer plans to knock down West St. ‘copper top’ to build 63 stories

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/ward.gif
Downtown Express photo by Lorenzo Ciniglio
This narrow walkway on Ward St. would be widened into a landscaped plaza under the plan.

By Skye H. McFarlane

The developer has called it a “shot in the arm for the neighborhood.” More than one Financial District resident has called it a “dangerous precedent.” The chair of Community Board 1 has called it a “huge decision.”

On June 6, Downtowners will get a chance to decide for themselves how to describe the 63-story, mixed-use development proposed for 50 West St. The developer, Time Equities, will make a full presentation on the project before C.B. 1’s Financial District, Battery Park City and Quality of Life Committees.

In addition to informing the public, the Wednesday meeting will be one of only two opportunities that the board will have to formulate an official position on the development. The other will be next month’s full board meeting. Because 50 West St. has applied for several zoning tweaks, as well as the purchase of air rights from the city, the project must undergo the city’s complex Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). By city law, the community board has until July 2 to submit its opinion on the project.

“We’ll meet as long as we need to meet Wednesday to answer everyone’s questions on this,” said Julie Menin, the chair of C.B. 1. “We are going to speak with a very loud voice on this.”

However, Menin isn’t sure just yet what that voice will say. No matter what the community board says, there will be a significant development at 50 West St. Under the area’s commercial zoning, Time Equities can build a 30 to 40 story building on the site’s current footprint. The company has already submitted preliminary applications for the demolition of the 1912 “copper top” 13-story building that currently occupies the space, just north of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. The development will contain hotel rooms, luxury condominium units and ground floor retail, all to be designed by well-known architect Helmut Jahn.

If the developer’s ULURP application is approved, the building could gain an additional 180,000 square feet of space, putting it at 63 stories under the current plans. The ULURP would also clear the way for a public plaza on the site, with landscaping and outdoor seating for a proposed café and restaurant. The plaza would be created by enlarging the narrow Ward St. walkway near the garage that leads from West to Washington Sts.

Menin, City Councilmember Alan Gerson and representatives from the community board and the local schools have been meeting with Time Equities to discuss potential “community benefits” that the developer might be willing to offer. Community benefit negotiations are common in cases of large-scale developments, especially those that require zoning variances or regulatory approvals. Previous negotiations with Downtown developers have yielded three schools, two community centers and funding for youth programs.

Gerson, Menin and Phillip Gesue, Time Equities director of acquisition and development, all declined to comment specifically on what community amenities have been discussed. However, both Gerson and Menin stressed that the developers will have to make accommodations for the additional children they would be bringing into the area’s overcrowded schools, as well as address the dearth of affordable housing Downtown. Others with knowledge of the negotiations were more specific, saying that Time Equities has offered to purchase laptops and other technology for P.S./ I.S. 89 in Battery Park City, and to beautify a small local park on Trinity Place.

Some community members have complained about the “closed door” negotiations for community amenities. Gerson responded that the talks were only preliminary, to let the developers know what concerns they would have to address in their presentation. Menin and Gesue both stressed that it was not possible to have full-blown public presentation until the 50 West ULURP application was officially submitted to the board. That happened on May 2 and since then, Menin said, a number of board members have taken the time to review the proposal.

Though it is not contained in the ULURP plans, Menin said that she expected Time Equities to include the possibility of a pedestrian bridge in its presentation to the board. Residents of south Battery Park City have long wished for a bridge to connect them to the Rector St. subways without the hassle and danger of navigating the at-grade traffic near the Battery Tunnel. Financial constraints and logistical questions over where and how to construct the bridge have long stalled the project. Gesue said that Time Equities is “absolutely” supportive of having a pedestrian bridge in the neighborhood. He added that the 50 West project could help the community by getting involved in any number of urban planning efforts.

In general, though, Gesue believes that the 50 West project is its own community benefit. With Jahn’s name and talent attached, he said, the building will be an “architectural landmark.” Gesue declined to release any renderings before the presentation. The building is also aiming for a gold rating from the U.S. Green Buildings Council. The current plans call for a clear glass building surrounding an exposed concrete skeleton. The building would be narrower at the bottom, to allow room for the public plaza, and wider on the upper floors — what architects call a cantilever.

The public plaza, Gesue said, will give Battery Park City residents a clean, attractive walkway to the Financial District. With a better access path, the merchants in the Greenwich South area will benefit from an increase in foot traffic. In general, he believes that the development will bring tourists, shops and street life to an area that is better known for commuter traffic and parking garages. Gesue admitted, however, that those neighborhood qualities will make the new 50 West St. property a challenge to market.

“This is why we need all the help we can get,” Gesue said. “We’re taking what is not a great area and we are making it better. This will be a real shot in the arm for the neighborhood, but that’s a challenge and a risk for us. That’s why we need the community’s help and not resistance.”

Some community members are already resistant, fearing that the rumored laptops, park improvements and pedestrian bridge will not compensate for the stress that the building’s increased population will put on the neighborhood’s schools and parks. While new laptops will become obsolete in five years, C.B. 1 member Catherine McVay Hughes said, the community will be stuck with 20 extra stories forever. Hughes also worried that the developer’s plan to build green would be presented as a “community amenity” at the meeting.

“A green building is great,” Hughes said. “But any smart developer these days who wants to attract luxury condo owners would want to make their building green. So it’s not a community amenity.”

Other community members are vowing to oppose the project, no matter what community amenities Time Equities offers. The height of the building would be out-of-context with the neighborhood, they say, (most nearby buildings are in the 20- to 30-story range) and the purchase of air rights from over the Battery Tunnel would set a bad precedent in an area that will likely see more large development in the coming years.

“I think it’s time to save the community contextually,” said C.B. 1 member and Battery Park City resident Tom Goodkind. “I don’t think community boards were meant to negotiate money out of realtors.”

Menin also believes that the process of community boards negotiating with developers needs to be reformed. She said that instead of having communities beg and plead every time a new development comes along, the city should institute a formal process whereby large projects must be analyzed to find out exactly what impact they will have on community infrastructure. Developers would then have a legal mandate to mitigate that impact.

While Gerson also supports a more regulated process at the city level, he said Wednesday that he was “guardedly optimistic” that the community and Time Equities could reach an amenable agreement under the current system. Though she is waiting to see the final presentation and hear the community’s reaction, Menin was a bit more guarded than optimistic.

“It’s a huge decision,” she said. “It may be that the impact is simply too great. At a certain point, we would have to say, ‘No, this is not acceptable.’”

The opinions of the community board, the Borough President’s office and the City Planning department all carry weight in the ULURP process, but because the 50 West application involves a change to the city map, the final approval or disapproval will be made by the City Council. The June 6 public meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the Assembly Hearing Room on the 19th floor of 250 Broadway.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/developerplansto.html

ZippyTheChimp

May 25th, 2007, 09:33 AM

I've moved all of the posts relating to this property from the "Manhattan Residential Development" thread.

ZippyTheChimp

May 25th, 2007, 09:39 AM

Regarding questions about air-rights: This project would purchase air-rights, although it wasn't specifically mentioned that they would be transferred from the Battery Garage.

In any case, if the Greenwich South project goes forward, the air-rights would be released for development.

GreenwichBoy

May 25th, 2007, 10:14 AM

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/time.gif

londonlawyer

May 25th, 2007, 12:24 PM

BPC

May 25th, 2007, 12:48 PM

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/time.gif

This is New York City, not Paris. Aesthetics, history, architecture, etc., none of that matters. Only money matters. In the end, CB1 will get its kickback, the developer will get his highrise, and those of us who were fond of that elegant old coppertop will still be able to come to this web site to see the pictures of how it used to be. Everybody wins. God forbid that brown and white thing next door should be the one to go.

londonlawyer

May 25th, 2007, 12:52 PM

This is New York City, not Paris. Aesthetics, history, architecture, etc., none of that matters. Only money matters. In the end, CB1 will get its kickback, the developer will get his highrise, and those of us who were fond of that elegant old coppertop will still be able to come to this web site to see the pictures of how it used to be. Everybody wins. God forbid that brown and white thing next door should be the one to go.

It's sad but true. Look at what the creep Macklowe is doing with The Drake.

By the way, not only is this building quite nice, but the one behind it that will be razed, while run-down, has some really beautiful feautures. It should be restored.

Instead of grubbing computers from the developer, Julie Menin should use her loud mouth to save these buildings.

sfenn1117

May 25th, 2007, 07:36 PM

However, Menin isn’t sure just yet what that voice will say. No matter what the community board says, there will be a significant development at 50 West St. Under the area’s commercial zoning, Time Equities can build a 30 to 40 story building on the site’s current footprint.

So no matter what, the building is going to be demolished, and with an application already out there's little hope to save it. Honestly, just because it's old doesn't mean it's landmark worthy.....I don't think it is anything special.

The ULURP would also clear the way for a public plaza on the site, with landscaping and outdoor seating for a proposed café and restaurant. The plaza would be created by enlarging the narrow Ward St. walkway near the garage that leads from West to Washington Sts.

I'm always a fan of outdoor restaurants, great animator of street life.

Though it is not contained in the ULURP plans, Menin said that she expected Time Equities to include the possibility of a pedestrian bridge in its presentation to the board. Residents of south Battery Park City have long wished for a bridge to connect them to the Rector St. subways without the hassle and danger of navigating the at-grade traffic near the Battery Tunnel.

Sounds reasonable to me.

In general, though, Gesue believes that the 50 West project is its own community benefit. With Jahn’s name and talent attached, he said, the building will be an “architectural landmark.”

I agree.....this has the potential to be a magnificent building and hold its own in the skyline.

Other community members are vowing to oppose the project, no matter what community amenities Time Equities offers. The height of the building would be out-of-context with the neighborhood, they say, (most nearby buildings are in the 20- to 30-story range) and the purchase of air rights from over the Battery Tunnel would set a bad precedent in an area that will likely see more large development in the coming years.

“I think it’s time to save the community contextually,” said C.B. 1 member and Battery Park City resident Tom Goodkind. “I don’t think community boards were meant to negotiate money out of realtors.”

This is the part that burns me. This is Lower Manhattan, with a storied skyscraper history like no other city on Earth. And 63 stories, probably 700 feet max is too tall? You've got to be kidding me. There are plenty of other taller, fatter, uglier buildings that ruin the skyline and street life more than this will.

I hope they get the additional square footage, this has great potential with a great architect involved. The potential pedestrian bridge would be a nice thing to obtain as well.

Scraperfannyc

May 25th, 2007, 11:50 PM

50 west is one of the nicer buildings in the area that has a classy look, although it is no 90 west street. Macklowe would love to knock down 90 West if he had the chance, among some others beauties downtown.

I actually wish they would knock down some of the 14 story eyesores in BPC to build bigger before this one.

antinimby

June 7th, 2007, 10:01 PM

63-story mixed-use tower planned for 50 West Street

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1181249742_west50as.jpg

07-JUN-07

Time Equities, a real estate company headed by Francis Greenburger, made a presentation last night to the Financial District, Battery Park City and Quality of Life committees of Community Board 1 of its plans to erect a 63-story hotel and residential condominium development at 50 West Street across from Battery Park City.

The slim tower has been designed by Helmut Jahn of Murphy/Jahn Architects of Chicago, who designed CitySpire, Park Avenue Tower and 425 Lexington Avenue in New York and the great State of Illinois Center in Chicago, and Gruzen Samton LLC.

The curved south side of the tower would have a plaza that would provide an alternate and more attractive pedestrian walkway from Battery Park City to Greenwich Street than the existing walkway through the Battery Tunnel Garage.

The proposed building would house a 155-room hotel on floors 1 though 13, 48 "full-service residential units" on floors 14 through 18 and 259 residential condominium apartments on floors 20 through 63. It would have an illuminated top, but no garage.

The ground floor of the tower, which would be designed to achieve a Gold LEED rating, would contain a "light-art gallery showcasing some of the most innovate light installation artists in the world, a cafe/bar, a restaurant and a "gourmet" corner store grocery.

The project requires text changes to allow a plaza at the site and to permit the transfer of development rights above the Battery Tunnel garage to be used "only in the at-grade area north of J. P. Ward Street, and by special permit only."

In addition, the project requires the demapping of a 8-inch strip between J. P. Ward Street and the applicant's site and a demapping for "a plane above J. P. Ward and the portion of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Approach located 37.2 feet above the area between West, Washington, Morris and J. P. Ward Streets.

The Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Approach has about 2.7 million square feet of unused air rights and the 50 West Street project plans to acquire about 183,000 square feet of those air rights.

The project's site is just to the north of the 8-acre Greenwich Street South project that would deck over the Manhattan entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, create a new park and a new, automated, green-roofed bus garage and five residential towers, a plan that was initiated by Mayor Bloomberg in 2002 and which the chairman of the Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority, Jim Gill, said last year he would like to take charge of.

An urban design study for that project was prepared in 2005 envisioned a new, curved pedestrian bridge over West Street to connect the southern part of Battery Park City to Greenwich Green, a new park between Morris and Edgar Streets between West and Greenwich Streets.

Members of the community board indicated they wanted any income from the sale of air rights to the project to be used for projects in Lower Manhattan, indicating that they were concerned about schools, a new pedestrian bridge over West Street, and the area's need for more cultural institutions and affordable housing.

Philip Gesue, director of development and acquisitions for Time Equities, told the meeting that it was considering giving a local school 159 laptop computers with four-year maintenance contracts, to help address the area's school needs. Mr. Gesue said that a bridge from Battery Park City over West Street to his company's site would be difficult to accommodate because of the small size of the site.

Julie Menin, chair of the community board, said that board needed more time to study what amenities it might seek from the development and scheduled another meeting for June 18, the day before it must make recommendations for the project's Uniform Land Use Review (ULURP) applications.

The redevelopment of the 50 West site would involve the demolition of the 12-story, 1912 building once known as the Crystal Building that has a 3-story-high mansard roof.

Copyright © 1994-2007 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

antinimby

June 7th, 2007, 10:02 PM

It would have an illuminated top, but no garage.

The ground floor of the tower, which would be designed to achieve a Gold LEED rating, would contain a "light-art gallery showcasing some of the most innovate light installation artists in the world, a cafe/bar, a restaurant and a "gourmet" corner store grocery.I like all this very much. http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

lofter1

June 7th, 2007, 10:25 PM

More on Jahn's 50 West project:

http://www.skyscraper.org/PROGRAMS/MIXED_GREENS/jahn_intro.htm (http://www.skyscraper.org/PROGRAMS/MIXED_GREENS/jahn_intro.htm)

Part 8: 50 West, New York City (http://javascript<b></b>:playMovie('http://www.skyscraper.org/PROGRAMS/MIXED_GREENS/media/08_jahn.mov');)

And a big fuzzy rendering from Jularc (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2800578&postcount=10) at ssp:

http://www.pbase.com/image/77838587/original.jpg

Scruffy at ssp has some big pics of the current site conditions HERE (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2847972&postcount=45)

sfenn1117

June 7th, 2007, 10:53 PM

macreator

June 7th, 2007, 10:59 PM

The proportions are great! Let's hope this thing gets built. West Street could also certainly use the gourmet corner store and restaurant. I'd like to kiss whoever at Time Equities decided to buck the trend and not look for a Duane Reade or Chase Bank to fill the retail space of the tower.

antinimby

June 7th, 2007, 11:10 PM

It's 700 feet tall,Are you sure it'll still be 700 feet?

Because while it might have been that tall when it was first proposed as 69 stories but apparently it has now been trimmed to 63 floors so I would assume the height would come down also.

sfenn1117

June 7th, 2007, 11:12 PM

Are you sure it'll be 700 feet?

Because while it might have been that tall when it was first proposed as 69 stories but apparently it has now been trimmed to 63 floors so I would assume the height would come down also.

The man in the video says 700 feet.

antinimby

June 7th, 2007, 11:15 PM

Then that might not be the latest, the man in the video that is.

I'd say it'll would be around 650 ft., including the illuminated crown.

pianoman11686

June 7th, 2007, 11:22 PM

A sublime tower. Please, please don't let them water this one down!

macreator

June 8th, 2007, 01:21 AM

Even at 63 floors, I'll bet it is still 700 feet thanks to the inevitable mechanical floors associated with the mixed use nature of the hotel + hotel condo + condo tower and the illuminated roof.

krulltime

June 8th, 2007, 04:09 AM

And a big fuzzy rendering from Jularc (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2800578&postcount=10) at ssp:

Jularc = Krulltime. ;)

BrooklynRider

June 8th, 2007, 02:59 PM

Next time, love, we want the scoop here at WNY.:D

krulltime

June 8th, 2007, 04:01 PM

lesterp4

June 8th, 2007, 04:07 PM

I also hope that nimbys don't diminish this building. Finally, we get something that is competing architecturally with Chicago.

krulltime

June 8th, 2007, 05:24 PM

^ I am sure they will try to lower it down. They will find an excuse that is too tall. Like blocking the sunlight and all that stuff. Oh you know how they are in NYC. Tuff little crowd to please with tallness in this city. :rolleyes:

HudsonNYC

June 9th, 2007, 03:23 PM

http://www.tribecatrib.com/images/spacer10.gif
Downtown Tower Developer Seeks CB1 Approval
By Andrea Appleton
POSTED JUNE 8, 2007
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/june07/50%20West-Julie.jpg
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/june07/captions/west1.gifOne more towering glass building—this one 63 stories—may soon join the bumper crop planned for Lower Manhattan. But first the 725-foot tower at 50 West Street, near Rector Street, must survive an extensive city-mandated review.
That’s what brought the developer, Time Equities, Inc., before combined committees of Community Board 1 on June 6 as they sought the board’s advisory approval. The transparent glass building would house about 300 condos and a 155-room high-end hotel, and would include a public plaza.
A Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) is required because the developer wants several exemptions to the current zoning, as well as permission to purchase air rights from the Brooklyn Battery Garage across the street. Once CB1 has reviewed the plans, they will go to Borough President Scott Stringer’s office, followed by the City Planning Department, and finally to the City Council.
At the meeting of CB 1’s combined Financial District, Battery Park City and Quality of Life/Affordable Housing Committees, Philip Gesue, acquisitions director for Time Equities, Inc., argued that the city was getting something special in the bargain. The tower’s design is by the well-known architect, Helmut Jahn, and a plaza along the Joseph P. Ward and Washington Street edges of the lot would provide a pedestrian-friendly route between the southern part of Battery Park City and the rest of Lower Manhattan. Now, the only direct route from West Street to Washington Street in the area is through the Brooklyn Battery Garage or up a dark sidewalk hemmed in between the garage and the adjoining building.
“Everybody who crosses the street here winds up walking up the middle of Joseph P. Ward Street because this sidewalk is so narrow and dirty,” said Gesue. “It’s dangerous and illegal, and doesn’t contribute to the fabric of the community.” He added that developers are aiming for gold-level LEED certification, the U.S. Green Building Council’s highest rating.
But CB 1 members seemed unconvinced that the development would be good for the community.
“You keep using very negative words to describe our neighborhood,” said board member Linda Belfer, a Battery Park City resident. “’Desolate’ and ‘gritty.’ We love our neighborhood, and what you’re proposing to do is going to vastly change it.”
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/june07/50%20West-elevations.jpg
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/june07/captions/west2.gifAmong the changes they foresee, board members mentioned the increase in traffic and the burden on local schools from the influx of new residents, as well as the overall change to the neighborhood’s character the tall glass building would bring.
To help mitigate effects on P.S./I.S. 89 Gesue said Time Equities, Inc. plans to buy 159 laptop computers for the schools. These would be distributed to all of the classrooms, making the computer room that the two schools now share obsolete and allowing P.S. 89 to add a classroom. Gesue said Time Equities, Inc. would also fund a full-time computer maintenance person for the schools for four years.
“The impact on the school, the growth, directly affects P.S. 89,” said I.S. 89 principal Ellen Foote, who attended the meeting, “but indirectly affects I.S. 89. We’re being squeezed and the only way to maintain an appropriate level of technology is to go by this route.”
While board members applauded the offer, it did not seem to appease them.
“What we’re trying to do tonight,” said chair Julie Menin, “is give you a sense of our needs, and how you can mitigate the severe impacts which this project will have on our community.”
Menin suggested some projects the developer might undertake, such as improving two small parks on Edgar Street, and adding benches and lighting to the streetscape around 50 West St. Others on the board suggested the building should include a cultural amenity.
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/june07/50%20West-plaza.jpg
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/june07/captions/west3.gifBoard member Bill Love proposed that the plans should include a new pedestrian bridge. “We need a permanent bridge connecting the southern part of Battery Park City to the other side of West Street,” he said. “It seems to me that your building is really an ideal location for such a bridge to terminate.”
Gesue said he would be open to considering the bridge proposal once the ULURP process was successfully completed. But about most of the other requests, he was noncommittal.
“We didn’t come here tonight with a stripped-down building that doesn’t offer a whole lot to you and expect to be in a trading session here,” he said.
The committees will meet again on June 18 to discuss the proposal and hammer out a resolution. The next evening, the full board will vote on it.
Among the complex zoning modifications in the application is a request to “demap” several areas associated with the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Approach. This would allow the developer to purchase air rights from the city, essentially buying them from the garage across the street. This would allow the building to add 183,000 square feet to the only 275,000 square feet that is currently allowed in the zoning.
Board members were emphatic about where the money from selling the air rights ought to go if the application is passed.
“The city is obviously getting substantial money for them,” said Menin. “I feel strongly that these proceeds must go into Lower Manhattan to benefit our community.”
The committees will meet again to consider the application on June 18 at 6 p.m., at 49-51 Chambers St., Room 709.

NoyokA

June 9th, 2007, 03:52 PM

I did create a thread once, but Stern deleted. I was confuse by this thread before and I though it was for another tower (there are so many new towers in that area). But I am glad there is a thread for this tower finally. ;)

I didn't delete it. It was moved to Manhattan Residential Developments (not by me) only to move back to its own thread (also not by me). I had nothing to do with any of the moderating of this topic.

ZippyTheChimp

June 9th, 2007, 03:57 PM

^
I split it into its own thread, but don't remember merging anything into Manhattan Residential.

NoyokA

June 9th, 2007, 04:10 PM

NoyokA

June 9th, 2007, 04:51 PM

I just spent about the last half hour unsuccessfully looking for the building this project reminds me of, a clear glass tower in a small European city with circular openings for air ventilation, rounded corners, and a rounded internally dissolving roof-top atrium. It’s understated but brilliant. On paper this building is just as good, the design strikes me just right, I love the subtle jet out only to sculpt back at the top. The glass treatment on the rendering of the public plaza is exceptional, metal is an afterthought, and works nicely to encase the clear glass. The rounded corners relate nicely to the rounded top. My favorite part of the tower is the accretion to the clear dome, the giant window at the top is similar to the above mentioned European tower with the internally dissolving roof-top atrium, it also reminds me of the giant window at the top of 1 Wall Street, offering a thoroughly modern crown to a thoroughly modern building. Right now I’m not overly impressed with the renderings, instead I am excited about the design elements this building has and how they all seem to work together, on paper this is an excellent building, I hope the execution is up to par, which unfortunately isn’t always the case with Jahn buildings.

Derek2k3

June 9th, 2007, 05:09 PM

http://www.tribecatrib.com/images/spacer10.gif
Downtown Tower Developer Seeks CB1 Approval
By Andrea Appleton
POSTED JUNE 8, 2007

At least the issue here, for the most part, is not the tower's height or size.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1276/537666563_fb1fe2130a_o.jpg
NYatKnight
Downtown will get a little curvier with this, The Visionaire, Goldman Sachs, & Beekman Tower.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1321/537666573_6bcec7ef4f_b.jpg
SergeSmArt

From Jersey, this will appear to be among the tallest towers Downtown. That BPC mess, Liberty Court, is only 450' and look at its unfortunate impact. Also, I'm interested in seeing how that round top will work against the sharp crowns, spires, and flat roofs of Downtown.

krulltime

June 9th, 2007, 06:03 PM

Well then some other moderator moved it to Manhattan Residential Developments. I had no problem with the moderators decision to combine the thread with Manhattan Developments, if I would have I would have PM'd them. Krulltime I suggest you do the same, instead of calling me out for something I had absolutely no involvement in.

My apologies for calling you out. I just though it was you for some reason. I think you were responding to that thread that I created aswell. But during that time you were also moving some of my other threads around since I coudn't figure it out that search option too well. But now with your hints, I know how to used though. :) So thank you for that.

Anyway who ever move it that is in the past and I just don't care anymore. ;)

NoyokA

June 9th, 2007, 06:08 PM

My apologies for calling you out. I just though it was you for some reason. I think you were responding to that thread that I created aswell. But during that time you were also moving some of my other threads around since I coudn't figure it out that search option too well. But now with your hints, I know how to used though. :) So thank you for that.

Anyway who ever move it that is in the past and I just don't care anymore. ;)

I replied to your thread because I felt that such a significant project deserved its own thread. Another moderator moved the thread to Manhattan Residential Developments, moderators support other moderators decisions, so even though I didn't feel it should have been moved, I supported it. Next time if you feel a thread should be moved or changed or that it was moved or changed wrongly, PM one of us.

sfenn1117

June 9th, 2007, 06:22 PM

At 725 feet this would be my estimate at skyline impact....it might be a little conservative.

http://i7.tinypic.com/5ybtphc.jpg

After decades of mammoth blockbusters crowding the downtown skyline, it's refreshing to see narrow towers rise like they did in the 20's. 123 Washington as well as 111 Washington will also be visible in this shot.

ZippyTheChimp

June 9th, 2007, 08:01 PM

Context

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8279/50west01cij5.th.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west01cij5.jpg) http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6122/50west02cnj8.th.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west02cnj8.jpg) http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/9963/50west03cte5.th.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west03cte5.jpg) http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6179/50west04ccy4.th.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west04ccy4.jpg) http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6516/50west05ces8.th.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west05ces8.jpg)

Neighbors

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3041/50west06clk8.th.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west06clk8.jpg)

21 West

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/8188/50west07cjw9.th.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west07cjw9.jpg) http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1524/50west09cww5.th.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west09cww5.jpg) http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4492/50west08ctv0.th.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50west08ctv0.jpg)

The garage must go.

pianoman11686

June 10th, 2007, 05:12 PM

After decades of mammoth blockbusters crowding the downtown skyline, it's refreshing to see narrow towers rise like they did in the 20's. 123 Washington as well as 111 Washington will also be visible in this shot.

And in that photo, you can see the culprit that largely influenced zoning's mandated setbacks and height/width restrictions, which gave us all those soaring towers in the 20s: The Equitable Building, right under Chase Manhattan.

Thanks for the rendering-preview. I really hope the developer just gives the community what it wants and the tower stays the same.

Scraperfannyc

June 10th, 2007, 06:11 PM

I love downtown Manhattan. The development here is uplifting. Macklowe is not allowed.

TREPYE

June 11th, 2007, 12:20 AM

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1181249742_west50as.jpg

Copyright © 1994-2007 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

This development is not so bad in terms of design. But the antique that it is replacing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Cant it replace something else that nobody will miss such as a garage, one new york plaza, 55 water street or any one of those other 60's modernist garbage. Why get rid of such an elegant and distictive piece or architecture?

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/time.gif

macreator

June 11th, 2007, 12:23 AM

Personally I'd like to demo the ugly building to the left of 50 West Street. What an awful looking building. Looks just like the office building across Park Avenue from Chase's HQ at the former Union Carbide building. When was brown brick and creme accents in style?!?

NoyokA

June 11th, 2007, 12:26 AM

BrooklynRider

June 11th, 2007, 12:28 AM

I ca't imagine what the argument can be against this building specifically. Shadows on BPC? School overcrowding is an issue for the whole city below Chambers, so it can't be attached to this building. I'd love to see this go up. It adds to the skyline (in an appreciative way) and, hopefully would add to the West Street streetscape.

kz1000ps

June 11th, 2007, 12:45 AM

When I used to play SimCity 3000 there was a building in the game that looked exactly like it and whenever it would appear, I would always immediately destroy it.

Hehe, I believe that building's name was "Insurance Plaza." Considering that the "Silver Tower" was a complete knock-off of 2 NY Plaza, it wouldn't surprise me if the game designers copied that POS on West St.

Derek2k3

June 11th, 2007, 01:10 AM

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/539934878_0d008b0bab_b.jpg
SergeSmArt

I was just thinking 4 Albany (630'), 111 Washington St. (52 st.), and this 63 story tower will continue the line of new towers from the New WTC. Throw in Goldman Sachs, the remaining BPC towers, and possible development of the parking garage and we'll have one hell of a skyline.

NoyokA

June 11th, 2007, 01:58 AM

Hehe, I believe that building's name was "Insurance Plaza." Considering that the "Silver Tower" was a complete knock-off of 2 NY Plaza, it wouldn't surprise me if the game designers copied that POS on West St.

Found the building I was talking about... The tall building behind the police station.

http://www.sc3000.com/images/ss_traffic.jpg

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6179/50west04ccy4.jpg

As for SC3000 knock-offs leave it WNY to have a thread for that too...

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4074

antinimby

June 15th, 2007, 09:30 PM

Developer says ‘no’ to affordable housing, so C.B. 1 considers saying ‘right back at you’

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_214/developer.gif
Time Equities plans to build a new 63-story luxury
condo building at 50 West St.

By Skye H. McFarlane
June 15 - 21, 2007 (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_214/developersays.html)

A presentation on the proposed 63-story tower at 50 West St. last week left local community board members wrestling with two questions: What sort of community amenities would mitigate the impact of the project’s desired zoning variances? And when does the impact become so significant that no potential amenity could make the deal worthwhile?

The developers at 50 West St. formally presented their request for two separate land use actions on June 6. Now it is up to Community Board 1 to determine whether green design, a public plaza and a laptop program for a local school are reason enough to approve zoning variances that would allow Time Equities to add more than 20 stories to their planned hotel and condominium combo.

So far, the answer seems to be “no,” particularly since the developer refused a request by C.B. 1 members to consider building any affordable apartments in Lower Manhattan.

“We’re moving in right direction, but I don’t think we’re there yet,” said City Councilmember Alan Gerson, who helped negotiate the amenities with the developer. “The community voiced legitimate concerns and requests at the meeting.”

For some community members, the addition of park maintenance, cultural space or a pedestrian bridge could make the development palatable. For others, 50 West St.’s high density, out-of-context design and lack of affordable housing make the project a no-go, no matter what the developers offer the community. The board will hold another meeting this Monday to craft a resolution on the development. According to C.B. 1 chairperson Julie Menin, the board plans to write a conditional approval or disapproval, rather than a simple “yes” or “no.” The full board will vote on the resolution this Tuesday.

By law, the Department of City Planning must consider the community board’s opinion as a part of the official Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. The City Council, however, will have the final say on whether or not the 50 West St. project gets approved.

By right, the developer, Time Equities, can build a 30 to 40-story building on the site, which is next to the entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. A 1912 office building will be demolished to make way for the new tower. If the developers’ land-use application is approved, they will be able to add 180,000 square feet of space through the construction of a public plaza along little-known Ward St. and the purchase of air rights from over the Battery Tunnel.

The building will be a slender, translucent glass cylinder designed by noted architect Helmut Jahn. Time Equities director of acquisition and development Phillip Gesue said that the building’s aesthetics made the most sense at its planned height of 63 stories. He pointed out that most of the city’s most significant and beloved buildings, such as the Woolworth Building, were out of context with the height and style of their surroundings when they were first constructed.

“Over time, everything blends in,” Gesue said of the building’s height. “I think this design is very different, very special.”

Despite his admiration for the design, Gesue would not release a rendering of the project for publication.

Several board members agreed that the Jahn design was appealing. Their concerns, they said, rested more with what will be inside the building — namely 300 luxury condominiums filled with new residents. The building will also contain a high-end hotel and ground-floor retail spaces. Community members worried that the new residents and their children would further stress the neighborhood’s already crowded schools, parks and ballfields.

In an attempt to mitigate that impact, the developer offered up a plan to provide laptops for every student in Battery Park City’s I.S. 89. Time Equities would provide laptops, backup equipment and a staff technician for four years. Asked why the developer was offering a temporary amenity to offset a permanent development, Gesue said that the laptop program was designed to see the school through until a new school can be built in the neighborhood, presumably at Site 2B in the neighborhood’s south end.

I.S. 89 principal Ellen Foote and David Feiner, an aide to Councilmember Gerson, both spoke in support of the plan. By giving the school laptops, they said, the developers will allow I.S. 89 to turn its computer room into two regular classrooms — thus reducing class size. Although I.S. 89’s enrollment is capped, P.S. 89, which shares the building, has experienced acute class-size problems in recent years.

Feiner also spoke in favor of 50 West’s plan to seek a “Gold” rating from the U.S. Green Buildings Council. In addition to the rating, Gesue said at the meeting that Time Equities was open to requiring the use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel and emissions filters in its construction vehicles.

“This is the perfect place to have a green building,” Feiner said. “It’s important to set the standard and hopefully other developers will have to follow the standard and compete.”

One aspect of the building’s green plan, however, was a sticking point for local residents. To encourage the use of public transportation, the building will not have a parking garage. Community members said they feared that the building’s high-income residents and guests would bring cars into the neighborhood anyways, clogging up the streets and raising the price of parking in local garages.

At the Wednesday night meeting, the community debated back and forth with Gesue about other possibilities for community benefits in and around the site. Although the development will include a tree-lined pedestrian plaza along Ward St., Time Equities backed off of its earlier support for a pedestrian bridge connecting the area to Battery Park City.

Gesue said that a bridge landing inside the building would present space and cleanliness issues. A resident of the Greenwich South area himself, Gesue said that he was personally in favor of a pedestrian bridge landing in plaza, but that the developers would have to discuss the feasibility of such a project at a later date.

Gesue said that the developer would consider adding public art or cultural space to the building, so long as the cultural space was occupied by a paying tenant. He did not respond to suggestions that the developer might pay to improve the small parks and streetscapes in the neighborhood.

Menin said that if Time Equities did not choose to take on the park and streetscape upgrades, she hoped that the city would do it instead. If the ULURP application is approved, the city would stand to earn an estimated $18 million from the sale of its air rights. Because the sale of city air rights over a street is an unusual and (to some board members) unsettling proposition, Menin and others insisted that the neighborhood must reap the benefits of that sale from the municipal end.

“One-hundred percent of the proceeds must go to Downtown to support much-needed infrastructure,” Menin said. “That money cannot end up in Red Hook.”

The mention of Brooklyn drew the ire of community residents more than once during the meeting. Because the developer plans to take advantage of the 421-a tax abatement, community members asked whether Time Equities planned to include any affordable housing in the 50 West project. South of 14th St., any development can currently take advantage of the tax break, which was put into place during the 1970s economic crisis.

A new version of the law, however, is expected to pass the state legislature this session. If passed, the new 421-a law would require developers in Lower Manhattan to include at least 20 percent affordable housing in their projects to merit the tax break. The new law would take effect in the new year. The 50 West project plans to break ground in late fall, which would put the project under the old version of the law.

Gesue said last Wednesday that it would be financially impossible to include affordable housing at 50 West as it is currently designed, since the building’s complex architecture and green features have put the construction price tag at over $1,000 per square foot. Asked if Time Equities would consider putting affordable housing off site in one of the company’s other Downtown properties, Gesue said no.

Frustrated with that answer, board member Allan Tannenbaum asked Gesue if he believed that Lower Manhattan should be reserved only for the rich and the super-rich.

“I think that Lower Manhattan should be for the people who can afford to pay the prices that it currently costs to live here,” Gesue said, stressing his strong belief in the free market. He added that if he could no longer afford to live in Lower Manhattan, he would happily move to Brooklyn. He suggested that other neighborhood residents could do the same. “You move to the neighborhood that you can afford to live in.”

The comments — and the thought of another tower going up in the narrow streets of her rapidly developing neighborhood — brought long-time Washington St. resident Esther Regelson close to tears. She urged C.B. 1 to refuse the ULURP application. Gesue argued that the towers, particularly 50 West, would bring commerce and street life to a “gritty” area that currently houses strip clubs and parking garages in addition to its historic old buildings and tenement apartments.

In the end, the board members decided that they needed to go home and carefully weigh the many aspects of the 50 West St. proposal before making a final decision.

“It’s a very good looking building, but would we rather have smaller scale here with stoops and stairs?” asked board member Tom Goodkind. “It’s not just about what the developer is going to give us. We have to ask, ‘Will this improve the neighborhood?’ It might, but I don’t know yet.”

http://www.downtownexpress.com/inside_dt_logo.gif

BrooklynRider

June 16th, 2007, 12:55 AM

For others, 50 West St.’s high density, out-of-context design...

Huh? Can someone explain when downtown developed a "context?" Is this the same context that the last J&R Music building was built to respect?

sfenn1117

June 16th, 2007, 01:11 AM

No, this one is my favorite quote:

It’s a very good looking building, but would we rather have smaller scale here with stoops and stairs?” asked board member Tom Goodkind.

It's almost as if this person thinks he lives in the Village.

The air rights from the garage are going to be inevitably used in the next few years. I don't see the big deal in transfering less than 10% of them to this project. I do, however, see their point in wanting the money to be used downtown, and about the crowded schools, all the more reason to build a school on site 2A.

Derek2k3

June 16th, 2007, 09:24 AM

I almost feel like writing a letter to these idiots. It sounds like the meeting that took place was a bunch of political grandstanding.

As someone on curbed said: "I wish real progressives could somehow mobilize support for the elimination of the Community Boards. They were a good idea that have miserably failed. The meetings are completely useless NIMBY pow-wows."

pianoman11686

June 16th, 2007, 02:15 PM

Please do. I'll join you.

It's not enough these days for a developer to pay millions of dollars for air rights, thus "for the right to build higher." No, they have to honor the community's wishes, which seem to get more outlandish every day. Forget about their opinions on such projects in general: too tall (for the neighborhood), too expensive (for the neighbors), too many new kids (for our schools). Since when have people felt such an intense sense of entitlement to something that they don't own and have no fundamental right to control? Is this really New York? Is this really America?

Forgive me for the rant, but I think it's a terrible day when trying to get a modest new project underway comes down to paying off extortionist community boards. And then we wonder why so many of the most exciting proposals get delayed into obsolescence and we're stuck with a plateaued skyline of far too many ordinary and unremarkable buildings.

Alonzo-ny

June 16th, 2007, 03:07 PM

I will cry tears of absolute joy when CBs are abolished. a quality control is needed yes, this is not it.

BPC

June 16th, 2007, 05:22 PM

This thread seems to be proof of the maxim "no good deed goes unpunished."

I do not sit on CB1, but it does represent my neighborhood. These are just ordinary citizens generously volunteering their time and efforts to the community, trying to work through difficult issues. To direct all this hostility at them for their community service -- merely for talking through the issues -- is, frankly, unseemly. While I certainly do not agree with CB1's every decision, here they seem to be acting perfectly reasonably. The developer has come to them looking for a variance. In other words, he is asking to do something THE RULES DON'T ALLOW. They have every right to say NO, if they do not feel a variance would be in the community's best interests. The developer would then still be free to build to the height the rules allow, or try to get CB1's decision reversed (I believe it is non-binding).

Here, I see no particularly compelling reason why CB1 should unconditionally accede to the developer's demands, particularly when the end result would be the demolition of one of the community's more elegant old buildings (even if not landmarked) merely for the sake of yet another tedious glass tower. Exactly how many of those do we need?

Derek2k3

June 16th, 2007, 06:51 PM

The fact that approval will allow the toer to not be another tedious hulk should be reason enough for approval. Regardless of the CB's decision, the elegant old building will be demolished and the 180,000 sq. ft. of rights will be utilized somewhere.

So if they reject this what will they gain?

They won't get the $18 million they can potentially get from the air rights sale.

They won't get the laptop program for a local school to free up classroom space.

Most likely an even more tedious and unremarkable 40 story building with no public plaza will be built...yet still no affordable housing.
_______________

I still bet they're going to conditionally approve the tower, milking the developer as much as possible, no doubt.

Fabrizio

June 16th, 2007, 07:53 PM

Pianoman writes:

"Since when have people felt such an intense sense of entitlement to something that they don't own and have no fundamental right to control? Is this really New York? Is this really America?"

"No, they have to honor the community's wishes, which seem to get more outlandish every day."

----

Instead the article states:

"By law, the Department of City Planning must consider the community board’s opinion..."

Note the words:

"by law"

"consider"

"opinion"

---

pianoman11686

June 16th, 2007, 07:53 PM

To direct all this hostility at them for their community service -- merely for talking through the issues -- is, frankly, unseemly.

It'd be one thing if the meetings were comprised mainly of back-and-forth debate. It's quite another, however, when one side is only trying to demonstrate its opposition, and, in effect, demanding their requests be met in exchange for approval.

The developer has come to them looking for a variance. In other words, he is asking to do something THE RULES DON'T ALLOW. They have every right to say NO, if they do not feel a variance would be in the community's best interests. The developer would then still be free to build to the height the rules allow, or try to get CB1's decision reversed (I believe it is non-binding).

Actually, the developer comes to the city looking for a variance, because it is the city who owns the air rights. The community board's input is only requested as part of ULURP procedures. And I take offense at your brash statement of THE RULES DON'T ALLOW. Variances were introduced into zoning regulations as a way for the city to ensure its restrictions weren't incurring financial hardship on the developers. The original intent of a variance was to simply provide the developer with more air rights, conditional upon the developer proving that the project could not get built without them. Back then, the community had no say in these matters. Nowadays, the community not only has a substantial say, but it has so even when the city gets compensated for providing the variance.

Here, I see no particularly compelling reason why CB1 should unconditionally accede to the developer's demands, particularly when the end result would be the demolition of one of the community's more elegant old buildings (even if not landmarked) merely for the sake of yet another tedious glass tower. Exactly how many of those do we need?

No one's saying they should unconditionally accede; they are, in fact, setting conditions with the developer, who's shown willingness to provide amenities. It seems as if the community's apprehension - and your agreement with them - is less the result of something the developer has done and more a result of the city's handling of the matter. Some of these include:

1) The spending of the funds earned from selling the air rights. If the community wants this money to directly benefit them, they should petition the city to change the handling of such funds. Henceforth, all air rights sales should go into separate areas of the city's budget, labeled accordingly by community district. Funds should be used to finance infrastructure (or other) improvements within the community district's geographical boundaries.

2) The 421-a housing abatement program and its relation to affordable housing. The community is annoyed the developer will get this tax break, even though he doesn't have to build affordable housing. They had the nerve to ask for affordable housing to be built somewhere off-site. Is this the developer's fault, who's only going along with the rules as currently set up? No - the city/state should amend the rules so that the tax break is only given if the development includes affordable housing (which they are actually in the process of doing).

3) The nature of air rights ownership. The community claims the air rights are theirs, and the developer must provide a benefit directly to them. Maybe the city should henceforth transfer ownership of all of its air rights to the community boards, who will then have a more clearly defined stake held in the negotiations with the developer.

Finally, your statement about the historic building and yet another "tedious" glass tower makes you sound like a classic NIMBY, in the time-honored tradition of opposing anything new in favor of preserving even the mediocre of old. We're talking about Lower Manhattan: there's more than enough historic buildings in the area, many of which are landmarked. There's also a lot of height, and a relatively diverse mix of building styles. To argue that this new tower would sit uncontextually in this area is equivalent to saying it doesn't have a suitable context anywhere else in the city, save for a few small areas of Midtown. I would hope that we haven't grown that myopic in our collective valuing of contextual architecture.

Alonzo-ny

June 16th, 2007, 09:31 PM

The 'elegant' old building is average at best, kind of interest roof but nothing ill miss. There are much better buildings with similar roofs the work so much better. the cass gilbert building on west street for instance. The oversized roof on the TBDestroyed is at the wrong proportion to such a small scale building and overwhelms it a a whole, looks like it should be on a much taller building. Plus the fact it looks rather unkept.

ablarc

June 16th, 2007, 10:06 PM

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/539934878_0d008b0bab_b.jpg
SergeSmArt
Buildings are about the same height, but there are two scales in this photograph: the buildings at left have one scale and the buildings at right have another.

I know which I prefer.

lofter1

June 16th, 2007, 10:07 PM

Bottom line is the CBs offer opinions only ...

Whatever decisions come out of CB meetings / hearings are NON-BINDING and have NO power what so ever.

Witness the recent Trump SoHo debate. The CB voted nearly unanimously not to allow the building permits to be issued. City Planning and City Hall thought otherwise and the permit was issued.

The developer of 50 West will be given the variance with some concessions. Bloomberg et al have a business plan to allow downtown Manhattan to generate as much money as possible -- the plan for 50 West fits into that plan.

ZippyTheChimp

June 16th, 2007, 10:28 PM

It's not enough these days for a developer to pay millions of dollars for air rights,Air-rights, or more correctly Transferable Development Rights, are nothing more than the transfer of real-estate value from one site to another. When two different owners are involved, the TDRs are sold.

trying to get a modest new project underway comes down to paying off extortionist community boards.Modest?

Actually, the developer comes to the city looking for a variance, because it is the city who owns the air rights.The city does not generally own air-rights. It does in this case because the garage is municipal property.

The community board's input is only requested as part of ULURP procedures.It's the law.

Variances were introduced into zoning regulations as a way for the city to ensure its restrictions weren't incurring financial hardship on the developers.That's true, but...

The original intent of a variance was to simply provide the developer with more air rights, conditional upon the developer proving that the project could not get built without them.That's a distortion of what is going on at 50 West.

A variance for hardship does not involve TDRs at all. What is requested is an increase in FAR, in effect, increasing the value of the real estate so the developer can realize a profit. That's what happenned with the previous owners of River Lofts. He simply requested the right to build higher.

At 50 West, the developer is BUYING TDRs by choice so he can build a larger building. Real-estate value is being transferred by sale from the Battery Garage to 50 West.

Back then, the community had no say in these matters. Nowadays, the community not only has a substantial say, but it has so even when the city gets compensated for providing the variance.See above.

is less the result of something the developer has done and more a result of the city's handling of the matter.The CB is not obligated to follow the wishes of those who speak at meetings, and beyond that, the City Council does not have to accept any recommendations of the CB. The process takes the matter out from behind closed doors. It's the City Council that's being petitioned here, not the developer.

The 421-a housing abatement program and its relation to affordable housing. The community is annoyed the developer will get this tax break, even though he doesn't have to build affordable housing.Or maybe they, like the developer who took advantage of a 421-A, they see an opportunity to get something back.

If you read the article carefully, the CB1 chair said nothing about the nature of the building. The issue is money, If the developer wants to build, it'll get worked out.

macreator

June 16th, 2007, 11:51 PM

Some good comments pianoman. Also, it's not like that section of West Street is the West Village or anything --- it's a gigantic garage, some Class C office buildings, a crappy condo building, and a club. The fact that one board member considered that maybe a stoop might be a good thing to have on this site proves that he, and those other CB members, live on another planet.

The developer has 0 obligation to include affordable housing, and the streetlevel restaurant and shops, and the landscaped pedestrian walkway in place of a gritty alley are fantastic community benefits. Including the laptop program as well, these are community benefits that the neighborhood won't receive if this building goes up as a standard 30 story box.

On the issue of affordable housing, frankly I agree with Mr. Gesue's statement that one has to live where they can afford to live. This sense of entitlement that this City is developing is crazy. I can't afford to buy a house on the beach in the Hamptons, or an apartment on Fifth Avenue facing the park, so I live within my means. I don't go and hold out my hands and demand a beach house or a Central Park facing apartment in the same way that I don't go over to Mercedes Benz on Park Avenue and demand a loaded S600 sedan that I cannot possibly afford.

This doesn't mean I don't feel bad for people that get priced out of their neighborhood, but that's life, you move on and move somewhere else, or try to get a better job. The even more insane issue about this building being built and thus raising the prices of nearby garages is like saying in the early 90's that the Hudson River Park shouldn't be built because it might make the area more desirable and thus interest developers in building buildings that would bring in wealthy people that would in turn want to park their cars in garages which would then raise their prices. This argument works to prevent any kind of neighborhood improvement, like a new park.

Anyhow, that's my take. In realize others will feel differently.

Fabrizio

June 17th, 2007, 04:06 AM

It is one thing to have a different opinion (we all do) but taking an article and completely spinning and distorting what the article actually says, is tiring.

----

My only beef here is about aesthetics. A nice slim tower... what a shame it has to have horizontal banding ...ugh! Banal.

Imagine how it would be majestic with a vertical thrust. If I were on the CB, that's what I'd be arguing....

If you are going to tear down a quaint, eccentric little building, please put up something spectacular.

Screw the friggin' laptops.

---

BPC

June 17th, 2007, 10:04 AM

Plus the fact it looks rather unkept.

That would be the developer's fault. His failure to maintain his own building is no justification for him to tear it down.

lofter1

June 17th, 2007, 11:55 AM

... what a shame it has to have horizontal banding ...ugh! Banal.

Yeah -- What's up with that new craze? Here and at the Verizon re-clad ...

Not a good direction for NYC skyscrapers ... which are supposed to be reaching for the SKY, moving UPWARD, touching the HEAVENS ...

Flat roof tops & horizontal banding shouldn't be the aim of builders in a state whose motto is EXCELSIOR (http://homeschooling.about.com/cs/unitssubjgeog/p/susnymotto.htm) ...

spud

June 17th, 2007, 12:57 PM

its almost impossible to have meaningful sustainable design in an all-glass building (with few adjacent connected buildings) without big horizontal spandrels...vertical ones could be interesting looking but they block interior views and shield transprency from exterior (when combined with columns).

lofter1

June 17th, 2007, 01:08 PM

I'm not saying there shoudn't be any horizontal "spandrels" (btw: when did
the architectural definition of this word (http://freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/a/DCTNRY/s/spandrel.html) change -- or has it?) -- and know
that they are necessary from a design pov.

Just that the design should emphasize the verticality of the building.

See how the "ribs" (not sure of the technical term) on Bank of America tower --
along with the coloration of the glass / fritting -- conveys the idea of verticality.
Despite the strong horizontals seen on this building, to my eye the vertical lines
are the stronger element here, and re-enforce the upward thrust of the building:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/555844737_5bedac8d8f_o.jpg

spud

June 17th, 2007, 02:09 PM

not sure why "spandrel" term is used but it is common in the biz! boa tower is able to forego spandrels it has a double curtain wall which adds insulation and captures solar heat (fritting helps a little too). the vertical elements are mullions connecting the windows to one another...and not necessarily a "quality" design detail...but i like the verticality it gives anyway. that said, the positive thing about 50 west banding is that it accentuates the curved glass facade which is sort of futuristic looking (and a big part of the originality of the design.)

pianoman11686

June 17th, 2007, 04:14 PM

Air-rights, or more correctly Transferable Development Rights, are nothing more than the transfer of real-estate value from one site to another. When two different owners are involved, the TDRs are sold.

I know. The question is, why should this transfer be treated any differently from any other transfer of air rights between two or more parties? It happens all the time. The developer ponies up the dough, and gets to build higher.

Modest?

Yes, modest. Is a 700-foot building extravagant for Lower Manhattan? What's going on 4 blocks to the north?

The city does not generally own air-rights. It does in this case because the garage is municipal property.

Correct.

It's the law.

Yes, and Community Boards are constantly pushing for further changes to the law.

That's true, but...

That's a distortion of what is going on at 50 West.

A variance for hardship does not involve TDRs at all. What is requested is an increase in FAR, in effect, increasing the value of the real estate so the developer can realize a profit. That's what happenned with the previous owners of River Lofts. He simply requested the right to build higher.

At 50 West, the developer is BUYING TDRs by choice so he can build a larger building. Real-estate value is being transferred by sale from the Battery Garage to 50 West.

It's not a distortion, Zippy. It's a juxtaposition. Decades ago, the city would simply provide more air rights, without any Community Board input, if the developer made his case strongly enough. We can speculate how often the deals were fair and necessary, but it came down to the city awarding air rights, free of charge and additional restrictions. Today, not only would the Community Board have to approve any kind of variance to a development, but it does so even when the city is well-compensated for it. It's an observation on a trend.

The CB is not obligated to follow the wishes of those who speak at meetings, and beyond that, the City Council does not have to accept any recommendations of the CB. The process takes the matter out from behind closed doors. It's the City Council that's being petitioned here, not the developer.

I understand this, but you can't simply say "they're advisory only" and think they have no influence. There have been several times when Community Boards have factored strongly into the decisions of a City Council, leading to a denial of a variance. Furthermore, we know they have at least some political pull on their local councilmen (e.g. Gerson), who ultimately vote in the decisions. And let's not forget the media, which seems to give a vocal outlet for every major community board meeting.

Or maybe they, like the developer who took advantage of a 421-A, they see an opportunity to get something back.

In this case, I'd say they're correct: the developer doesn't deserve the additional tax break. But that's not the developer's fault, because he's been playing by the rules all along. He shouldn't have to pay because he found a loophole and took advantage of it, legally.

If you read the article carefully, the CB1 chair said nothing about the nature of the building. The issue is money, If the developer wants to build, it'll get worked out.

Fair enough, but my reactions were directed at the community board as a whole, and at the parts the article was stressing. Perhaps the reporting wasn't as balanced as it should be.

ZippyTheChimp

June 17th, 2007, 05:10 PM

I know. The question is, why should this transfer be treated any differently from any other transfer of air rights between two or more parties? It happens all the time. The developer ponies up the dough, and gets to build higher.Because, as I said, the city does not generally own air-rights. And when they do transfer those they own, it is usually for something non-profit, not a private developer.

The city is demapping a street and selling public property (the air-rights over it) to a private developer. It is not the same as the developer already owning the adjoining land, and requesting a transfer of air-rights he already owns to the other site. It has to go before the City Council, and the CB feels that such a special circumstance deserves consideration from the developer.

I can't make it any more simple.

Yes, modest. Is a 700-foot building extravagant for Lower Manhattan? What's going on 4 blocks to the north?That's a silly comparison. High-end condos, high-end hotel, and probably high-end retail. You're trying to paint this as a developer needing help, when he is actually expanding his investment.

Yes, and Community Boards are constantly pushing for further changes to the law.You seem to have a problem with the CB using the law to its advantage, but have no problem with the developer using the 421-A to his advantage.

It's not a distortion, Zippy. It's a juxtaposition. Decades ago, the city would simply provide more air rights, without any Community Board input, if the developer made his case strongly enough.You still don't understand.
Those awards are not air-rights. They are either a hardship variance in zoning to allow a taller building, or something like a "plaza bonus."

What is happening at 50 West is the sale of city property. If the real is estate value of the Battery Garage is A, after the transfer, it will be worth A x 90%.

We can speculate how often the deals were fair and necessary, but it came down to the city awarding air rights, free of charge and additional restrictions.See above.

Today, not only would the Community Board have to approve any kind of variance to a development, but it does so even when the city is well-compensated for it. It's an observation on a trend.Can you name other projects where the city sold its own air-rights to a private developer? I'm interested in this trend.

In this case, I'd say they're correct: the developer doesn't deserve the additional tax break. But that's not the developer's fault, because he's been playing by the rules all along. He shouldn't have to pay because he found a loophole and took advantage of it, legally.The developer is entitled to avail himself of every opportunity, as is the CB.

The developer won't walk away because he can't build the building he wants; he will walk away when there is no longer a decent ROI. I don't think they are anywhere near that point. At the previously mentioned River Lofts, the variance was denied, a new owner came in and built the highly successful present project.

It's (financial) posturing on both sides. But the one side is the CB, when it should be City Hall acting as a tough business negotiator. Odd they don't, given the mayor's resume.

Everyone is upset because the building is nice, but it's not about the building at all.

pianoman11686

June 17th, 2007, 09:24 PM

Because, as I said, the city does not generally own air-rights. And when they do transfer those they own, it is usually for something non-profit, not a private developer.

The city is demapping a street and selling public property (the air-rights over it) to a private developer. It is not the same as the developer already owning the adjoining land, and requesting a transfer of air-rights he already owns to the other site. It has to go before the City Council, and the CB feels that such a special circumstance deserves consideration from the developer.

I can't make it any more simple.

Fine, Zip. All I'm questioning is why this particular kind of transfer has to be treated so much more seriously, in comparison to a developer buying air rights from a post office, or a school, or a church.

That's a silly comparison. High-end condos, high-end hotel, and probably high-end retail. You're trying to paint this as a developer needing help, when he is actually expanding his investment.

I'm not sure if this was a response to the quote you highlighted, or something else. But in any case, I'm not trying to paint the developer as anything. I'm only pointing out how much things have changed since the days when a developer could get additional air rights (free of charge, no less) without any kind of community input/opposition.

You seem to have a problem with the CB using the law to its advantage, but have no problem with the developer using the 421-A to his advantage.

I have a problem with CB expecting the developer to build offsite affordable housing, and potentially revoking their approval contingent on him saying no. The law in this case is clearly favoring one side, and it's not the developer's fault.

You still don't understand.
Those awards are not air-rights. They are either a hardship variance in zoning to allow a taller building, or something like a "plaza bonus."

What is happening at 50 West is the sale of city property. If the real is estate value of the Battery Garage is A, after the transfer, it will be worth A x 90%.

Sorry for using the wrong terminology. I guess they weren't technically "air rights" back then, because they weren't being "transferred" from another property. Either way, the city was still giving the developer the "right to build higher."

Here's how the sale of air rights at the garage doesn't make it any different: in the future, the city can rezone the land to a higher FAR (just as with Hudson Yards) and sell off the development rights for even more money to developers.

Can you name other projects where the city sold its own air-rights to a private developer? I'm interested in this trend.

Sorry, should've made this clearer. Trend, as in: the process for acquiring variances is becoming (generally) longer and more tedious.

The developer is entitled to avail himself of every opportunity, as is the CB.

The developer won't walk away because he can't build the building he wants; he will walk away when there is no longer a decent ROI. I don't think they are anywhere near that point. At the previously mentioned River Lofts, the variance was denied, a new owner came in and built the highly successful present project.

It's (financial) posturing on both sides. But the one side is the CB, when it should be City Hall acting as a tough business negotiator. Odd they don't, given the mayor's resume.

Everyone is upset because the building is nice, but it's not about the building at all.

In that case, I'm probably making too big a deal out of the community board meeting. What can I say? Some of their comments struck me as out of line and overly ambitious. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

lofter1

June 17th, 2007, 10:52 PM

When exactly was this time:

I'm only pointing out how much things have changed since the days when a developer could get additional air rights (free of charge, no less) without any kind of community input/opposition.

pianoman11686

June 17th, 2007, 11:18 PM

I'd say the last year that community input didn't play any kind of role was 1951, when Community Boards were officially established in Manhattan. ULURP procedures weren't adopted until 1976. The decisions involved with this project probably weren't given to CBs to mull over until 1989, when ULURP was expanded to include Disposition of city owned property and, related, Special Permits within the Zoning Resolution requiring the approval of the City Planning Commission:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml#actions

Up until very recently, the Board of Standards and Appeals could still award variances without Community Board approval, something that concerned citizens have lobbied the city to change:

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_50/callforcitycouncil.html

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter09-05.html

kitten

June 18th, 2007, 12:54 AM

“I think that Lower Manhattan should be for the people who can afford to pay the prices that it currently costs to live here,” Gesue said, stressing his strong belief in the free market. He added that if he could no longer afford to live in Lower Manhattan, he would happily move to Brooklyn. He suggested that other neighborhood residents could do the same. “You move to the neighborhood that you can afford to live in.”

Time Equities response to the need for affordable housing downtown from article in Downtown Express.

ZippyTheChimp

June 18th, 2007, 01:00 AM

Fine, Zip. All I'm questioning is why this particular kind of transfer has to be treated so much more seriously, in comparison to a developer buying air rights from a post office, or a school, or a church.I'm not going there again. I won't. I'm telling ya, I just won't do it. Nope. Don't even ask.

Here's how the sale of air rights at the garage doesn't make it any different: in the future, the city can rezone the land to a higher FAR (just as with Hudson Yards) and sell off the development rights for even more money to developers.Do I really have to tell you what's wrong with that statement?

kitten

June 18th, 2007, 01:07 AM

Just thought i'd throw that out there! The future of New York is now! ;)

londonlawyer

June 20th, 2007, 07:38 PM

lofter1

June 20th, 2007, 07:58 PM

Well ^^^ as long as there are rent stabilization laws then I can afford to live downtown -- and according to the LAW I do have a RIGHT to live here -- and I AIN"T GOIN' NOWHERE ...

The non-law abiders who own my building got it in their heads that I couldn't afford to live where I've made my home for years and years -- and they tried to get me out of my home by using all sorts of trickery ...

But ...

I kicked their fugly butts across the courtroom -- and got a good settlement out of it, to boot ...

So, if you don't think you can afford to live here then, Adios!! ... get the heck out.

[probably a good sign ^^^ that one doesn't have the chutzpah to stay around these parts, anyway :cool: ]

BrooklynRider

June 20th, 2007, 11:26 PM

I think that's a perfectly reasonable response. No one has a right to live in Manhattan.

The notion that Manhattan should become a closed wealthy enclave is just ridiculous, particularly since a lot more than those wealthy folks are footing the bill to underwrite Manhattan services.

I also found Gesue's comment about moving to Brooklyn very funny and rather ignorant. Apparently this person is going to experience some sticker shock if Brooklyn is viewed as the "cheap" alternative.

londonlawyer

June 21st, 2007, 01:37 AM

The notion that Manhattan should become a closed wealthy enclave is just ridiculous....

Why not? Central London is just for the rich. Anyway, rent regulation and Mitchell Lama guarantee that non-wealthy people will live in Manhattan, so why should developers have to build new affordable housing or include it in new developments like these people want the developers of 50 West Street to do.

ZippyTheChimp

June 21st, 2007, 07:25 AM

so why should developers have to build new affordable housing or include it in new developments like these people want the developers of 50 West Street to do.Because the developer is taking advantage of a loophole in the 421A tax abatement, which was designed to provide affordable housing.

You could turn the question around:

"If lower Manhattan is only for the rich, why does the developer need a tax abatement?"

londonlawyer

June 21st, 2007, 11:28 AM

Because the developer is taking advantage of a loophole in the 421A tax abatement, which was designed to provide affordable housing.

You could turn the question around:

"If lower Manhattan is only for the rich, why does the developer need a tax abatement?"

Aren't the construction costs already estimated at $1,000/ s.f. The tax abatement is necessary to turn a profit. The 421a issue shouldn't mean that the developer has to provide housing for poor people.

I wonder when middle income people will be asserting their right to live in Greenwich and Palm Beach.

As I've said previously, I would love to buy a 3 bedroom, 3 bath condo in TriBeCa, but I can't afford to spend $3.5m, so I live in Scarsdale instead.

ZippyTheChimp

June 21st, 2007, 04:09 PM

The tax abatement is necessary to turn a profit.Do you know that for a fact, or is it your opinion?

I didn't read it anywhere.

Besides, the tax abatement is not intended so that the developer can build high-end and turn a profit. The developer balances his construction costs with his returns.

londonlawyer

June 21st, 2007, 04:42 PM

Do you know that for a fact, or is it your opinion?

I didn't read it anywhere.

Besides, the tax abatement is not intended so that the developer can build high-end and turn a profit. The developer balances his construction costs with his returns.

It's my opinion. The developer stated in the article that construction costs will be $1,000/s.f. If he adds affordable housing, his profit will drop. Private developers shouldn't be saddled with aiding the poor and middle-class.

NewYorkDoc

June 21st, 2007, 04:43 PM

ZippyTheChimp

June 21st, 2007, 04:56 PM

It's my opinion. The developer stated in the article that construction costs will be $1,000/s.f. If he adds affordable housing, his profit will drop. Private developers shouldn't be saddled with aiding the poor and middle-class.You're still missing the main point.

The developer is getting a tax abatement. If he wasn't getting it, there would be no issue about affordable housing. At present, he is allowed to get the abatement without 80/20 because the law hasn't been changed.

It's legal.

But on the other hand, the developer is asking for a variance, and since he is getting something for nothing (the abatement), the CB thinks he should give something back (affordable housing, pedestrian bridge, whatever).

It's also legal.

econ_tim

June 21st, 2007, 04:58 PM

I know a lot of people that think Manhattan should only be for those who can afford it. A friend from Tennessee visited me last week and I told her that there are projects near my apartment. She replied, "Well, I would'nt like that. They shouldnt be so close to each other, people shouldnt live in areas they can't afford. Why should they get to live wheret other people have worked hard to get in?" This was just one of the numerous arguments we ended up having over her visit. :rolleyes:

It's an interesting discussion. I'm originally from Tennessee, where people can live quite comfortably on an income that would qualify for affordable housing in Manhattan. Of course jobs might not be as plentiful.

londonlawyer

June 21st, 2007, 05:10 PM

You're still missing the main point.

The developer is getting a tax abatement. If he wasn't getting it, there would be no issue about affordable housing. At present, he is allowed to get the abatement without 80/20 because the law hasn't been changed.

It's legal.

But on the other hand, the developer is asking for a variance, and since he is getting something for nothing (the abatement), the CB thinks he should give something back (affordable housing, pedestrian bridge, whatever).

It's also legal.

He's willing to give computers and make a public plaza. That should be enough. Menin and others want to hold him over a barrel and extort subsidized housing. It's absurd. The free market should sort things out -- not Julie Menin and her henchmen.

ZippyTheChimp

June 21st, 2007, 05:15 PM

^
Computers? Give me a break.

Plazas? Been there, done that
.

If the free market should sort things out, there shouldn't be any subsidies at all.

lofter1

June 21st, 2007, 06:55 PM

One of the things that makes NYC great is that everyone rubs up against each other -- all of us learn from that. Overall it is good for a democratic society that citizens of different economic levels live in proximity to one another.

Perhaps the following attitude is one of the reasons that people of all sorts aren't flooding the housing markets in Tennessee ...

A friend from Tennessee visited me last week and I told her that there are projects near my apartment. She replied, "Well, I would'nt like that. They shouldnt be so close to each other ...

kitten

June 21st, 2007, 07:24 PM

Thanks Zippy and Lofter! Actually, at the new Barclay Towers, in order to qualify for the 'affordable' units, the 'poor people' must earn a minimum of $62k.

NewYorkDoc

June 21st, 2007, 08:44 PM

It's an interesting discussion. I'm originally from Tennessee, where people can live quite comfortably on an income that would qualify for affordable housing in Manhattan. Of course jobs might not be as plentiful.

What income qualifies people for affordable housing in NYC? Anyone?

econ_tim

June 21st, 2007, 08:59 PM

Perhaps the following attitude is one of the reasons that people of all sorts aren't flooding the housing markets in Tennessee ...

Hey . . . No fair singling out TN (especially based on this one anecdote). It seems that a lot of New Yorkers have the same attitude.

econ_tim

June 21st, 2007, 09:11 PM

What income qualifies people for affordable housing in NYC? Anyone?

According to the city (link (http://www.nyc.gov/html/housinginfo/html/faqs/faq.shtml)) it is 50% of the area median income.

What is the 80/20 Program?
The 80/20 Program, sponsored by the New York State Housing Finance Agency, the New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), uses tax-exempt bonds to create affordable housing for low-income tenants in generally desirable locations throughout the City. The use of tax-exempt bonds to finance the construction of large residential buildings in the City greatly reduces costs. In exchange for the low-cost financing, 20% of the apartment units are reserved for low-income tenants earning no more than 50% of area median income. (See Low Income Housing Tax Credit Rent and Income Limits (http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/developers/low_income.shtml)). The apartments are not necessarily labeled "80/20" in advertisements, but would say "affordable housing."

I don't know exactly what the areas are, but I found the following data from the 2000 census:

Community District Median Household Income
Manhattan 1 $79,475
Manhattan 2 $65,490
Manhattan 3 $28,745
Manhattan 4 $50,580
Manhattan 5 $69,075
Manhattan 6 $68,940
Manhattan 7 $74,124
Manhattan 8 $27,365
Manhattan 9 $19,920
Manhattan 10 $21,295
Manhattan 11 $28,865

so you could earn almost $40k a year and qualify in district 1.

BrooklynRider

June 21st, 2007, 11:09 PM

It's my opinion. The developer stated in the article that construction costs will be $1,000/s.f. If he adds affordable housing, his profit will drop. Private developers shouldn't be saddled with aiding the poor and middle-class.

There's a difference between a cut into the profit margin and no profits. As you are suggesting, it is very likely that the project will be profitable even with an affordable housing component. I also think an estimated construction cost of $1,000SF is extremely inflated.

londonlawyer

June 22nd, 2007, 12:35 AM

There's a difference between a cut into the profit margin and no profits. As you are suggesting, it is very likely that the project will be profitable even with an affordable housing component. I also think an estimated construction cost of $1,000SF is extremely inflated.

I respect your opinion that expressed by others. However, if a developer is going to tie-up a lot of capital and take the risk of a housing downturn, he should be able to make all the profit he can.

lofter1

June 22nd, 2007, 02:06 AM

Once the developer puts some money into a few items that the "community" wants (in return for the variance granted by the City) the developer should indeed "make all the profit he can". Although it might not be all the profit he wants. But when was the last time you made all the profit you wanted on any given project / job?

sfenn1117

June 22nd, 2007, 04:21 PM

C.B. 1 OKs luxury tower on West with conditions

By Skye H. McFarlane

The 50 West St. tower can rise to 63 stories, so long as a good chunk of the windfall lands squarely within Community Board 1 and the Greenwich South neighborhood, the board said Tuesday night.

Board 1 essentially yellow-lighted the proposed hotel and condominium. The board voted to approve the glassy tower’s two land-use actions, but only if the developer and the city fulfill a laundry list of 13 wide-ranging conditions.

To mitigate the impact of 150 hotel rooms and 300 apartments filled with new, wealthy residents, the community is insisting that the developer, Time Equities, fulfill its promises to provide a public art gallery within the building, as well as a laptop program for I.S. 89.

In addition, the community stressed in its five-page resolution that Time Equities must build affordable housing Downtown, overhaul two small neighborhood parks and facilitate the construction of a pedestrian bridge over West St. The developer must also conduct its demolition and construction work using the safest, greenest and least disruptive techniques available.

The board’s most stringent requirement, however, addresses the city. Because one of the land-use actions would allow Time Equities to purchase 180,000 square feet of air rights from over the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, the city would stand to receive a significant profit from the development. The community is determined that 100 percent of the proceeds — likely in the tens of millions of dollars — be spent on projects within Lower Manhattan.

Chief among the community’s priorities for the money are the creation of affordable housing, the development of green space and sports fields, and the implementation of the Downtown Alliance streetscape program along Washington St. The board also asked the city to eliminate an extra 190,000 square feet of air rights that would be created by the land-use action, so that no future developer could ever apply to purchase them.

“These can’t just be pie-in-the-sky dreams,” said C.B. 1 Chairperson Julie Menin of the board’s conditions. “We really need concrete guarantees that we are going to get these things.”

Menin favored rejecting the project unless the conditions were met, but she couldn’t convince enough of her fellow board members to go along. She yielded when the language was change from “support” to “conditionally support.” The advisory resolution passed 34 to 5 with three abstensions.

Legally, the board’s opinion must be considered as a part of the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. However, the borough president’s office and the Department of City Planning also get to review the proposal. Because the application includes de-mapping a city street, the City Council will have the final say on the plan, even though C.B. 1 voted yes. Under most ULURPs, City Planning has the final say when the community board votes yes. If the Council approves the plan, Time Equities will purchase the air rights and create a pedestrian plaza along Ward St., the dark, narrow alley that separates the Battery Tunnel from 50 West St. to the north.

By rights, the developer can already take down the 13-story building on the site (known as the “copper-top” because the roof is painted green to look like copper patina). Current zoning, which caps bulk but not height, would then allow a 30- to 40-story building. By adding the 40-foot wide plaza — which would contain trees, cobblestone pavers and an outdoor café — the developer would earn the right to build another five to seven stories. That, combined with the air rights purchase, would put the building at a little over 500,000 square feet (63 stories under the current design).

There was much debate among board members over how to evaluate the proposed building. Many board members liked the building’s curving, near-transparent façade, designed by noted architect Helmut Jahn. They universally approved of Time Equities plan to seek a Gold rating from the U.S. Green Buildings Council. The building would also bring in customers to bolster the local retail scene.

To offset some of the building’s impact on the overcrowded local schools, Time Equities has proposed to provide laptops for all of the children in I.S. 89, along with maintenance and insurance for four years. The laptops would allow I.S. 89 to give its computer room to P.S. 89, which would convert the space into two regular classrooms to help alleviate acute class-size problems.

“There are other concerns with this project, but from a youth and education standpoint, we need the school space,” said Paul Hovitz, chair of the board’s Youth and Education Committee. “If we don’t do this, we are left to depend upon the [Department of Education] to address the overcrowding and we’ve seen how well that works out.”

After the community asked repeatedly for an art space in the building, Time Equities proposed to include a public art component, possibly light installations, in the hotel portion of the project. However, board members agreed that the laptops and the public art would not be enough to offset the extra stress that the new residents would put on local parks, schools and transportation systems.

Time Equities’ refusal to voluntarily include affordable housing in any of its Downtown projects also irked many board members, especially when a representative of the developer suggested that those people who could not afford to live in the neighborhood could always move to Brooklyn. Time will get state tax abatements as of right. A new version of the 421-a program would require Downtown developers to invest in affordable housing to get the tax benefits, but the bill, expected to pass June 21, will not take effect until June 2008.

“I really feel that the city can and should do more to press the developer to create affordable housing elsewhere in the district,” said board member Barry Skolnick.

A small number of board members wanted to reject the project altogether because of its large scale and precedent-setting use of city air rights. Others, including Menin, wanted to phrase the board’s opinion as a conditional rejection. The negative language, they felt, would make a stronger statement. The board compromised on “conditionally supports.”

Board members reasoned that since City Planning worked with the developers to craft the ULURP application, it would be unlikely that the City Council would outright reject the proposal. The Economic Development Corporation, the Battery Park City Authority and State Senator Martin Connor have also spoken in favor of the project. Councilmember Alan Gerson, who was involved in the negotiations with the developer, has not yet given his full support to the building, but his aide, David Feiner, has spoken in favor of the project at two different board meetings.

Therefore, the board decided it would be better not to fight the construction of the building, which will be very large regardless of the zoning variances. Instead they will fight to ensure that both the city and the developer make significant reinvestments in the neighborhood.

“I think it’s more than likely that we’ll get this building whether we like it or not,” said Battery Park City Committee chairperson Linda Belfer at a meeting Monday night. “We might as well get something in the way of mitigation.”

http://downtownexpress.com/de_215/cb1oksluxury.html

---------
How about this letter to the editor?

A Downtown shame

To The Editor:
I was appalled after reading the article about building at 50 West St. (news article, June 15 – 21, “Developer says ‘no’ to affordable housing, so C.B. 1 considers saying ‘right back at you’”). How dare Philip Gesue say that if you cannot live in Manhattan, move to Brooklyn. What nerve. What all the developers that are coming into Lower Manhattan fail to realize is that there would not be a Lower Manhattan if not for the original occupants who moved down here 20 to 30 years ago. These developers are not bettering the neighborhood, they are destroying it. Robert De Niro came in saying he was there to bring life back after 9/11. He certainly brought life back into the area but for the rich and famous. You cannot even find a parking space on Greenwich St. because all of the limos that are parked there. And the Tribeca Film Festival isn’t for those of us who have lived there all our lives. Who can afford $18 to $25 to get into see all of the movies that are shown there?

And what about the World Trade Center? A memorial should have been up already to honor those who perished. All everyone is interested in is making a buck, not honoring those who died. If we get rid of ground zero, there will be no more tourist attraction. Maybe that is the reason everyone is dragging their tails on this.Shame on all of the politicians who are allowing this to happen. Shame on Community Board 1 if they allow Mr. Gesue to get away with what he is proposing and for saying what he said and shame on them if they allow him to build in our area. How many more highrises and hotels do we need?

Lorraine Fittipaldi

http://downtownexpress.com/de_215/letterstotheeditor.html
---------
The amount of things the CB is requesting is absurd. Luckily it looks like this tower will go through still. And that last bolded comment, I don't even have anything to say for it. Why residents expect a neighborhood to be frozen in time anywhere in the country, let alone NYC, is beyond me.

Alonzo-ny

June 22nd, 2007, 08:42 PM

The top isnt even real copper? Take it down now no hesitation.

Let me get this straight, the CB is 'insisting' on two things (art gallery and lap tops) the developer already said he would do. and they want 100% profit put back in LM projects??????

lofter1

June 22nd, 2007, 09:07 PM

No -- not 100% of the "profit" ...

100% of the amount paid for the air rights from city owned property (which in in CB1; ergo: in Lower Manhattan).

Alonzo-ny

June 22nd, 2007, 10:16 PM

oh, that makes more sense!

krulltime

June 22nd, 2007, 10:57 PM

Here is another renderings...

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1182542066_west50c.jpg

lofter1

June 23rd, 2007, 12:08 AM

Here is another renderings...

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1182542066_west50c.jpg

That ^^^ would be the east facade (with the Battery Garage to the left) ??

ramvid01

June 23rd, 2007, 12:33 AM

Here is another renderings...

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1182542066_west50c.jpg

I like the porportions a lot. Hopefully the glass will be high quality to match its porportions.

econ_tim

June 23rd, 2007, 12:34 AM

The community is determined that 100 percent of the proceeds — likely in the tens of millions of dollars — be spent on projects within Lower Manhattan.

In theory, this should have no effect on the total amount that gets spent on Lower Manhattan, since the city can just reduce the rest of its spending on the area by an amount equal to the proceeds. In practice, economists find a small "flypaper effect" meaning some of the earmarked money increases spending on Lower Manhattan a little.

pianoman11686

June 24th, 2007, 11:24 PM

antinimby

July 10th, 2007, 03:27 AM

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/construction/project_updates/062507_50_west_320.jpg (http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/50_west_street_72528.aspx)

kitten

July 10th, 2007, 03:38 AM

that's reminding me of something..........

ablarc

July 10th, 2007, 08:32 AM

that's reminding me of something..........
Seen one, seen 'em all.

londonlawyer

July 10th, 2007, 10:17 AM

that's reminding me of something..........

Funny!

JohnFlint1985

July 19th, 2007, 11:07 AM

Can someone please explain to me what exactly the community board resolved about this project? They're giving it a conditional approval?

No way they get that off-site affordable housing, nor should they.

Basically they want a lot of kick backs. Money from selling of Air Rights should be spend in their community only. They want a free art gallery in the building. More retail space and a pedestrian bridge over the West street. Some units for affordable living. Also the developer should provide some laptops to the local school. But I think essentially they are talking about different things. Local people who live there just don't want to have more problems in their area. More traffic, less parking, more crowding in schools -this kind of thing - so that is why they are stalling it. From one perspective I do get their point - nobody want to sacrifice anything for the developer who don't live there. But on the other hand this is classic NIMBY thing. So that is the problem. Also I think that the Copper top Building - used to be called Chrystal Building is nice only in the roof section. It was rebuild and all its beaux de art (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLG_en___US215&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=beaux+de+art&spell=1) style was gone accept the roof, which is not copper by the way - it is painted. So it is sad to see it gone, but this is not such a big loss like other places.

ZippyTheChimp

July 19th, 2007, 01:19 PM

Local people who live there just don't want to have more problems in their area. More traffic, less parking, more crowding in schools -this kind of thing - so that is why they are stalling it.That doesn't make sense, or it wouldn't have been approved at all.

lofter1

July 19th, 2007, 01:47 PM

Meanwhile, just across West Street in BPC it seems there are folks who
understand -- and embrace -- the up-side to including public-related
amenities in their projects ...

3 Nonprofit Groups Get a Manhattan Deal:
$1 a Year

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/17/business/18poets-650.1.jpg
Tina Fineberg for The New York Times
J. Christopher Daly, a developer of Riverhouse

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/realestate/commercial/18poets.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
By J. ALEX TARQUINIO
July 18, 2007

Square Feet

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/18/business/18poets-190.jpg
Tina Fineberg for The New York Times
Riverhouse, a luxury condominium tower,
will lease space to nonprofit groups.

Poets House, a comprehensive poetry library, with 50,000 books in its collection, has been squeezed into a tiny second-floor loft in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan for 16 years. It has been able to renew its lease at 72 Spring Street only in five-year intervals. So Lee Briccetti, the executive director of the group, has had to renegotiate the lease every few years.

“We’re poets, so this was an amazingly stressful situation for us,” said Ms. Briccetti, who is a published poet herself. She decided that securing the organization’s future “meant somehow getting off of the real estate treadmill.”

And that is exactly what Poets House will do next year, when it moves into a new space at the southern tip of Manhattan that will have sweeping views of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. The little nonprofit has signed a lease until 2069 for more than 12,000 square feet of raw space at Battery Park City. Poets House will pay $1 a year in rent.

This deal is all the more eye-popping because it is occurring as rents for street-level retail space in Manhattan are skyrocketing. That is somewhat less true in Battery Park City, which is not a major shopping district, said Alan Napack, a senior director in the retail services group at Cushman & Wakefield. Still, he estimated that street level space near the library’s future home might fetch $60 to $100 annually per square foot.

But Poets House was selected by the Battery Park City Authority as one of a handful of nonprofit groups to benefit from the authority’s public amenity program. All of them have been given leases with the same favorable terms — $1 a year rent until 2069.

“This is publicly owned land, and we think the public ought to continue to get some use of it,” said James E. Cavanaugh, president and chief executive of the Battery Park City Authority.

The 92 acres of land beneath Battery Park City, a surprisingly leafy residential neighborhood in Lower Manhattan, were created some 40 years ago out of landfill from the excavation for construction of the World Trade Center.

The Battery Park City Authority, a public agency with both city and state involvement, was created to manage the development of the reclaimed land. Today, developers own the buildings they put up there, but must lease the land beneath their buildings from the authority. These leases also run until 2069, exactly 100 years after the founding of the authority.

Whenever the Battery Park City Authority puts an undeveloped parcel of land up for bid, it requires developers to include public amenity space in their proposals. Developers must agree to donate this space to the authority to compete for the right to build.

For example, over the last few years, the authority required the developers of three luxury rental apartment buildings — the Solaire, the Verdesian and Tribeca Green — to build public restrooms, public meeting rooms and a workshop for the authority’s Parks Conservancy. But at Riverhouse, a residential development under construction in Battery Park City, the authority has leased all of the public amenity space in the building to outside cultural institutions.

Three nonprofit groups will occupy most of the first and second floors of Riverhouse, a huge horseshoe-shaped 32-story, 264-unit luxury condominium that should be ready for occupancy later this year.

Besides Poets House, the New York Public Library will open its first branch in Lower Manhattan. And Mercy Corps, a relief agency based in Portland, Ore., with field offices in dozens of countries, including Iraq and Sudan, will have a small exhibition space highlighting global hunger.

The amenity program is not exactly free for the nonprofits. They have had to raise millions of dollars to build their spaces. Goldman Sachs, which is building its new headquarters one block away, donated $3.5 million for the public library. Poets House has already reached the $5.5 million needed to build its space, and is still raising money for an endowment and operating expenses. And Mercy Corps has raised $2 million of the $5.4 million that it will need for construction.

Mr. Cavanaugh said the libraries and exhibition space should contribute to a well-rounded experience for Lower Manhattan residents and tourists alike. He said Riverhouse would be two blocks from the memorial planned for Ground Zero. “We already see a lot of tourists who come down here to look at Ground Zero,” Mr. Cavanaugh said.

The Sheldrake Organization, the New York City developer that is building Riverhouse at Two River Terrace, just steps away from the World Financial Center, has carved out more than 27,000 square feet on the first and second floors for the three nonprofits.

The only street-level retail space is leased to City Bakery, an organic cafe with a restaurant on West 18th Street in Manhattan.

As part of its winning bid, Sheldrake paid $60 million to the authority before breaking ground, and has leased the land below the building for $1 million a year until 2069. J. Christopher Daly, the founder and president of Sheldrake, said the company would also spend tens of millions of dollars building the space that it would donate to the authority.

“But we will have a great amenity for the building that is not a drugstore or a bank,” Mr. Daly said. He predicted that the public library, as well as the children’s reading room that is planned for Poets House, would be popular with condo buyers.

At first glance, the exhibition space about world hunger might seem like an unlikely fit in a building that will have some very well-heeled residents. The one- to five-bedroom apartments at Riverhouse have asking prices ranging from $800,000 to $5 million. Some buyers are combining adjoining apartments for much more. Roughly half the apartments have sold, Sheldrake says.

But the Battery Park City Authority sought a relief agency to occupy the 4,000-square-foot exhibition space that will be directly opposite the Irish Hunger Memorial at Vesey Street and North End Avenue. Michael Cooper, the director at large for Mercy Corps who applied for the amenity program, said he hoped the World Hunger Action Center, as the new space is tentatively titled, would educate the community about global hunger. “Putting the World Hunger Action Center at the heart of the World Financial Center is a statement in and of itself,” Mr. Cooper said.

For her part, Ms. Briccetti said she would like the three neighboring nonprofits to coordinate programming from time to time. Poets House already has a longstanding relationship with the public libraries. And she said that if Mercy Corps were planning an exhibition about relief efforts in Ethiopia, for example, “we could bring in Ethiopian poets to recite the tales of that place.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

JohnFlint1985

July 19th, 2007, 02:11 PM

That doesn't make sense, or it wouldn't have been approved at all.
What I mean is that both sides have a point. In my view the project will be approved sooner or later.

LeCom

July 22nd, 2007, 03:36 PM

This development is not so bad in terms of design. But the antique that it is replacing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Cant it replace something else that nobody will miss such as a garage, one new york plaza, 55 water street or any one of those other 60's modernist garbage. Why get rid of such an elegant and distictive piece or architecture?
At first I was thinking the same thing (about original 50 west's antique quality, not the fiery anti-Modernist rant); however, once I visited the site, I no longer feel bad about demolishing that rickety old piece of crap with painted green roof, an enormous blank wall, chipping paint, very narrow passage between the garage and the building, and an overall very cheap, thrifty feel. The building might have been nice one day, but now it certainly insn't, and, as much as I support preserving old buildings, this one is just not worth it, especially with such a brilliant development about to replace it. The only thing is that I wish they caved in to CB1 and built that bridge over West Street, but it's no big deal. 175 free laptops for a local school, that's pretty damn good too. Now CB1 needs to shut the hell up and let the developers do their thing. They'll definitely be happier as this project paves way for redevelopment of that hulking Battery Garage and the tunel approach.

LeCom

July 25th, 2007, 11:47 PM

Here is a basic map of developments on Greenwich South I just compiled:

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1663/greenwichsouthxp4.jpg

1) WTC 5
JP Morgan
57 stories

2) 123 Washington Street
Hotel, condo
192 m, 53 stories
Gwathmey Siegel
under construction

3) 111 Washington Street
residential
50 stories
Daniel Libeskind
site demolition

4) 99 Washington Street
Radisson Financial Hotel
40 stories
Gene Kaufman
proposed

5) 50 Trinity Place
Holiday Inn Financial
35 stories
Gene Kaufman
proposed

6) 50 West Street
residential
725 feet, 63 stories
Murphy/Jahn Architects
approved

londonlawyer

July 26th, 2007, 12:06 AM

kitten

July 26th, 2007, 04:10 AM

Le Com, may I ask where you got your info?

elfgam

July 26th, 2007, 01:32 PM

Gene's site #5 is such a prime site -- i cannot believe he got that site! His work is such shite.

LeCom

July 26th, 2007, 08:41 PM

Le Com, may I ask where you got your info?
Various threads on SSP and WNY. Feel free to correct me if there are any errors, as it was a hasty job.

londonlawyer

July 26th, 2007, 11:45 PM

Various threads on SSP and WNY. Feel free to correct me if there are any errors, as it was a hasty job.

How do you know that Liebeskind is the architect for 111 Wash.?

macreator

July 27th, 2007, 02:21 AM

Gene's site #5 is such a prime site -- i cannot believe he got that site! His work is such shite.

He also appears to have site #4 as well :mad:

Derek2k3

July 28th, 2007, 04:43 PM

I have a hard time believing that's not a copper roof.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/907862383_6d4a80a067_b.jpg
gbaku (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gbaku/)

Fabrizio

July 28th, 2007, 05:07 PM

I can't find any info on the history of 50 West.

It's a truly odd building. Rather than symmetrical notice that it seems to be divided into 2 sections, 3/4s to the right. Strange.

I doubt that the roof was part of the original building. If so, it's just odd. It looks like it was added on at a later date.

The whole thing has weird proportions as if it were cobbled together.

It's eccentric, I can understand liking it, it works as part of a whole... but it's not a good building.

ZippyTheChimp

July 28th, 2007, 06:44 PM

It's 47 west St.

Alonzo-ny

July 28th, 2007, 09:33 PM

Saw in person yesterday on the was to simpsons premiere, doesnt look better in person, definitely doesnt look copper in person and definitely needs to go for the helmut jahn building.

kitten

July 29th, 2007, 05:21 AM

yes, it is 47 west street...why is it referred to as 50 west? that has always bothered me!

ZippyTheChimp

July 29th, 2007, 08:06 AM

50 West is the little building on the north side. 50 West is the address of the new development.

50 markets better than 47. I guess.

Fabrizio

July 29th, 2007, 08:24 AM

I think it will most likely be a handsome project. Jan Wenner also did the Deutsche Post Tower in Bonn. It's another building with curved walls and handled nicely:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=300175

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=300174

Renzo Piano seems to have borrowed an idea or two for the Times building. This is a beautiful wall:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=300170

krulltime

August 3rd, 2007, 10:03 AM

Beep says stop on West St. condos

By Josh Rogers
Volume 20 Issue 12 | August. 3 - 9, 2007

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer rejected a $550-million hotel and condo project at 50 West St. Wednesday because it includes no money for affordable housing.

Stringer told Downtown Express that the subsidized project has little “tangible public benefit for the city” and there would have to be a substantial investment in affordable housing in order for him to change his mind. Stringer said all of the money the city collects on the project would have to stay in Downtown’s Community Board 1 area. A few hours later, he filed his official rejection, which is only advisory but is likely to have influence with the City Council’s Manhattan delegation. The project cannot proceed without City Council approval.

Under the proposed deal, Time Equities would buy 183,000 square feet of air rights from the city and knock down the green-topped, 1912 building at the southern end of West St. to build a 63-story tower with 400 condos and 183 hotel rooms. Francis Greenburger, chairperson and C.E.O. of Time Equities, said he expected to pay the city about $30 million for the air rights.

Greenburger, in a telephone interview, said he isn’t too troubled by Stringer’s rejection since it is up to the city to fulfill the borough president’s housing goal.

“It’s between him and the city… I would have preferred if he could have worked it out,” he said. Greenburger said it would be “foolish” to build affordable housing units at 50 West because it is a particularly expensive building to construct, but he does think Lower Manhattan needs more below-market housing.

He is looking to acquire a particular Downtown property soon that he said is well-suited for a “substantial affordable housing component.”

Greenburger’s director of acquisition and development, Phillip Gesue, outraged some Community Board 1 members in June when he told them they should move to Brooklyn if they couldn’t afford the rising rents Downtown. Greenburger said Wednesday that he disagreed with his employee.

“That’s not my view,” Greenburger said. “It’s desirable to have affordable housing whenever it is possible.”

Stringer said he has high regard for Greenburger and was hopeful the developer would help create more affordable housing Downtown. C.B. 1 also called for the project to have affordable housing and for the money to stay in Lower Manhattan. Nevertheless, the board gave an official yes to the proposal.

City officials declined to comment for attribution for this article. One, speaking on the condition on anonymity, said the city sees the project as an improvement to the area and has no intention of tying any more specific community benefits to it. The project is next to a dangerous pedestrian area near the entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and includes improving the pedestrian access through narrow Ward St., creating a small public plaza there. Greenburger has agreed to buy laptop computers for I.S. 89 students, which will allow the school to close its computer room and free up classroom space for overcrowded P.S. 89.

The board hoped the conditional yes vote would have more influence than a rejection, but that message may have been lost in translation, at least according to the city official.

“A conditional yes is a yes,” he said.

Stringer said he thought the best way to get changes was to make it clear the current plan was unacceptable.

Julie Menin, Community Board 1’s chairperson, tried to get her fellow board members to take a harder line in June. She said Wednesday she was “quite surprised the board did not have a sense of outrage over West St.” She was surprised that few residents showed up to object to the plan and said that may have influenced board members. She said she was glad when Stringer called to tell her of his decision.

Menin did end up backing the board resolution when members agreed to change the language from “support” to “conditionally support.”

Councilmember Alan Gerson said he wants to add an affordable housing component to the proposal, but he has not made that a condition for his approval. He and his aides negotiated the I.S. 89 computer agreement before the plan was presented to the community board and one aide spoke favorably of the proposal during the early community board discussions.

Gerson said now that the plan moves to the Council, he expects negotiations with Time Equities to resume. He said he has already told executives of the need for affordable housing.

Getting the computers was only a first step, he added. “We made it clear that was a prerequisite,” Gerson said, “but we made it clear that was not enough.”

© 2007 Community Media, LLC

asg

August 4th, 2007, 03:25 PM

I have a hard time believing that's not a copper roof.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/907862383_6d4a80a067_b.jpg
gbaku (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gbaku/)

Believe it! Some is actually painted brick.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1295/1008804415_0541bf687d_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1171/1009661512_831ffca94e_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1380/1008803343_baa75c5273_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1009662402_d1168deb88_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1377/1008803571_6722acde88_o.jpg

ZippyTheChimp

August 4th, 2007, 03:29 PM

Woolworth isn't copper. Neither is Pier A.

ablarc

August 4th, 2007, 09:08 PM

Rust.

infoshare

August 6th, 2007, 06:55 PM

Great photos of the green roof. I often admire that building on my way to photo (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=179232&postcount=139) the visionaire; I never noticed that the mansard roof was in such a state of deteriation.

I think I am developing a case of "telephoto lenz" envy. :eek:

Thanks again ASG, as always, I enjoy viewing your photos.

drcronex

August 31st, 2007, 01:08 AM

Believe it! Some is actually painted brick.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1295/1008804415_0541bf687d_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1171/1009661512_831ffca94e_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1380/1008803343_baa75c5273_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1009662402_d1168deb88_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1377/1008803571_6722acde88_o.jpg
Nice photos yes. The dormer you point your lens at has the most rust stains. But all of this can be repaired -and should be repaired.

I passed by the building this spring and the doorman said "Hey, but its not a copper roof." I said, well, its not aluminum either my friend, nor gold.

I think its just a line to throw out to justify destroying another piece of New York history, tearing down another building that appears in so many historic images of the New York skyline. This building is a piece of New Yorks visual history and it is pathetic to be tearing it down. The lofts in it were fabulous and its the most interesting building on the skyline area in the immediate neighborhood. It is fully functional the way it has been, and can be modified to serve its neighborhood even better with some retail on all three sides and more. Also, school overcrowding is now a serious issue here downtown. It is an issue with any new apt building built. Is this new one going to contribute to increasing school demand? Yes. Is the neighborhood being sold as a good school neighborhood? Yes, but not for long.

But the historical value is the strongest argument against tearing down this building. Love your country and respect its history.

kz1000ps

August 31st, 2007, 02:31 AM

drcronex

August 31st, 2007, 03:26 AM

Great find on that video, Lofter. It's 700 feet tall, and I think it looks absolutely stunning. Kudos to the developer for putting in great retail and hiring a world class architect. Now, hopefully the community sees it from our prospective and it gets built as is.
Hmm. I do not see what is stunning about this tower proposal. It looks like any other tower. There are plenty of buildings going up with similar proportions. This seems to me to be just another skyscraper, ok, glass facade. So what. With the garage it is another Mega bomb in the neighborhood. When will we learn? And big-name architects is not what we need, we need architects that understand what the environment needs. Look at the mediocre addition to the Jewish museum and famous names mean little when time comes to actual use and interact with the surroundings.

I like the idea of ground floor retail. This is what the neighborhood needs and this is definitely possible in the 1912 building. Varied smaller retail slots.
The advantage of the skyscraper is some sort of thru-lobby which would be great on cold winterdays. How it is designed is absolutely unclear.

I read some talk about not being able to use the narrow alley-like sidewalk. Not the fault of 47 West street, but the massive garage and its stairs. In fact there is plenty of space for a sidewalk across the street, right against the tunnel exit lanes, a sidewalk along the fence there is a no-brainer, along with modifying the configuration of the garage stairs and getting the parked cars out of there.

In fact these simple modifications would improve the covered space under the garage a bit, which I pass through all the time, in car, on foot and bicycle and with a stroller.

Anyway, I am not very interested in the speculations of tower shape views from New Jersey. That is postcardish and has nothing to do with needs for the people that live and will live here in the financial district. The neighborhood character is quickly going generic and looming over it are large overscaled projects and to many plans for mediocre hotels rather than residential units in reasonably scaled buildings. Most of the huge apt buildings are hotel- like in nature and has a large proportion of units rented to people in a transition phase of their lives. Hence neighborhood roots are hard to maintain.

:rolleyes:

drcronex

August 31st, 2007, 03:52 AM

In places like this where history envelopes you I find it important to remind oneself that they need to change and grow along with the centuries just like anywhere else. And I think it's worth it to ask yourself, "what buildings can we absolutely, without-a-doubt not live without for all eternity?"

Determine this first - place historical protection on the truly important buildings - but otherwise let the developers have at it. This is New York, after all.

I look at this building, and I say that, regardless of how many photos it's appeared in over the years, it's nothing more than a mediocre example of its era. So screw it, let it go -- this city needs to grow and change in order to stay relevant. I don't care if it has 63 condos in it or whatever, the site can support many, many more. (providing the schools can support it, of course -- a big "if" at the moment).

This city needs to balance the line between looking forwards and backwards better. For so long it was nothing but look forwards, towards the future. But now everthing seems to be about looking through the rear view mirror and reminiscing about its halcyon days. That kind of view is not what this city as we know and love it was built on.
The upcoming skyscraper is not going to fare better on history's scorecard, I'm afraid. I just don't see it improving things that can't happen with 47 West anyway except for the larger profit margin for some bigwhigs that likely live on the upper east side anyway. And I am looking at the neighborhood as it is and I can picture these overscaled projects for what they are. And what they already have done in the name of a bright eyed future. I could live without that glassskraper for eternity, frankly. I don't regret but a few of these buildings that are being torn down for a new development.

However, I am very concerned with what is going to come instead of them. 12 stories sounds perfect to me, as a long time resident. I think the neighborhood character is almost dead, precisely because of these large monstrous projects.

There is another building just to the north of this upcoming 50 West one, the facade is different and setback etc but basically I don't see much difference from the viewpoint of how the neighborhood functions. People on this thread hate it. I don't see it as that different, actually, except in some styling features. Horizontal vertical or whatever. One will have a lobby pass thru, the ugly grey one already has a plaza "serving the corner" of Washington and Rector with tables and seats, waitresses for entitled ironed-hair blondes and smartly dressed boys from New Jersey or London. One of the problems is when people start calculating how much can be packed etc, it has nothing to do with anything but numerics and maximizing profits. Gimmicks are gimmicks. An intelligent owner can take 47 West and turn profits on it and introduce straightforward retail on the ground floors. And be responsible to the neighborhood, respect its history. And maybe one day replace the roof with real copper ;)
If I was a tourist I'd much rather stay in 47 West as a hotel than the Mac Sams that will come onto at least 2 sites nearby, built with all the visual cues of poverty. Why would I rather stay in the 47 West? It is self evident if you have taste. Its New York etc.

There should also be a consensus that it is a privilege to get to build in this area.

I have seen this neighborhood degrade pretty seriously in many ways that involve having character, mostly by disappearing smaller businesses that are a core reason for living in a city in the first place. The destruction of these really kicked in after 911 with some apparent influx of ideas by people that must not have been living here. Some buy properties and sit on them vacant to be the smelly rat infested block-corpse for decade(s). These small businesses have largely been replaced by personality-free (anti neighborhood) type of businesses. Like banks and shopping mall type chain outlets. Duane Reade monopolies. Nowadays I have to really think about where to go just to buy Haagen Dasz ice cream, its not even sold here anymore except across one of the main thoroughfares. But 5 years ago it was available in 3 places right nearby. Shut down for "improvements."

Not that everything revolves around ice cream :p

Another thing is that even though there are skyscrapers in the area it doesn't mean that we should automatically pack it with more. Sure build some, but too many of these currently standing skyscrapers have in reality been sort of a big brother that obliterated original neighborhoods. Many of them are a kind of Robert Moses's three little evil sisters. Take the one that closes off (and tore down a large swath of) Stone Street. Take WTC. Take the Singer building replacement...

Take the ugly one with dark and white bricks...

And then take the bright shiny future of...

Its important to appreciate your history and how its embedded in buildings like 47 West Street. And how buildings like that prevent this area from becoming like the upper east side (no offense intended). I like to see a lot built in the area. But in another way than glitzy shiny postcard erectiles that don't even start properly at the sidewalk. The parking structure further up Washington Street is good ridance. Unfortunately the lot will not be broken up into 3 and the monster that will replace it will be to large to restart a neighborhood.

By the way, I have this opinion that the computer thing is just a total cheesecake gimmick. 150 laptops or however many they are, are NOT going to improve the school. 150 may not cover the kids form this new building, who knows. Besides, computers get old fast and a 4 year free computer techie along with them will stop his work at the same time as many of these computers reach their end anyway. Whoopie. Then what? Get real on education! Its not to spend more time on computers anymore than spending more time in front of TV, sorry.

Fabrizio

August 31st, 2007, 07:31 AM

I can find no info on the history of this building. When was it built, architect, original purpose etc. Any one have some?

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 12:08 PM

I'm looking, too ^^^ but haven't found much yet.

Meanwhile, here's info on the status from City Planning on the Land Use process:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/lu_apps/ulurp_m01.pdf

ACTIVE LAND USE APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING AS OF 08/17/07

C070351 MMM PROJECT NAME: 50 WEST ST
REC'D: 02/16/07 RELATED ACTIONS: N070412ZRM,C070413ZSM,C070414ZSM,C070415ZSM,N07041 6ZCM
CD(S): M01
LOCATION: 50 WEST STREET
BLOCKS/LOT(S): 17/1001,1002,1003,1004,1005,7501 18/100
APPLICANT: WEST ST DEVELOPMENT LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
DESCRIPTION: DEMAP ABOVE A PLANE A VOLUME OF WARD ST BETWEEN WEST ST &
WASHINGTON ST, & P/O A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE BKLYN BATTERY
TUNNEL APPROACH FOR A MIX-USE BLDG
ZONING MAPS: 12B
MILESTONE(S)/DATE(S):
APPLICATION CERTIFIED......................................... ..... 04/23/07
60-DAY COMMUNITY BOARD REVIEW PERIOD............................... 05/02/07 - 07/02/07
COMMUNITY BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION........ 06/28/07
30-DAY BOROUGH PRESIDENT REVIEW PERIOD............................. 07/03/07 - 08/01/07
BOROUGH PRESIDENT ISSUES CONDITIONAL UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.... 08/01/07
60-DAY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PERIOD...................... 08/02/07 - 10/01/07
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

C070413 ZSM PROJECT NAME: 50 WEST ST

REC'D: 04/12/07 RELATED ACTIONS: N070412ZRM,C070414ZSM,C070415ZSM,N070416ZCM,C07035 1MMM
(07DME015M) CD(S): M01
LOCATION: 50 WEST ST
BLOCKS/LOT(S): 17/1001,1002,1003,1004,1005,7501 18/100
APPLICANT: WEST ST DEVELOPMENT LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
DESCRIPTION: SPECIAL PERMIT TO DEVELOP OVER THE APPROACHES TO THE BKLYN BATTERY TUNNEL
ZONING SECTIONS: 99-73
ZONING MAPS: 12B
MILESTONE(S)/DATE(S):
CEQR DETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED.................... 04/18/07
APPLICATION CERTIFIED......................................... ..... 04/23/07
60-DAY COMMUNITY BOARD REVIEW PERIOD............................... 05/02/07 - 07/02/07
COMMUNITY BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION........ 06/28/07
30-DAY BOROUGH PRESIDENT REVIEW PERIOD............................. 07/03/07 - 08/01/07
BOROUGH PRESIDENT ISSUES CONDITIONAL UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.... 08/01/07
60-DAY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PERIOD...................... 08/02/07 - 10/01/07
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

C070414 ZSM PROJECT NAME: 50 WEST ST
REC'D: 04/12/07 RELATED ACTIONS: N070412ZRM,C070413ZSM,C070415ZSM,N070416ZCM,C07035 1MMM

(07DME015M) CD(S): M01
LOCATION: 50 WEST ST
BLOCKS/LOT(S): 17/100,1001,1002,1003,1004,1005,7501
APPLICANT: WEST ST DEVELOPMENT LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
DESCRIPTION: SPECIAL PERMIT TO MODIFY THE STREET WALLS, SETBACK, LOT
COVERAGE & MAX HORIZONTAL DIMENSION
ZONING SECTIONS: 91-35
ZONING MAPS: 12B
MILESTONE(S)/DATE(S):
CEQR DETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED.................... 04/18/07
APPLICATION CERTIFIED......................................... ..... 04/23/07
60-DAY COMMUNITY BOARD REVIEW PERIOD............................... 05/02/07 - 07/02/07
COMMUNITY BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION........ 06/28/07
30-DAY BOROUGH PRESIDENT REVIEW PERIOD............................. 07/03/07 - 08/01/07
BOROUGH PRESIDENT ISSUES CONDITIONAL UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.... 08/01/07
60-DAY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PERIOD...................... 08/02/07 - 10/01/07
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

C070415 ZSM PROJECT NAME: 50 WEST ST

REC'D: 04/12/07 RELATED ACTIONS: N070412ZRM,C070413ZSM,C070414ZSM,N070416ZCM,C07035 1MMM
(07DME015M) CD(S): M01
LOCATION: 50 WEST ST
BLOCKS/LOT(S): 17/1001,1002,1003,1004,1005,7501 18/100
APPLICANT: WEST ST DEVELOPMENT LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
DESCRIPTION: SPECIAL PERMIT TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS FOR URBAN PLAZAS
ZONING SECTIONS: 74-91
ZONING MAPS: 12B
MILESTONE(S)/DATE(S):
CEQR DETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED.................... 04/18/07
APPLICATION CERTIFIED......................................... ..... 04/23/07
60-DAY COMMUNITY BOARD REVIEW PERIOD............................... 05/02/07 - 07/02/07
COMMUNITY BOARD ISSUES CONDITIONAL FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION........ 06/28/07
30-DAY BOROUGH PRESIDENT REVIEW PERIOD............................. 07/03/07 - 08/01/07
BOROUGH PRESIDENT ISSUES CONDITIONAL UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.... 08/01/07
60-DAY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PERIOD...................... 08/02/07 - 10/01/07
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

N070416 ZCM PROJECT NAME: 50 WEST ST

REC'D: 04/12/07 RELATED ACTIONS: N070412ZRM,C070413ZSM,C070414ZSM,C070415ZSM,C07035 1MMM
(07DME015M) CD(S): M01
LOCATION: 50 WEST ST
BLOCKS/LOT(S): 17/1001,1002,1003,1004,1005,7501 18/100
APPLICANT: WEST ST DEVELOPMENT LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
DESCRIPTION: CHAIR CERT FOR COMPLIANCE FOR AN URBAN PLAZA
ZONING SECTIONS: 37-04
ZONING MAPS: 12B
MILESTONE(S)/DATE(S):
CEQR DETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED.................... 04/18/07
MANHATTAN BORO PRES. CONDITIONAL UNFAVORABLE RECOMM. REC'D BY DCP.. 08/01/07
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 12:17 PM

Emporis lists the green-roofed one as 47 WEST STREET (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=47weststreet-newyorkcity-ny-usa) and says it was completed in 1913 @ 13-stories (no architect info).

50 West is actually the low-rise building on the plot just to the north (at left below) ...

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2002/12/174517.jpg
(c) Nate Lindsey

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 12:20 PM

As of yesterday (Thursday August 30, 2007) 47 WEST STREET has its own blogspot:

http://47weststreet.blogspot.com/

But not much new info there.

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 12:22 PM

You can (for now, anyway) rent out the 10th Floor at 47 West for events ...

http://www.47west.net/index2.html

http://www.47west.net/images/home47westsm.jpg

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 12:26 PM

Info from a previously posted 1996 NY TIMES Article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5D61739F937A35751C0A9609582 60):
The property is 47 West Street, close to the entrance to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel and directly across from Battery Park City. It is actually three buildings on one tax lot. The tallest is the 12-story 47 West Street, named the Crystal Building for the family that once owned it. It is internally connected to 74 Washington Street, which is five floors lower. Combined they create 160,000 square feet of space, with lower floors of 15,200 square feet for printers and other businesses. The small third building is the three-story 50 West Street.
***

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 12:35 PM

Bingo ...

Chapter 6:

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter considers the potential for the proposed Route 9A Project
to affect historic archaeological and architectural resources.

Crystal Building (S/NR-eligible).

http://www.dot.state.ny.us/route9a/files/fseis/06_cultural.pdf

The building at 47-49 West Street was once part of B.T. Babbitt’s soap making complex
near the Hudson River. In 1882 an eight-story building designed by William Graul was
constructed at 47-49 West Street. The building, as well as the adjacent building at
74-80 Washington Street, was sold to the real estate firm of B. Crystal & Son in 1911.
Soon after, George and Edward Blum were retained for an alteration to the building,
which likely involved the construction of the existing mansard roof. It appears that Crystal
owned the building until at least 1949, when it installed a new entrance and lobby as part of an
effort to market the building for office uses in the downtown area. In 1996, the top three floors
of the building were remodeled for live-work space.

Fabrizio

August 31st, 2007, 12:52 PM

Just as I thought and mentioned earlier: that roof has to be an add-on. I love eccentric buildings and seeing the layers of time though this kind of use and re-use.

But quite frankly this building is a dog. Even if it were restored to it's former glory (?) it would still be a dog. Just look at the weird proportions, the way the top was just plopped there as if it came from somewhere else.

If it were part of a coherent neighborhood then yes, I would fight to save it ...especially if it adds to the ambience... but here at the waterfront, a new tall slim tower by a noted architect is not such a bad trade-off. If only the proposal were a bit more romantic and grand.

---

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 12:55 PM

47-49 West Street was once part of B.T. Babbitt’s soap

In 1882 an eight-story building designed by William Graul was
constructed at 47-49 West Street.

Some other buildings where William Graul did work:

9-13 Worth Street - TriBeCa West Historic District

Historic Districts Council (http://www.hdc.org/testimonyaug10.htm)

One utilitarian style store and loft building built in 1873 and designed by Joseph Naylor and altered in 1881 by William Graul, and two utilitarian style store and loft buildings built in 1873 and designed by William Field & Son and altered in 1878-9. Application is to construct a rooftop bulkhead and replace storefronts.

***

79 Horatio Street

Auction Info (http://www.79horatiostreet.com/79HoratioStreetAuctionBook.PDF)

Year Built: 1870

Architect: William Graul

***

The South Village:

A Proposal for Historic District Designation (http://www.gvshp.org/documents/SouthVillageDolkartReportPDF.pdf)

A number of Neo-Grec style tenements in the South Village study area erected between 1873 and 1878 are notable for the use of virtually identical paneled cast-iron window lintels – pedimented on the second story and flat, with a small projecting foliate flourish, on the upper floors, all with central rosettes (Figures 30-31). Although ornamented similarly, these buildings were designed by several different architects – William Graul, Julius Boekell, John Foster, and William Jose. The similarity of facades brings up a crucial unanswered question relating to tenements – just how much of the design was the responsibility of the architect? Architects names are listed on building permits for these buildings, as was legally required in New York City.

Most of these architects are little-known practitioners, many of whom were immigrants. It is not known what, if any, training these architects had, but they chose to work or were forced to work at the lowest end of the design spectrum. The basic plan of all of these tenements on their narrow, twenty-five-foot-wide lots is the same, and, it can be assumed, the structure with brick walls and wood beams is also virtually identical in each building. Exterior features, such as lintels, sills, cornices, and storefronts, as well as interior features such as doors, stair rails, wainscot, and mantels would have been acquired from building yards and other suppliers and could have been chosen either by the architect or the builder. Only occasionally does the taste of a specific architect become evident.

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 01:09 PM

The building at 47-49 West Street was once part of B.T. Babbitt’s soap making complex near the Hudson River.

Harper's Weekly (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/august/cartoon.htm)
August 31, 1861

B.T. BABBITT, New York —

MY DEAR SIR: Your Soap is as good as ever. It seems that one box lasts almost a life-time. I am sure it will become a universal thing. Some of the farmers have given up making soft soap since using your Soap. They say it pays to sell their soap-grease and buy your Soap. Some say they save the price of the Soap in wood.

" Yours, &c., E. PERRY."

The above Soap is packed in boxes of 60 bars, one pound each, with directions for making each bar into " three gallons of handsome Soft Soap." Price $5 per box, with a selection from a list of books, or a subscription to a New York paper gratis. Send for circular containing list of books and papers. Address,

B. T. BABBITT, No. 70 Washington St., New York.

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 01:16 PM

Benjamin Talbot Babbitt (http://www.babbitts.info/rpbgenealogy/benjamin_talbot_babbitt.htm)

1809-1889

Mr. Babbitt's youth was spent in hard work on the home farm, receiving meantime the scant education afforded by the local schools. This hard work in his youth gave him an exceptional physical development which stood him in good stead, in the arduous labors of his latter life. He was possessed of a most ingenious and inquiring disposition, accompanied fortunately by a capability of carrying out his ideas personally.

When he was barely twenty years old he was an expert wheel-wright, machinists and file maker. He acquired these trades by hiring out to machinist and thus being able to give full expression to the ideas constantly evolved by his keen intellect, and at the same time enumerating his father for his time. In this same period he acquired a good knowledge of Chemistry by including a professor from Clinton College to visit the work-shop occasionally and instruct the workmen.

At the age of twenty-two he had acquired sufficient funds to establish a machine shop at Little Falls, N. Y., where for twelve years he manufactured pumps and engines, and while there succeeded in making a practicable and workable mowing machine, one of the first made in America. His workshop being destroyed in a flood, he removed to New York City, leaving the closing up of the business at Little Falls to a supposed friend, who proved dishonest and left Mr. Babbitt completely ruined.

His business in New York started as a manufacturer of saleratus (aerated salt, sodium, "baking soda") by an original process and selling it in convenient packages. The economy of the new method of manufacture enabled him to secure almost instant control of the business in this country. He soon added a yeast Baking Powder, a Soap Powder and several varieties of soap to his list of manufactures, all of them becoming very popular.

Mr. Babbitt was a genius in the art of advertising, rivaling his friend Barnum in originality and success in this important element of his success, his name becoming a household word over the land. An amusing story is told in this connection of his meeting a colored bootblack in a southern hotel, bearing his own name. When he told the boy that he, too was B. T. Babbitt, the astonished boy exclaimed, "Lawd-massa-did your "mammy" get your name off a soap box too?"

His ingenuity was not confined to the inventions concerning his own particular field of business, although he personally invented most of the machinery used in making his products. A study of the Patent Office records shows an astonishing diversity of talent, his invention numbering over one hundred in number, concern all sorts of ideas from wind-mills, to air-guns, armor plate, ventilators, steam engine appliances, canal boats and artificial ice devices. He is credited with having first conceived the idea of utilizing the power of Niagara Falls.

When he died, in 1889, he left a record hardly equaled in American life of successful and honorable business dealings and mourned by all who were associated with him.

***

lofter1

August 31st, 2007, 01:30 PM

I agree with Fabrizio ...

I like this building, but mainly because it is quirky. It fares well because it is more interesting than some of the drek that surrounds it along this stretch of West Street.

But essentially 47 West is an awkward bastard -- a humble brick block with a rustic metal top painted an eye-catching color.

Now, had any of the fairly amazing structure that is described below -- and which seemingly sat on this site prior to this building -- still survive to this day (which it clearly doesn't) then I'd be saying, "Save It!" ...

From: A History of American Manufactures, from 1608 to 1860 (http://books.google.com/books?id=K1YdAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA615&lpg=PA615&dq=%22bt+babbitt%22+soap+%22new+york%22&source=web&ots=1qXYTyAfaq&sig=ypwYCdNZi0EoVXEf-tbjz2HgGUU)

***

Alonzo-ny

August 31st, 2007, 01:51 PM

Ive walked past the building so many times and it left no impression on me at all.

antinimby

September 7th, 2007, 08:34 PM

For those unaware, 80 Washington St. is the rear portion/annex of the green-roofed West St. building.

Three-alarm high-rise fire a 'flashback' for downtown

Friday, September 7th 2007 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/07/2007-09-07_threealarm_highrise_fire_a_flashback_for-2.html), 4:00 AM

A three-alarm fire yesterday ripped through a downtown Manhattan high-rise that is undergoing demolition, authorities said.

Two firefighters suffered minor injuries in the blaze at 80 Washington St., a 14-story structure.

"The fire started in a shaft in the back of the building, where debris was dumped," an FDNY source said.

City health and environmental officials were conducting air tests near the scene last night, according to Lower Manhattan Development Corp. representatives.

FDNY brass said the structure had undergone asbestos abatement before the demolition began.

The fire started shortly before 3:30 p.m. and it took more than 140 firefighters about two hours to bring it under control, an FDNY spokeswoman said.

The blaze drew comparisons to last month's conflagration at the Deutsche Bank building, just a block and a half away on Liberty St., in which two firefighters died.

"I saw the smoke and the big response and I couldn't believe it was happening again," said a man at the scene, who declined to give his name.
"With all the things that have happened, it gives you flashbacks."

It was unclear what caused the blaze, which was concentrated in an elevator shaft, the spokeswoman said.

Firefighters Robert Beddia, 53, and Joseph Graffagnino, 33, died at the Deutsche Bank fire on Aug. 18. That building also is being torn down.

© Copyright 2007 NYDailyNews.com

Alonzo-ny

September 8th, 2007, 01:05 AM

140 is ALOT of people why do so many firefighters need to be there?

lofter1

September 27th, 2007, 08:09 PM

City Planning (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/2007-10-01-sp-cal..pdf)

Special Calendar
Monday October 1, 2007

BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

50 WEST STREET

No. 1
CD 1 C 070351 MMM

IN THE MATTER OF an application, submitted by West Street Development LLC and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), pursuant to Sections 197-c and 199 of the New York City Charter and Section 5-430 et seq. of the New York City Administrative Code, for an amendment to the City Map involving: the elimination, discontinuance and closing of an 8 inch strip of Manhattan Approach to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel between West Street and Washington Street; the elimination, discontinuance and closing of a portion of Manhattan Approach to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel within an area bounded by Morris Street, West Street, Joseph P. Ward Street and the southerly extension of Washington Street; the elimination, discontinuance and closing of volumes of Joseph P. Ward Street and a portion of Manhattan Approach to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel between West Street and the southerly extension of Washington Street above a lower limiting plane; the adjustment of grades necessitated thereby; and any acquisition or disposition of real property related thereto, in accordance with Map No. 30222 dated April 25, 2007 and signed by the Borough President.

(On July 25, 2007, Cal. No. 4, the Commission scheduled August 8, 2007 for a public hearing. On August 8, 2007, Cal. No. 31, the hearing was continued. On August 22, 2007, Cal. No. 11, the hearing was closed.)

For consideration.

***

lofter1

September 27th, 2007, 08:14 PM

Setbacks and Air Rights also to be discussed at the above-noted meeting:

CD 1 C 070413 ZSM

IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by West Street Development, LLC pursuant to Sections 197-c and 201 of the New York City Charter for the grant of a special permit pursuant to Section 91-73* of the Zoning Resolution to allow the unmapped air space above the approaches to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel to be considered a single zoning lot and to allow such zoning lot to include contiguous area of land to facilitate the development of a mixed use development on property located at 50 West Street (Block 17, Lots 1001-1005 and Block 18, p/o Lot 100), in a C6-9 District, within the Special Lower Manhattan District.

londonlawyer

October 4th, 2007, 02:54 PM

Demolition has started on this building and the one behind it.

I thought that this building had not been approved due to CB1's complaints.

lofter1

October 4th, 2007, 03:13 PM

That ^^^ doesn't stop them from tearing down what is there.

(And your'e thinking the CB's have any real influence :cool: )

londonlawyer

October 5th, 2007, 06:16 PM

From cityrealty.com

City Planning approves plans for 50 West Street 05-OCT-07

The City Planning Commission approved Monday several special permits for the plans of Times Equities, a real estate company headed by Francis Greenburger, to erect a 63-story hotel and residential condominium development at 50 West Street across from Battery Park City.
The slim tower has been designed by Gruzen Sampton LLC and Helmut Jahn of Murphy/Jahn Architects of Chicago, who designed CitySpire, Park Avenue Tower and 425 Lexington Avenue in New York and the great State of Illinois Center in Chicago.

The curved south side of the tower would have a plaza that would provide an alternate and more attractive pedestrian walkway from Battery Park City to Greenwich Street than the existing walkway through the Battery Tunnel Garage.

The proposed building would house a 155-room hotel on floors 1 though 13, 48 "full-service residential units" on floors 14 through 18 and 259 residential condominium apartments on floors 20 through 63. It would not have a garage.

The ground floor of the tower, which would be designed to achieve a Gold LEED rating, would contain a "light-art gallery showcasing some of the most innovate light installation artists in the world, a caf¿/bar, a restaurant and a "gourmet" corner store grocery.

The project required text changes to allow a plaza at the site and to permit the transfer of development rights above the Battery Tunnel garage to be used "only in the at-grade area north of J. P. Ward Street, and by special permit only."

In addition, the project required the demapping of a 8-inch strip between J. P. Ward Street and the applicant's site and a demapping for "a plane above J. P. Ward and the portion of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Approach located 37.2 feet above the area between West, Washington, Morris and J. P. Ward Streets.

The Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Approach has about 2.7 million square feet of unused air rights and the 50 West Street project plans to acquire about 183,000 square feet of those air rights.

The project's site is just to the north of the proposed, 8-acre Greenwich Street South project that would deck over the Manhattan entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, create a new park and a new, automated, green-roofed bus garage and five residential towers, a plan that was initiated by Mayor Bloomberg in 2002 and which the chairman of the Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority, Jim Gill, said last year he would like to take charge of.

An urban design study for that project was prepared in 2005 envisioned a new, curved pedestrian bridge over West Street to connect the southern part of Battery Park City to Greenwich Green, a new park between Morris and Edgar Streets between West and Greenwich Streets.

Julie Menin, chair of the Community Board, urged the board not to recommend approval of the project, but a resolution approving it "conditionally" was passed by a vote of 34 to 5 with three abstentions.

Members of the community board indicated they wanted any income from the sale of air rights to the project to be used for projects in Lower Manhattan, indicating that they were concerned about schools, a new pedestrian bridge over West Street, and the area's need for more cultural institutions and affordable housing.

Time Equities has agreed to give a local school 159 laptop computers with four-year maintenance contracts to help address the area's school needs, but the board indicated it wanted the project to contribute more to the community's needs, which include affordable housing and a bridge over West Street.

The redevelopment of the 50 West site would involve the demolition of the 12-story, 1912 building once known as the Crystal Building that has a 3-story-high mansard roof.

antinimby

October 7th, 2007, 03:06 PM

Good. Is that the last hurdle?

GVNY

October 7th, 2007, 06:30 PM

This local 'community' is really practicing extortion.

Nowhere should a developer should be forced to provide 150 laptops to some school before their project can be approved.

Serious debate over traffic increases, safety concerns and other legit issues is certainly justified, but threatening to stall a project over a pretty street bridge and laptops, etc., is ridiculous, and should be illegal.

Luckily, it appears that did not occur to an extent where it could have injured the project.

lofter1

October 7th, 2007, 08:00 PM

Now it has to go to the Borough President's Office & then the City Council (both of which pretty much rubber stamp the Planning Commission) -- but in this instance I wouldn't be surprised to see the Councilmember try to get something for the community.

And please stop whining about the poor developer and the 150 laptops -- extorition? You can get them for $200 each -- plus they're a tax deduction -- so that is chicken feed compared to what a developer might offer.

GVNY

October 7th, 2007, 09:17 PM

Well, I certainly got you fired up, Grumpystiltskin.

While the laptops may not be worth much nowadays (200$, really?), the idea that these communities believe they are entitled to random benefits at a developer's expense is unfair. Yes, some neighborhoods practice extortion against these developers, some worse than others.

The developer should not be forced to worry about anything more than the issues his project directly causes.

Apologies for making you bitterly upset, Lofter. Hope I didn't ruin your evening!

ablarc

October 7th, 2007, 09:43 PM

And please stop whining about the poor developer and the 150 laptops -- extorition? You can get them for $200 each -- plus they're a tax deduction -- so that is chicken feed compared to what a developer might offer.
Lofter, aren't you walking distance from Trump's downtown project? How's about you see if you can squeeze a new laptop out of him? (I would have suggested a camera, but you seem to have acquired one of those :D.)

lofter1

October 7th, 2007, 11:05 PM

lofter1

October 7th, 2007, 11:16 PM

... Grumpystiltskin ...

Fitting moniker :mad:

I've been googling (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=Grumpystiltskin&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) for a new & appropriate avatar, but even with that tag I've not had much luck :(

This ONE (http://originalgrumpy.blogspot.com/) is close, but no cigar (http://lonestartimes.com/images/2006/12/woman_smoking_cigar.jpg) (<<< although that one could be a possibility)

While the laptops may not be worth much nowadays ( 200$, really? ) ...

Yep -- Part of the One Laptop Per Child Project (http://www.betanews.com/article/Intel_Asus_Show_Off_200_Laptop/1181074568) ...

MidtownGuy

October 7th, 2007, 11:23 PM

i vote for the cigar-smokin' mama. hilarious:D

londonlawyer

October 8th, 2007, 12:21 AM

econ_tim

October 8th, 2007, 12:50 AM

lofter want to give the children of battery park city hand-cranked, monochrome laptops? what other unheard of indignities will they be subjected to?

GVNY

October 8th, 2007, 08:47 AM

I don't need a laptop :cool: ...

When a variance is granted to a developer for a project that wants to go above and beyond what others could build on the same or similar site (including Trump's CondoTel, the 50 West Streete tower, etc.) I don't see how it is at all unreasonable for the developer to do some "give back" in exchange.

Now, now, don't misstate my opinion!

I have no problem with a developer 'giving back,' and I would be more than pleased if they offered the local area laptops and bridges and scrumptious chocolate confections! But when a neighborhood threatens to stall a project without those gifts, well,...that's extortion.

And my mother always told me extortion is wrong.

ZippyTheChimp

October 8th, 2007, 10:26 AM

The developer didn't offer any 'gifts,' and he never offered to build the pedestrian bridge.

The 'negotiated exchange' was to provide laptops (total cost less than $1 million) in exchange for a variance and a transfer of publicly owned air-rights to the developer. The developer also is making use of 421-A tax abatements.

None of this is illegal, gift-giving, or extortion. It's a negotiation, and in my opinion, the developer is getting the better deal. Of course, the developer could have avoided all this 'extortion,' and decided to build as-of-right.

The same thing happened down the street at Goldman Sacks. In exchange for several hundred million dollars in tax breaks, GS is providing $3 million to fund a library.

Does your mother consider the $3 million a gift?

Ebola

October 9th, 2007, 12:52 AM

Just build the freaking tower.

Derek2k3

October 9th, 2007, 02:14 AM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/1521722196_d556473282_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2161/1521722208_dc9f842578_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/1521722220_eb86009526_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2263/1521759296_b0b54b0e24_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/1521722228_3b33ea18cc_o.jpg
This will join 4 new skyscrapers on Washington Street before reaching WTC 5 and the rest of the WTC. Should be one of densest concentrations of skyscraper construction in the world.

lofter1

October 9th, 2007, 11:38 AM

Just wish that the really fugly 60s era brown & white step-back tower sitting just to the north would come down, too ...

londonlawyer

October 9th, 2007, 12:43 PM

Just wish that the really fugly 60s era brown & white step-back tower sitting just to the north would come down, too ...

I was thinking the same thing. It's also a free market rental, so there's nothing that prevents it from being emptied and razed.

I wish that it was going rather than 50 West which is nice.

Similarly, Kent Swig, the pig, owns the dumpy 45 Wall which is a free market rental, and instead of razing that, he razed a nice building on Broad St. NY developers are the world's greediest and worst.

BrooklynRider

October 9th, 2007, 02:14 PM

Similarly, Kent Swig, the pig...

Ouch!

antinimby

October 9th, 2007, 03:32 PM

Just wish that the really fugly 60s era brown & white step-back tower sitting just to the north would come down, too ...Not in this city.

Fugly would almost guarantee that it lives on. The logic being, why get rid of something that they would put up again similarly anyway?

On the other hand, if it was nice little gem, its days are numbered.

Alonzo-ny

October 9th, 2007, 08:04 PM

This will join 4 new skyscrapers on Washington Street before reaching WTC 5 and the rest of the WTC. Should be one of densest concentrations of skyscraper construction in the world.

I dont know anywhere denser than lower manhattan. Dont say dubai because they are building in a open desert.

TREPYE

October 9th, 2007, 10:39 PM

Pity :(

Old world structures of visual delight like these come down while putrid garbage like the brown piece of (you know what) behind it still stands.

How horrible NYC can be at points.....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/1521722220_eb86009526_o.jpg

sfenn1117

October 9th, 2007, 10:44 PM

The replacement is so much better than what stands now. Maybe some day the brown building will be replaced, or at least reclad, but at least it will disappear from one angle thanks to this tower.

czsz

October 10th, 2007, 12:43 AM

The building being demolished would be a beloved old landmark in most Sunbelt cities...

BrooklynRider

October 11th, 2007, 03:54 PM

Current Program: 14 floors of hotel; 50 floors of condo.

NewYorkDoc

October 14th, 2007, 01:02 AM

Current Program: 14 floors of hotel; 50 floors of condo.

Are some set to be affordable? or all market value?

Ebola

October 14th, 2007, 03:12 AM

Pity :(

Old world structures of visual delight like these come down while putrid garbage like the brown piece of (you know what) behind it still stands.

How horrible NYC can be at points.....

And the circle of [building] life continues.

I really see nothing wrong with 50 West Street, but I'd like to see more renderings/model shots.

Derek2k3

October 29th, 2007, 04:03 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2250/1800349120_9130bdc672_b.jpg

lofter1

October 29th, 2007, 07:23 PM

How beautiful is that ^ :cool:

And look how it all works together ...

lofter1

October 29th, 2007, 07:34 PM

But what is that thing floating out over West Street (encircled in RED below) ?

Looks to be in about the same spot as the South Bridge from the WFC ...

???

macreator

October 29th, 2007, 08:12 PM

Perhaps Brookfield and Pelli were doing an early design study for the World Financial Center ;)

TREPYE

October 29th, 2007, 08:15 PM

That old downtown New York picture is a visual definition of a skyline. Sublime. ;)

Looking at it makes me hate modernism that much more.

ManhattanKnight

October 29th, 2007, 08:23 PM

^^^That's the West Street pedestrian bridge to the Central Railroad of NJ Ferry Terminal at Liberty Street. Here as captured by Beatrice Abbott in 1938:

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4122/crrnjterminalkb4.jpg

More photos and some prose HERE (http://www.mcny.org/collections/abbott/a160.htm).

NoyokA

October 29th, 2007, 08:29 PM

The calm before the storm.

infoshare

October 29th, 2007, 11:40 PM

I just viewed this thread for the first time: fantastic. There a some close-up photos taken from the top of the garage located adjacent to the building; for anyone who may have missed viewing them, the link can be found at the bottom of this post (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=169009&postcount=34) - the photos were taken by a guy named Scruffy/Steve over at SSP.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8376/img0015om7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9350/img0013hb1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

kitten

October 30th, 2007, 12:50 AM

Thanks for the great pics Scruffy!!! is that your Porsche? ;) Lofter, maybe that's a shipping container (structure you highlighted) being transported?
p.s.: 'more condos, less artists'!

MidtownGuy

October 30th, 2007, 01:10 AM

:eek::eek:
Oh my God I'm seeing this thread for the first time, that gorgeous little gem is being destroyed?? It's disgusting and shortsighted, this society does not know how to care for its own legacy.

ablarc

November 3rd, 2007, 01:46 PM

How beautiful is that ^ :cool:

And look how it all works together ...
No glass boxes.

Tectonic

November 8th, 2007, 06:48 PM

Battle of the slim ones, 50 West Street vs 123 Washington.

antinimby

November 8th, 2007, 07:17 PM

No contest. 50 West wins by a landslide.

Helmut Jahn, the architectural firm of the winner, is by the way a Chicago firm.

Tectonic

November 8th, 2007, 07:48 PM

I agree but 123 Washington has a really nice interior so far.

kz1000ps

November 8th, 2007, 08:30 PM

^ Silly. Whether it has nice interior or not is completely irrelevant on this forum ;)

Tectonic

November 8th, 2007, 08:50 PM

The interior design doesn't qualify as architecture?

Alonzo-ny

November 8th, 2007, 11:20 PM

^ Silly. Whether it has nice interior or not is completely irrelevant on this forum ;)

What? Of course it does, the interior is still architecture! Are you saying you wouldnt consider the interior of the Guggenhiem architectural??

ZippyTheChimp

November 8th, 2007, 11:36 PM

Don't overlook these: ;););););)

kz1000ps

November 9th, 2007, 04:40 AM

Thank you, Zippy.

Still, I'm poking fun at the fact that opinions on buildings seem to almost exclusively focus on a building's exterior, both here and with architectural criticism in general.

Tectonic

November 9th, 2007, 07:31 AM

I didn't overlook the :confused: btw, I just wanted to be sure, you were indeed poking fun. Next time I'll just say that, and save some space :p

Derek2k3

November 11th, 2007, 04:55 AM

NB Permit is out. Now 65 stories and a listed height of 714' to the highest occupied floor. (probably about 50' taller to the roof)

Check it out...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=3&allisn=0001444327&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=

Tectonic

November 11th, 2007, 05:38 PM

Walked by this site today and it looks like its going to be in a tight spot but stand out at the same time. Hate that that garage thing is next to it though.

antinimby

November 11th, 2007, 07:09 PM

Weren't they still waiting for the City Council's stamp of approval or did that happen already but we just didn't hear about it?

NYguy

November 23rd, 2007, 08:33 AM

http://downtownexpress.com/de_237/developerpays.html

Developer pays $5m into housing fund to greenlight condo tower

http://downtownexpress.com/de_237/dev.gif

By Josh Rogers
November 23 - 30, 2007

Downtowners being squeezed by rents might not have to move to Brooklyn after all. The developers who told them to do that have just agreed to pay $5 million into a Lower Manhattan affordable housing fund in exchange for city approval of their luxury condo and hotel building at 50 West St.

The City Council approved the $600 million project last Thursday, giving Time Equities Inc. the go-ahead to build a 63-story tower next to the Battery Tunnel Garage. The first 14 floors of the building designed by Helmut Jahn will have a 155-room, four star hotel and restaurant, and the other floors will have 290 condos. Time hopes to demolish the green-roofed building at 50 West and begin constructing the tower next year. The building is slated to open in 2010.

The firm has agreed to put $5 million into a special fund to preserve affordable housing south of Houston St. and the city will add nearly $2 million. Time had fought with community leaders and local politicians this year over including affordable housing money in the project. At a meeting to try and persuade Community Board 1 to back the condo plan, Phillip Gesue, Time’s director of acquisition and development, suggested that board members should move to Brooklyn if they no longer could afford Lower Manhattan.

Francis Greenburger, the firm’s chairperson and C.E.O., subsequently disavowed Gesue’s comment in an August interview with Downtown Express, saying in general, affordable housing was desirable, but Greenburger was not willing then to link it to his West St. project.

Councilmember Alan Gerson, who negotiated the agreement with Greenburger and the Bloomberg administration, said the housing fund is the first step to keeping places like Battery Park City’s Gateway Plaza affordable.

“Now we have a new entity that can receive funds from any number of sources that we can use to preserve affordable housing at Gateway -- which was on my mind through this process -- and other places,” Gerson said.

Under a special agreement, Gateway’s owner, the Lefrak Organization, is obligated to stay in rent stabilization until 2009. Gerson said $6.7 million from Time Equities and the city will not be enough to keep Gateway from going market rate, but he’s hopeful the fund will get other contributions.

Even without additional money, the fund will still do a lot more than what could have been hoped for at the beginning of negotiations, Gerson said. Greenburger had made it clear from the outset that his building was too expensive an undertaking to be able to include any below market units, but even if he didn’t take that stance, 20 percent is the traditional amount of affordable apartments set aside in luxury projects. The new fund will preserve many more than 58 apartments – 20 percent of the Time project – Gerson said, although the exact number won’t be clear until the city’s Housing Preservation and Development gets the money, sets up the fund and decides how to spend it.

The city sale of air rights to Time is expected to be finalized soon, after which Time is obligated to pay the first $2.5 million into the housing fund, Gerson said. The second half of the money will be due after the firm gets the certificate of occupancy for the condo.

Gerson said he thinks it’s the first affordable housing fund, financed by a private developer and its important to keep economic diversity Downtown. “Do we want to be in a city that’s economically segregated,” he asked, adding it would be terrible if “the rescue workers who saved Lower Manhattan…could not afford to live in this community.”

City officials and Time executives declined to comment on the agreement for this article. They issued prepared statements in a City Council press release praising the project.

Under a previously announced agreement, Time will buy laptop computers for I.S. 89 in Battery Park City. The middle school gave up its computer lab this year to make more room for P.S. 89 and was hoping to have the laptops in September.

Not having the laptops “ has been a real serious problem this year,” said Michele Herman, the P.T.A.’s secretary. She said teachers planned the curriculum around having the new laptops in their rooms and have had to adjust. Gerson said he’s trying to expedite the computer purchases and hopes the school can get them by next month. Under the agreement, Time will also pay for a full-time staff member to provide computer support for the school.

Gerson said the city was going to put $2 million in the affordable housing fund, but when it looked like a support center for Downtown science teachers was going to be cut, he convinced the city to shift $300,000 to save the program on Henry St.

Greenburger will buy 183,000 square feet of air rights from the city under the deal. In August, he said he expected to pay about $30 million. Gerson said the figure increased a little to about $33 million, but Janel Patterson, a spokesperson for the Economic Development Corp., said the final price has not been decided.

The city will demap Ward St., a narrow and little-known street and Time will convert it into a public plaza to improve pedestrian access in the area now known as Greenwich Street South. The long-term plan is to improve access through the Greenwich area which includes the West Side Highway and the entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The city hopes to someday add two small parks and more residential buildings to the area just south of the World Trade Center site.

Gerson said the city is starting to move on the Greenwich plans. “I have their commitment that the next step is to fix up the streetscape and these two parks,” he said.

ZippyTheChimp

November 23rd, 2007, 12:11 PM

The long-term plan is to improve access through the Greenwich area which includes the West Side Highway and the entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The city hopes to someday add two small parks and more residential buildings to the area just south of the World Trade Center site.

Gerson said the city is starting to move on the Greenwich plans. “I have their commitment that the next step is to fix up the streetscape and these two parks,” he said.The present plan for the Battery Garage is much less ambitious than the original - demolish the garage, deck the BBT portal, and build an automated garage near the vent building. Hope it's interim.

kitten

November 23rd, 2007, 01:12 PM

will those spending millions of dollars for their new 'greenwich south' condos and co-ops really tolerate a tour bus garage, and all that comes with it, in their midst? also, does anyone have any renderings of what the ENTIRE neighborhood will look like when all of the high-rises are built? i keep seeing individual, yet wonder what the landscape will look like when ALL of the projects are final: 123 washington, 111 washington, 50 west, and greenwich and thames st. (don't know the address).... tokyo?

pianoman11686

November 23rd, 2007, 02:48 PM

Wow, this is excellent news. I wouldn't have expected the city approval process to proceed so quickly.

Still, Gerson bothers the hell out of me. He seems to have a penchant for making socioeconomic juxtapositions that should NEVER enter into debate about affordable housing. In a nutshell, he's trying to appeal to the collective guilt of those who can afford to live in his district.

Is Gateway Plaza made up of those gray buildings just south of the WFC? If so, I didn't know those were affordable.

ZippyTheChimp

November 23rd, 2007, 03:32 PM

Still, Gerson bothers the hell out of me. He seems to have a penchant for making socioeconomic juxtapositions that should NEVER enter into debate about affordable housing.If not for his comments, there would not have been any debate. Do you have a problem with the results, or is this a theoretical exercise?

In a nutshell, he's trying to appeal to the collective guilt of those who can afford to live in his district.Funny, I live in the district, and don't feel guilty about it.

Is Gateway Plaza made up of those gray buildings just south of the WFC? If so, I didn't know those were affordable.Gateway is Mitchell Lama.

pianoman11686

November 23rd, 2007, 03:56 PM

I don't have a problem with the results. In fact, I expected a worse outcome.

What I have a problem with is Gerson pandering to the 9/11-laden emotions of Downtown residents, and claiming that the publicly-employed workers who helped during the disaster and its aftermath should be able to afford living there.

There are a few things wrong with this.

1) It presumes that those workers, many of whom are still suffering psychologically (and physically) from the experience, would want to live in Lower Manhattan. Which means, either they lived there before and still want to live there, but can't afford to; or, they didn't live there before, but want to live there now and can't afford to. Is this likely?

2) It presumes that Lower Manhattan should be getting more affordable, not less. How many neighborhoods/cities do we know of with such a high level of population growth (mainly in the higher-income category) concurrent with a rapidly expanding supply of housing (all either new construction or high-end conversions)?

3) It presumes that you can keep affordable housing (and that it makes sense to) in an area with the above characteristics. If I were a policymaker, I'd use that money in different areas.

So, do I have a problem with the outcome? In reality, no - but theoretically, yes.

ZippyTheChimp

November 23rd, 2007, 04:44 PM

1) It presumes that those workers, many of whom are still suffering psychologically (and physically) from the experience, would want to live in Lower Manhattan. Which means, either they lived there before and still want to live there, but can't afford to; or, they didn't live there before, but want to live there now and can't afford to. Is this likely?Since no one is being told where to live, what does this have to do with anything?

2) It presumes that Lower Manhattan should be getting more affordable, not less.Where does it presume that all of Lower Manhattan will get more affordable? Even with Gateway Plaza remaining status quo, Lower Manhattan has been getting less affordable for years, and will most likely continue to do so.

How many neighborhoods/cities do we know of with such a high level of population growth (mainly in the higher-income category) concurrent with a rapidly expanding supply of housing (all either new construction or high-end conversions)?I have no problem with allowing people of less means than myself to live in my neighborhood, rather than shunt them off to some other place; so why should you?

3) It presumes that you can keep affordable housing (and that it makes sense to) in an area with the above characteristics. If I were a policymaker, I'd use that money in different areas.I think the more people of different income levels can be integrated in an area, the healthier the society.

Tectonic

November 23rd, 2007, 04:46 PM

I really like this building, so far...

investordude

November 23rd, 2007, 07:48 PM

It still makes sense for them to go market rate and reject the money. Then Gerson can redirect this to a pet project of his. It's called a "bribe" and unfortunately these seem to be a party of New York City politics these days. If Gateway thinks 6.8 million is enough to not sell the building for market rate (or better yet, demolition and replacement with a taller fancier building) then they should take an economics class.

pianoman11686

November 24th, 2007, 10:32 PM

Since no one is being told where to live, what does this have to do with anything?

Zippy, all I was pointing out was Gerson's reference to 9/11. It sounded like it was made for effect, and frankly, I was disgusted by it. I don't see what it has to do with anything, that's why it bothers me.

Where does it presume that all of Lower Manhattan will get more affordable? Even with Gateway Plaza remaining status quo, Lower Manhattan has been getting less affordable for years, and will most likely continue to do so.

Key word was should.

I have no problem with allowing people of less means than myself to live in my neighborhood, rather than shunt them off to some other place; so why should you?

I don't have a problem with that either, provided they can find a place that's affordable enough. Look, the government has a certain amount of money that it allocates to building affordable housing. If they decided to use some of that money to put up housing in Lower Manhattan, I wouldn't be against it. I'm against the expectation that private development should remain affordable, given what we know about the housing market in Lower Manhattan.

I think the more people of different income levels can be integrated in an area, the healthier the society.

You're probably right - in an undefinable, qualitative way. But I don't think government should be in the business (no pun intended) of social engineering to achieve that goal.

ZippyTheChimp

November 24th, 2007, 11:05 PM

You've been away so long, you seem to have forgotten that this development ceased bring strictly private when public air-rights became available to the developer, and when he took advantage of tax incentives.

I remember that you also had no problem with the government getting into the business of making the area more affordable for corporations like Morgan-Chase.

The developer had the option of walking away from the deal, or just building as-of-right.

That way libertarian laissez-faire sensibilities would be preserved.

BTW, this...
I don't have a problem with that either, provided they can find a place that's affordable enough....is not an agreement with my statement. You do have a problem with it.

pianoman11686

November 24th, 2007, 11:51 PM

You've been away so long, you seem to have forgotten that this development ceased bring strictly private when public air-rights became available to the developer, and when he took advantage of tax incentives.

I've been away a while, but not long enough to forget we arrived at an impasse about this aspect of the deal, and what it meant in terms of incorporating the community's wishes. I just don't want to get involved in another classic back and forth.

I remember that you also had no problem with the government getting into the business of making the area more affordable for corporations like Morgan-Chase.

Absolutely not. I've never supported corporatism, and I was actively posting on that thread my hope that the city doesn't offer JPMorgan Chase incentives similar to what Goldman got. In general, I hate subsidies, especially when they try to accomplish a dubious goal (like making a company move to a different business district within the same city).

The developer had the option of walking away from the deal, or just building as-of-right.

That way libertarian laissez-faire sensibilities would be preserved.

But there'd still be that danged tax abatement...(there's just no such thing as a free market)

BTW, this......is not an agreement with my statement. You do have a problem with it.

Don't know what else to tell ya. If the single-family house next door to me was sold to 4 poor families and subdivided, I would not call my City Council and try to get them evicted. At school, I live in an apartment complex in a part of town that has several government-subsidized housing complexes. I may not go out for a walk late at night by myself, but as long as I'm not mugged, I couldn't care less who lives near me.

ZippyTheChimp

November 25th, 2007, 12:33 AM

To refresh your memory: Your sentiments several months back.

we arrived at an impasse about this aspect of the deal,Not really an impasse. I ran out of ways of explaining that the air-rights were public property.

I could understand some people getting upset at the time, because they thought the project would get derailed. But I stated from the beginning that it had nothing to do with the building itself, that a negotiation over money would lead to a settlement, and the project would be approved.

So now a puny $6 million and a socioeconomic comment (did you forget the socioeconomic they can move to Brooklyn remark) are going to reverse the price trends in Lower Manhattan and make it more affordable.

Don't know what else to tell ya. If the single-family house next door to me was sold to 4 poor families and subdivided, I would not call my City Council and try to get them evicted.It has nothing to do with you being mean spirited. The point is that since you don't live here, and from your vantage, Lower Manhattan will not drastically change by the addition of a few affordable housing units, why should you care. Unless your still trying to paint this as a modest development.

investordude

November 25th, 2007, 02:18 AM

I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, but there's definitely a difference between giving money to a corporation to create jobs and giving money to provide preferential housing costs to a preferred set of voters. Creating jobs is a legitimate public purpose - although I personally don't think corporate welfare works very well because it distorts the marketplace from selecting the companies with the strongest desire to be downtown. Preserving housing for 1 group of people versus another is primarily a way to buy votes. These people aren't so poor that they would legitimately become homeless - they'd just move to Brooklyn or Jersey City. Stopping that when other tenants would pay more for the apartments is just corruption. Subsidizing job creation is bad public policy but its legitimte public policy.

londonlawyer

November 25th, 2007, 02:34 AM

....These people aren't so poor that they would legitimately become homeless - they'd just move to Brooklyn or Jersey City.....

I agree. There's no rent control in London or Tokyo. There similarly shouldn't be in NY either.

ZippyTheChimp

November 25th, 2007, 08:21 AM

I'm not a fan of corporate welfare, but there's definitely a difference between giving money to a corporation to create jobs and giving money to provide preferential housing costs to a preferred set of voters.I forget which thread it's in, but a study was made about job creation vs government incentives in NY. Morgan (before it merged with Chase) was one of the companies studied. Guess what happened?

Creating jobs is a legitimate public purpose - although I personally don't think corporate welfare works very well because it distorts the marketplace from selecting the companies with the strongest desire to be downtown.So you're defending the practice, although you 'personally' don't think it works?

Preserving housing for 1 group of people versus another is primarily a way to buy votes.You mean like lobbying?

These people aren't so poor that they would legitimately become homelessLook up what 'affordable' means in this context.

Stopping that when other tenants would pay more for the apartments is just corruption.Only if you think that anything other than bottom-line government is corruption.

Psst. It's usually the other way around.

Subsidizing job creation is bad public policy but its legitimte public policy.So you prefer this because, in your mind, it's more legal, even if you think it doesn't work.

pianoman11686

November 25th, 2007, 11:13 PM

To refresh your memory: Your sentiments several months back.

^Sounds about right.

Not really an impasse. I ran out of ways of explaining that the air-rights were public property.

Not going back there.

So now a puny $6 million and a socioeconomic comment (did you forget the socioeconomic they can move to Brooklyn remark) are going to reverse the price trends in Lower Manhattan and make it more affordable.

Not sure what you're insinuating with the socioeconomic comment business, but Gerson himself said it was the first example of a private development initiating a public fund for affordable housing. That's worth considering. And the fact that it should finance at least 58 apartments, which is 20% of the total being built at 50 West.

But why even consider that? It's a "drop in the bucket." As are the laptops and the construction of a public plaza/park. So tell me: what (additional) percentage would you prefer developments like this to be "taxed"? Because that is, in essence, what these expenses are. They are taxes.

Funny how no one asks what the city will do with the additional $33 million they're getting from the sale of the air rights.

It has nothing to do with you being mean spirited. The point is that since you don't live here, and from your vantage, Lower Manhattan will not drastically change by the addition of a few affordable housing units, why should you care. Unless your still trying to paint this as a modest development.

That's unfair. You're making it sound like I can't possibly understand the issues because I'm not a resident. Well, if all goes to plan, I'll be a resident next year, so I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, I'm not still "trying" to "paint" this as a modest development. By Lower Manhattan's standards, it is.

ZippyTheChimp

November 26th, 2007, 02:50 PM

And the fact that it should finance at least 58 apartments, which is 20% of the total being built at 50 West.20% of 50 West is not relevant. No affordable apartments are being set aside there, so the developer is not losing 58 apartments. The correct way to look at it is: How many units will have to be sold to recover $5 million? :rolleyes:

But why even consider that? It's a "drop in the bucket."This is has been my point from the beginning. Why are you bringing it up?

So tell me: what (additional) percentage would you prefer developments like this to be "taxed"?My comments throughout this thread concerned what was going on at 50 West, and how it was "no big deal" relating to Lower Manhattan.

Because that is, in essence, what these expenses are. They are taxes.Let's see, you were against any negotiations over the sale of the air-rights from the beginning. The result was that in effect, the air-rights were sold for an extra $5 million from the developer. How is this a tax?

We always complain that the government (especially the MTA) undervalues its assets.

That's unfair. You're making it sound like I can't possibly understand the issues because I'm not a resident.No, it goes back to the "drop in the bucket." As an example, I could understand (though not support) if the argument was made by someone living in the same building (or across the street) from someone with an affordable apartment. By since you are not here to experience that, and the character of Lower Manhattan will not change, (again) what difference does it make to you?

In the meantime, I'm not still "trying" to "paint" this as a modest development. By Lower Manhattan's standards, it is.If by modest you mean size, that's not valid. A $600 million project with a hotel and high-end apartments is not modest.

What this all boils down to is the developer gets to build the exact same building he wanted from the beginning, and is paying an extra $5 million for it. If this was a deal breaker and he couldn't get a decent ROI, he would have walked away.

NYguy

November 27th, 2007, 11:48 AM

NOVEMBER 25, 2007

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508778/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508781/large.jpg

pianoman11686

November 28th, 2007, 02:19 PM

20% of 50 West is not relevant. No affordable apartments are being set aside there, so the developer is not losing 58 apartments. The correct way to look at it is: How many units will have to be sold to recover $5 million? :rolleyes:

Well, Gerson certainly thinks it's relevant.

If this goes back to your criticism of 421-a, then you should lobby to change the rules. I'm not going to argue again whether it's moral or ethical for the developer to take advantage of the loophole; it's a smart decision from a business point of view.

This is has been my point from the beginning. Why are you bringing it up?

Sarcasm.

My comments throughout this thread concerned what was going on at 50 West, and how it was "no big deal" relating to Lower Manhattan.

I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't react similarly if another project like this were to unfold in the area.

Let's see, you were against any negotiations over the sale of the air-rights from the beginning. The result was that in effect, the air-rights were sold for an extra $5 million from the developer. How is this a tax?

From the developer? Don't you mean to the developer?

We always complain that the government (especially the MTA) undervalues its assets.

The MTA's got nothing to do with this. If you're referencing Kalikow specifically, it's hard to say because of his ties to the real estate industry. Here's an idea: if the city wants more money for its assets, it should hire an independent appraiser, not enlist the community to decide what's "fair value."

No, it goes back to the "drop in the bucket." As an example, I could understand (though not support) if the argument was made by someone living in the same building (or across the street) from someone with an affordable apartment. By since you are not here to experience that, and the character of Lower Manhattan will not change, (again) what difference does it make to you?

I guess it doesn't make any difference to me. What does that say about the majority of the arguments made on this forum by people who are not stakeholders in a new development?

If by modest you mean size, that's not valid. A $600 million project with a hotel and high-end apartments is not modest.

I don't know how else to put it: it's all relative. Here's an idea: add up all the residential and hotel projects in the pipeline in Lower Manhattan, divide it by 600 million, and see what you get. I think it'll be "a drop in the bucket."

What this all boils down to is the developer gets to build the exact same building he wanted from the beginning, and is paying an extra $5 million for it. If this was a deal breaker and he couldn't get a decent ROI, he would have walked away.

By that logic, he probably allocated those extra expenses in the development's budget from the very beginning. What it all boils down to is exactly what I said months ago: these days, you can't plan to develop a modest project in Manhattan without taking into account months of negotiations with community boards, councils, agencies, etc. It adds direct costs and indirect costs (through the passage of time). And forget about a "large" project. We all know how long it takes for something like Solow's ConEd site, Columbia's Manhattanville campus, or Hudson Yards to get developed.