MoMA's Proposed Expansion - Radical 75 Storey Tower - by Jean Nouvel

[ablarc]

On SSP "NYguy" posted some new diagrams of the building. The design appears to be the same. :), but it also still says 1,250 feet the same as the original, so I guess I'm a little confused :confused:
Smaller floor-to-floor heights?

.

[scumonkey]

From the New York Observer:

Nouvel’s MoMA Tower Could Top 1,000 Feet As of Right (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/nouvel%E2%80%99s-moma-tower-could-top-1000-feet-right)

By Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/author/eliot-brown/)
May 20, 2009 | 4:23 p.m

If recent history (http://www.observer.com/2008/gottfried-jumps-aboard-anti-nouvel-moma-tower-train) is any guide, neighbors will try to use the city's public approval process to block the construction of the 1,250-foot skyscraper that Jean Nouvel wants to build next to the Museum of Modern Art. That seven-month approval process began Monday, and eventually ends with a City Council vote on zoning for the architecturally acclaimed (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/arts/design/15arch.html) skyscraper.
But, according to documents filed with the Department of City Planning, the developer, Hines, is in more or less great shape regardless of what the City Council says: The firm has enough air rights to build a 1,089-foot tower on the West 53rd Street site.
On the other hand, Hines still needs the Council to change zoning to allow for an added 161 feet of height, loading docks and setbacks. Without those, the tower would likely lose its distinctive slant.
While it’s unlikely Hines is ready to get a shovel in the ground tomorrow, the zoning changes would give the firm the ability to build the tower they want—a mixed-use tower with 786,562 square feet, 150 apartments, 100 hotel rooms, and 68,097 square feet for an addition to MoMA. The 1,089-foot tower would only have have 508,000 square feet.
The project as designed will require approval from the City Planning Commission and the City Council.
ebrown@observer.com

The planned MoMA Tower can be 1,089 feet tall without a zoning change, picture in the center
http://www.observer.com/files/full/moma%20tower_0.JPG

[TREPYE]

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/112697115/original.jpg



Oh man!! What a grandiose addition this will be....please, please, please let it happen with this design unscathed even if it means it has to stay a little shorter. I'd even say that I would rather have this than Calatrava's 2000' Chicago spire.

[BrooklynRider]

Nouvel MOMA Tower Gets Height Boost


Published on 19-05-2009 by Skyscrapernews.com

Whilst many skyscraper projects around the world have been canned thanks to the continuing economic problems at least one New York is not only alive and kicking, but even growing in size on the drawing board as the development becomes ever more ambitious.

Sited on 53 West 53rd Street, the previous design featured a 75 storey tall 350 metre tower next to New York's Museum of Modern Art, but this has now been increased to 82 storeys and the height has pushed upwards to 400 metres plus.

Part of the reason for the increase is MOMA's ever expanding requirements for gallery space from 5,000 square metres in 2007 to 6,000 square metres in 2009 and now 7,000 square metres driven by the constant expansion of their art collection.

The asymmetric design with its steel exoskeleton remains, and as before it will continue to have both a luxury hotel and some of the swankiest apartments on offer in New York which are bound to be a hit due to the huge reputation that the Museum of Modern Art brand already boasts.

Developer Hines hopes to secure support from the influential Community Board 5 planning board in June 2009 and if successful this will be a huge boost to their attempts to build a tall building that has received much criticism in the Big Apple for not looking as New Yorkers expect their skyscrapers to appear.

[Ebola]

I wonder how CB5 is going to take it...

[londonlawyer]

In a few years, the 57th Street area will be amazing. In addition to this tower, we likely will have a 1,000 foot tower and a 900+ foot tower by de Portzamparc, a huge, world-class tower on The Drake site, and the nice tower tha Worldwide is building on the PS 59 site.

[BrooklynLove]

Time to ditch NC and get the 3 of you back to NYC.

[stache]

It would make his posted details more honest.

[londonlawyer]

Time to ditch NC and get the 3 of you back to NYC.

We may be coming back in a few months.

We were in NY for a day last week and missed it a lot.

PS: I saw the Cassa hotel on 45th Street, and, as you noted, the slant is very pronounced. If the cladding is nice, that will be a great building. I also saw the new Setai rising on 5th which is beautiful.

[BrooklynLove]

All lovely.

[londonlawyer]

Thanks.

[NoyokA]

We may be coming back in a few months.

We were in NY for a day last week and missed it a lot.

PS: I saw the Cassa hotel on 45th Street, and, as you noted, the slant is very pronounced. If the cladding is nice, that will be a great building. I also saw the new Setai rising on 5th which is beautiful.

Its funny, Id say 90% of my friends that have left New York end up coming back within two years. In many cases they come back without jobs, they just can't live anywhere else after living in NY. If you get back we'll get drinks.

[londonlawyer]

That's true.

I look forward to the drinks, amigo!

[meesalikeu]

so now what's the next step or potential hurdle for this tower?

[Ebola]

On the SSC thread, someone posted a video where Nouvel and people in his staff are working on model or two of the tower.

http://envoye-special.france2.fr/index-fr.php?page=reportage&id_rubrique=983 (just have to wait for the dumb ad to end) go to 2:30

Over 400 meters sounds awesome. Just hope everything turns out ok.

[Derek2k3]

They filed a permit for this on the 3rd. Exciting to see 83 stories and 1,250 feet stated on a permit.

Also, seems like things are starting to move on a few other stalled projects. There's even a few new permits on the DOB site...like one for a new 40 story tower across from the Orion on 9th Avenue by Gary Handel.

Is it becoming easier to get financing now?

[lofter1]

That new Handel Building on Ninth will be a Hotel / Condo. Info HERE (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=286556&postcount=2820)

[londonlawyer]

Depending on the number of buildings on 9th and 42nd that will be razed, this is potentially good news. There are many dumpy little ones on 9th between 42nd and 41st and many crappy ones on 42nd just west of 9th (e.g., Pronto Pizza, Papaya King, etc.) I hope that they're all torn down. It would be a plus if a nice tower is built here too.

[BrooklynRider]

I think it is funding, but, even more so, there is a climate in the city where job creation trumps NIMBY-ism.

[meesalikeu]

get a load of this. can you believe it?



Jean Nouvel's MoMA Tower Reimagined as...THIS!


Thursday, July 16, 2009, by Joey

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2670/3726264107_590d9993bd_o.jpg




http://identity.curbed.com/images/spinner.gif
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2670/3726264107_dd4f624fce_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2670/3726264107_590d9993bd_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2511/3727069592_2d642e61f1_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2511/3727069592_3ea821b387_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3495/3726263837_e262d8ed0f_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3495/3726263837_196de2815e_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2669/3726264029_89640ffd13_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2669/3726264029_fda45717b1_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3485/3726263779_bd8e305ac7_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3485/3726263779_d0281b7d38_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3457/3727069762_37ff18b27e_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3457/3727069762_c32893b4bc_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3467/3727070022_5729d1d0ba_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3467/3727070022_41fdf60247_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2522/3727069812_a69c4047d1_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2522/3727069812_3a45b49b5f_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3428/3726264243_f5efbf143c_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3428/3726264243_05803378cc_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3458/3726263949_6da88c13dd_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3458/3726263949_3681e90cc8_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2533/3727069504_a19d4a787b_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2533/3727069504_a9ed0d0b4d_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3512/3727069978_0450ee5098_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3512/3727069978_2d947b3f64_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2561/3727069918_040ba827f4_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2561/3727069918_69ca32dd25_o.jpg) http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2548/3727070000_c954b05847_s.jpg (http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2548/3727070000_ef67206af9_o.jpg)




Click the image above to view the full photogallery. (http://curbed.com/archives/2009/07/16/jean_nouvels_moma_tower_reimagined_asthis.php)

Jean Nouvel's Tower Verre (http://curbed.com/tags/tower-verre) next to MoMA at 53 West 53rd Street: so big, so expensive! New skyscraper proposals are dropping like flies, and in the post-boom era, it's "time to rethink the tall buildings that have become synonymous with New York City's identity," architect John Beckmann argues. And so Beckmann and his firm, Axis Mundi (http://www.axismundi.com/), have done just that, unveiling a conceptual alternative design for 53 West 53rd Street that aims to put Nouvel in his place—Paris, or something. The "Vertical Neighborhood" is 30 stories shorter than Nouvel's 82-story hotel/condo/galleries contraption, but makes up for that difference in sheer, outright lunacy. It's "an assemblage of disparate architectural languages," duh. Want to know more?
From Axis Mundi's fingers straight to your eyeballs:
The architectural diversity Beckmann envisions starts with a double-ring, multi-level floor-plan unit, anchored by two cores that run the full height of the building, containing elevators, stairs and other vertical services. The ring units called "SmartBlocks" make possible a wide variety of floor plans. Single-unit layouts can mix with duplex, or triplex layouts. The units can shift in and out, adding rich texture to the surface, creating vertical garden space, and linking the units in unique ways.
The malleability of the ring units accommodates living and working, extended families, and new forms of tenancy and ownership. Any grouping of these could be purposed for a hotel. The building is enriched by the multiplicity of forms and textures people create within their vertical neighborhoods.
By varying the mix of the floor plan units, the Axis Mundi design leaves space for vertical fissures that move irregularly up the tower. These bring light and breezes into the open centers of the double-ring units and frame spectacular, theatrical vistas to the city through the building's own structure. Neighbors can see and greet each other along spacious bridges and balconies rather than scurry by each other in long, dark hallways.
"Historically, the skyscraper was a unitary, homogeneous form that reflected the generic, flexible office space it contained," Beckmann says. "The Vertical Neighborhood is more organic and more flexible--an assemblage of disparate architectural languages. It reflects an emerging reality for tall buildings as collections of domestic elements: dwellings, neighborhoods, streets."
Yes, now it all makes perfect sense! Will 53 West 53rd developer Hines fall in love with the Axis Mundi design and send Nouvel packing? If so, dibs on Marilyn!

· Axis Mundi (http://www.axismundi.com/) [Official Site]
· All Tower Verre coverage (http://curbed.com/tags/tower-verre) [Curbed]


http://curbed.com/archives/2009/07/16/jean_nouvels_moma_tower_reimagined_asthis.php

[HoveringCheesecake]

What a piece of shit.

[lofter1]

Hmmmm ....

Imagine that rising above you. And what it would do to property values across the street.

Could this be a pro-Nouvel / pro-Tower Verre plant floating a set-up scheme to show the complaining locals how horrid things could actually be if the push too hard against the Hines plan?

[NoyokA]

I usually am not a fan of one line posts critiquing architecture because there's usually many aspects that are being ignored in such a summarization. In this case I have no problem summarizing this proposal as stupid and ugly, it says it all.

[meesalikeu]

thats exactly what i was thinking.

this must be some kind of a canny ploy or cruel hoax, i cant decide which, put out by the pro-nouvel tower crowd....a crowd which of course outside of a handful of bluehairs that live on that block includes everyone on earth! :rolleyes:

[Bob]

Wow. That's a Peter Keating design, for sure!

[Travis]

From a technical viewpoint it is quite innovative but damn is it ugly. It's like the mutated, retarded baby brother of that proposal for Leonard.

[CitiesfromSpace]

Man, I've gotta say, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. The envelope is the kind of organic, crystal spire that people have been dreaming about for decades. Picture the way the light will hit the south side of this building and fragment into glittering facets all over this tower.

This is visionary. It's not an early experiment like One Bryant Park, and not a modernist, utilitarian prism like One Madison Park (which is still very cool on its own). This is a new kind of ornamentation and something, in my humble opinion, classy and elegant in a way we haven't seen since the heyday of the setback style.

[CitiesfromSpace]

Hahahaha, Bob, just saw your Peter Keating comment...so true. Cosimo would have loved it!

[lofter1]

It seems that Travis was referring to the new Axis Mundi box-on-box proposal as "ugly" and not the brilliant Nouvel Tower Verre -- which anyone with eyes can see is GORGEOUS.

[scumonkey]

from curbed:
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has announced his conditional approval of the skyscraper. Those conditions? That the 1,250-foot tower "limit the number of dwelling units to no more than 300 and the number of hotel rooms to no more than 167; explore methods to limit and accommodate large crowds on public sidewalks, which include adjusting opening hours and waiting areas; and work with neighbors, the community board, government agencies and other local stakeholders to address construction impacts and issues.

[TREPYE]

Could this be a pro-Nouvel / pro-Tower Verre plant floating a set-up scheme to show the complaining locals how horrid things could actually be if the push too hard against the Hines plan?


No way, the NIMBY's would love this cuz it is WAY shorter than Nouvells Masterpiece.
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3467/3727070022_41fdf60247_o.jpg

BTW
The alternate proposal is interesting from an innovative standpoint, it would have looked great say near a historic neighborhood, like where Trumps dopey SOHO tower is placed using the different materials used in brownstones. However, it is hideous in the context that it is going ot replace the next true iconic NYC scraper.

[Travis]

It seems that Travis was referring to the new Axis Mundi box-on-box proposal as "ugly" and not the brilliant Nouvel Tower Verre -- which anyone with eyes can see is GORGEOUS.
This is correct. Nouvel's tower is awesome, in fact its the best looking skyscraper proposal I've seen in years, my criticism was of this new.......thing.

[lofter1]

... the NIMBY's would love this cuz it is WAY shorter than Nouvells Masterpiece ...

That about says it all.

When given the choice between grace & beauty or a stack of colorful shipping containers that look for all the world like a hillside of shanties then those who live nearby would go for the latter because it's not so tall as Tower Verre -- when in reality BOTH proposals will block about the same amount of light / air for those who live nearby, will bring the same numbers of new occupants into the area, will equally enlarge the gallery spaces at MoMA and will generally generate the same amount of added deliveries / traffic at street level.

BUT the box-on-box tower will NOT fund (as WILL the Tower Verre) the on-going maintenance / restoration of the St. Thomas Church or the University Club buildings.

So admit it, neighbors, this is stupidly mis-placed myopia.

[lammius]

OMG it looks like Xanadu!

[BrooklynRider]

Are you talking about the new alternative proposal? If so, I think you mean "Xanadump"?

[philvia]

or "Xanadont"

[meesalikeu]

i got a laugh when somebody over on ssp put up a pic of this amsterdam apt on the tower verre thread:

http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss305/richpr88/Picture056.jpg?t=1248801361

[Stroika]

That picture is of Hundertwasserhaus Wien, a fantastic and beautiful building in Vienna designed by the artist/architect/activist/nutball Friedensreich Hundertwasser.

That building brooks no comparison -- at all -- to this vertical "City of God" favela. I'd rather see the Hooverville return to Central Park than have Beckmann's Xanadon't replace the Tour Verre...

[Troyeth]

What is so pretty and marvelous about it?

[stache]

It's trying WAY too hard to look regional.

[ablarc]

Yeah, it might be different, but it's hideous.

[CitiesfromSpace]

The thing about Hundertwasser was that he was an artist first, so he designed buildings that related to his art style. Projects like the Hundertwasser house that was posted earlier show how this strange colloquial style can be given a rhythm and unified composition...it also somehow manages to make this wild exterior serve the building's programmatic needs, which is what great architecture is about. Gaudi wasn't just famous for crazy facades...his buildings also make sense. Hundertwasser is the same way.

[Alonzo-ny]

From that image there is nothing wild about the exterior apart from different colours and some glazed bricks/tiles. Paint the whole building one colour and its just like any other building from what I can see.

[CitiesfromSpace]

That's fair, but you could say the same about the Sistine Chapel too.

[Alonzo-ny]

And it would be correct. You said "it also somehow manages to make this wild exterior serve the building's programmatic needs". That makes it sound like the architect actually did something interesting but it looks like a bog standard programmatic layout with a wacky facade decoration.

[Antares41]

Actually, if it were all one color, it would remind me of the bldg that was proposed for Leonard street (forgot the exact address) downtown. I believe it got delayed by the credit crunch.

[RoldanTTLB]

Actually, if it were all one color, it would remind me of the bldg that was proposed for Leonard street (forgot the exact address) downtown. I believe it got delayed by the credit crunch.

56 Leonard... http://www.56leonardtribeca.com

[CitiesfromSpace]

Agree to disagree, I totally understand where you're coming from.

[Stroika]

So much ado about Hundertwasser. Like CitiesFromSpace, I can see why one may look at that picture (or a photo of any of his buildings) and not be impressed. With that said, Hundertwasser's buildings, at least in Vienna, work very well, IMO.

Unlike many of our 'starchitects' today, his buildings may have been prancing and posing in their visual outlandishness, but he didn't feel they needed to be on a pedestal or towers in the park to do so -- there was an urbanism to his work, and his buildings fit in well with their environs. Part of that is because, as Alonzo noted, other than a fairly decorative exterior layer, Hundertwasser's buildings were fairly ordinary in proportions and scale. That means they make for a more successful neighborhood than whatever concoction Zaha Hadid is selling to Adidas or D&G or Nintendo these days. Finally, the man was something akin to Vienna's Gaudi -- fanciful and with a strong regional identity (inspired Klimt and other Viennese artists).

I'm no disciple of Hundertwasser, so I'll shut up now; but he is certainly much more talented than anyone who could put together the Xanad'oh and try to displace Nouvel with it.

[CitiesfromSpace]

Right, I think that's a good segue Stroika. Axis Mundi's proposal was a caricature of NYC, not a part of our vernacular or historical built language. It's almost like New York New York in Vegas. Nouvel's design is all about refreshing some classic concepts, like the layer cake style, and reimagining them.

This might be a stupid analogy, but it's like the new Star Trek. It takes a great, classic setting and reinvents it with modern techniques and culturally relevant interpretations for a 21st century audience.

So, I want to go to the meeting on the 3rd, but I'm not sure how much new discussion there will really be on Tower Verre...any thoughts?

[CitiesfromSpace]

http://no2moma.com/Home.html

Gotta love the part of the video with "the tallest building on the smallest lot IN THE WORLD!!!"

Notice that there's no one in this video who ISN'T an old, grumpy resident and part of the block association. The world wants this tower built, we as New Yorkers want this building built.

The claims about shadows are utterly ridiculous. The building is NOT the size of the ESB, it is only the same HEIGHT!!! The building is tiny against the skyline, and won't impact the park at all. Even one of the guys in the video says that "the floor plate is too small". They even go so far as to call the tower "an apartheid". What an embarrassment. Then they spend time talking trash about the MoMA walls...WHICH ARE ALREADY BUILT.

[CitiesfromSpace]

The video closes with "choose the plan that fits"...

Yes, let's choose the plan that fits, the visionary plan to bring more art, culture, history and economic development.

They have no power, they have no sway...they sound like the "Rebuild the Twin Towers" people :rolleyes:

[sfenn1117]

^I just watched that and was about to post about it. They say a 25 story building is all that's been approved on the site....too bad zoning still allows for a 1,000+ plus tower. When you're neighborhood is midtown Manhattan, it's difficult to say that the tower doesn't belong.

[lofter1]

There is a lot of moaning and groaning from the folks living across the street about the walled-off MoMA Sculpture Garden along West 54th.

Has it not always been the case that there was a wall separating the Garden from the sidewalk? They talk like it used to be an open plaza where they could come and go from the street as they pleased, but that now mean old MoMA has taken that away from them. Perhaps that's the way it was in their dreams.

This POST (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=29143&postcount=7) shows the timeline of MoMA on this site from day one.

This pdf document (http://press.moma.org/images/press/history/Building_Chronology.pdf) from MoMA shows the original 1953 Sculpture Garden desingned by Philip Johnson with a wall amazingly like the one that exists today.

And this document (http://press.moma.org/images/press/expansion/Sculpture_garden.pdf) outlines how the most recent re-working of the Sculpture Garden went back to Johnson's original design:



The Sculpture Garden has always been central to the redesign of the Museum. In fact,
architect Yoshio Taniguchi kept the garden as the focus of his plans, around which the building
was designed. Taniguchi’s new design now affords unparalleled views of the garden from the east,
south, and west sides of the building that surrounds it and also gives visitors in the garden the
opportunity to view some works through the Museum’s windows, particularly in the evenings.
Taniguchi also sees the building’s atrium as an extension of the exterior space, and, looking from
the atrium into the expanded garden, one can see how he has synthesized the exterior and
interior into a near-seamless whole.

Although the Museum’s first iteration of the Sculpture Garden dates back to the completion of
the Philip Goodwin and Edward Durell Stone–designed building in 1939, which was overseen by
MoMA’s first director Alfred H. Barr, Jr., the current design reinstates the 1953 design of Philip
Johnson. The Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Sculpture Garden, as it was then named, was created from
a layout designed by Johnson with plantings by landscape architects Zion Breen and Richardson
Associates, Imlaystown, NJ, who have been involved in every redesign of the Sculpture Garden,
including this version, over the past fifty years. To complement the sculptures installed throughout
the garden, the landscapers have planted weeping beeches, birches, andromeda, and ivy
throughout the space. The minimal planting, combined with the Georgia Marble that covers the
ground and north wall of the Garden, allows the primary focus to be between sculpture and its
interaction with nature.

The Sculpture Garden is subject to the same curatorial expertise as any of the galleries inside
the Museum building. This was the primary vision of Philip Johnson, who conceived of it as an
outdoor room. The Museum’s Board of Trustees in 1939 conceived of it as a nexus of public space
and private contemplation, intellectual sophistication and pleasure ...

[NoyokA]

There is a lot of moaning and groaning from the folks living across the street about the walled-off MoMA Sculpture Garden along West 54th.

Has it not always been the case that there was a wall separating the Garden from the sidewalk? They talk like it used to be an open plaza where they could come and go from the street as they pleased, but that now mean old MoMA has taken that away from them. Perhaps that's the way it was in their dreams.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal. The fact that they keep bringing it up with regards to this project shows just how clueless and aggravatingly annoying these people are.

[scumonkey]

clueless and aggravatingly annoying people should be walled out;)

[Derek2k3]

The fact there are so many people complaining about this tower, and that the city listens to them in such a time extensive manner just shows how it is nearly impossible to build anything over 1,000 feet in this city. As if FAR limits, height limits, and high construction costs weren't big enough obstacles. Luckily we have an ambitious developer here.

I guess the Far West Side is the last hope, I doubt the city will ever be able to upzone an area that can support tall skyscrapers again. The upzoning of LIC and Dtwn Brooklyn barely provides enough FAR to build a feasible tower over 700'.

[CitiesfromSpace]

Once the financial incentive's there again, upzoning will be feasible. Never say never...we're in a crazy place right now but the world will be a very different place in five years, when the value of that extra FAR is enough to sway councilpeople.

[Derek2k3]

I have yet to see a neighborhood with lots of established residents get upzoned. The few neighbs the city did upzone had very few residents and there was still opposition.

Williamburg Waterfront
LIC
Far West Side

Fortunately I can't think of neighborhood in Manhattan I want upzoned anyway. I do hope all that public housing along the E. River waterfront gets redeveloped but I'm not holding my breath since the city is still building complexes like them on the Queens waterfront.

[Observer]

It seems the very length of time of the approval process for ZR 74-79 and other major applications can be so slow and therefore costly that good projects can be killed aborning. Does anyone know roughly how long the process: LPC, CPC, ULURP, DEIS, EIS, City Council, Mayor's office, what else? has taken on average in the past?

[lofter1]

As far as I know it's normally about a 9 month process.

The length of the review period for this one has been extended because the project was enlarged from the original Nouvel / Tower Verre proposal. The additional ~180' of height, along with the design changes now proposed, have caused the project (which sits at the confluence of 4 different zoning areas with their own zoning regulations) to come under the more stringent ULURP requirement.

[brianac]

Amanda Burden to Chop 200 Feet Off Nouvel’s MoMA Tower (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/amanda-burden-chop-200-feet-nouvel%E2%80%99s-moma-tower)

By Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/author/eliot-brown/)

September 8, 2009 | 5:12 p.m

http://www.observer.com/files/full/MoMA_4.jpg
The tower, as currently envisioned.

The Jean Nouvel-designed skyscraper planned for next to the Museum of Modern Art is slated to lose 200 feet. The tower, developed by Hines Interests (http://www.hines.com/home/default.aspx) and designed to be one of the city’s tallest towers at a soaring 1,250 feet tall, is expected to receive the haircut from the City Planning Commission on Wednesday.

The commission, led by maverick Amanda Burden, is voting to drop the height on account of concerns about the quality of the design of the top, given that the uppermost floors would rise above the observation deck of the Empire State Building (which, including the base of its antenna, measures at about 1,250 feet as well).

Here’s portions of a statement read Tuesday by Edith Hsu-Chen, Manhattan director at the Department of City Planning:

“The commission notes that the proposed design of the building is exemplary and that the building … would be a strong addition to the city and its architecture.

However the commission believes that the applicant has not made a convincing argument that the design of the tower’s top, with the uppermost 200 feet of the building, merits being in the zone of the Empire State Building’s iconic spire, making the building the second tallest building in New York City.
…
“It appears that less attention has been paid to this portion of the building, … in particular the commission is not satisfied with attempts at incorporation mechanical equipment into the tower top, which results in a tower top with a highly visible mechanical equipment.”
We’ll have more on this later, along with another component involving restrictions on design.

ebrown@observer.com

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/amanda-burden-chop-200-feet-nouvel%E2%80%99s-moma-tower

Copyright The New York Observer

[londonlawyer]

[C]ee U [N]ext [T]uesday, Amanda.

And to think that I considered her a MILF.

[ablarc]

**** Amanda Burden.

Bitch.

La stupida.

[CitiesfromSpace]

ARE YOU F*ING KIDDING ME!?!?!?!? Mechanical equipment, really? That's the best they had!?

[CitiesfromSpace]

Ok, but aside from that, we're still getting a 1,050 footer, right? It'll still be glorious. Is there an opportunity for them to redesign and then appeal it, or will this probably be final?

[stache]

Actually, getting rid of the grille work on top will be ok. It kind of looked like it was trying too hard to be tall.

[lofter1]

MoMA / Nouvel / Hines were going through all this to get an approval for an additional ~180' from the mostly as-of-right proposal to rise to 1089'.

Maybe this was all a ruse -- and perhaps the real plan was to get the previous 1,089 footer approved by all the powers involved. But MoMA / Nouvel / Hines, knowing of the opposition, pretended to aim higher. Thereby they now appear to be "brought in line" by the CPC. Whereas actually they succeed by achieving the actual goal of Nouvel's original plan for Tower Verre. The local NIMBY's will be unhappy. But the politicians can say, "We saved your light and air (and the sanity of your kitty cats)."

In this town only a stupid developer / client would ask for what they really want to get.

Don't forget that there is a Mayoral election in November and a Primary next week.

[Stroika]

Perhaps you're right, Lofter, though it's ridiculous that the city should resort to this sort of opacity and subterfuge in this day and age -- and simultaneously quite likely that the powers that be do just that on a frequent basis.

What annoys me is that -- despite the huge amounts of scrutiny and design-by-committee involved -- the "Freedom Tower" never received this sort of scrutiny regarding its design. The end result appears that no building can rise to anything approaching the Empire State Bldg unless it was personally crafted by Glenda the Good Witch of the East and her aesthetic perfection ... unless of course it rises to nearly 1800 feet, looks a bit like a sex toy, and is called the Freedom Tower ...

[Derek2k3]

Why don't they just ask them to redesign it. Lopping 200 feet off the building won't make it look better.

The spire on the 1200' Bank of America Tower merits being in the zone of the Empire State Building’s spire but this doesn't?

If the city blows this over something this silly, I'll consider moving.

[brianac]

Burdened! Jean Novel Tower Expected to Feel Planning Commish’s 200-Foot Chomp (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/burdened-jean-novel-tower-expected-feel-planning-commish%E2%80%99s-200-foot-chomp)

By Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/author/eliot-brown/)
September 8, 2009 | 7:18 p.m

http://www.observer.com/files/article/burden_hires_1.jpg (http://www.observer.com/files/full/burden_hires_1.jpg)DCP.
Amanda Burden.

Amanda Burden apparently doesn’t want to get Ratnered by MoMA.
Burned by a post-approval architect swap at Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project—the Brooklyn developer dropped Frank Gehry and his iconic basketball arena earlier this year—the chairwoman of the City Planning Commission is going to new lengths to see that she’s not the victim of a future bait-and-switch.

The first to experience this new approach are MoMA and Texas developer Hines Interests, which are planning a slender, pointy, 1,250-foot skyscraper adjacent to the West 53rd Street museum. Designed by Jean Nouvel, the tall, bald, soft-speaking French architect who last year received architecture’s Pritzker Prize, the much-praised tower would soar above midtown with hotel rooms and ridiculously pricey apartments filling its Empire State Building–like height.

But the design needs the assent of Ms. Burden’s Planning Commission.

And, on Sept. 9, it’s slated to take some major actions on the building. Most notably: Ms. Burden and her colleagues are expected to take a gigantic 200-foot bite off the height of Mr. Nouvel’s baby, and, according to an executive involved with discussions, layer on a set of regulations aimed at handcuffing the developer to its current design.

Generally, developers receive approvals for a building’s basics—density, height and massing—but they are typically not held to their specific designs or architecture. In the case of Mr. Ratner, after he went before Ms. Burden for her assent in 2006, he had only to follow basic “design guidelines” that called for items such as some glass walls along the street.

(This was a state process in which Ms. Burden had a more peripheral role.)

Thus, when he dropped Mr. Gehry earlier this year, Mr. Ratner was free to dramatically change the Nets basketball arena to a cheaper, more functional design.

The swap was said to have incensed Ms. Burden, who is known to approach many projects that come before her with a heavy, detail-focused hand.

Indeed, with regard to the MoMA tower, she said at a July hearing that the issue of potential design change was “bedeviling” her.

“You have an extraordinarily talented architect and a very dynamic and, for me personally, a thrilling design,” she said, according to a transcript.

“However, what is to assure me and the commissioners and the city that this glorious design isn’t going to turn into the as-of-right massing, which would be a calamity?”

As for the 200-foot chop, it seems Ms. Burden and her staff were less than thrilled about the looks of the air conditioning and other mechanicals atop the tower in the current design. Per a City Planning statement issued Sept. 8, the top, with what would be the city’s highest occupied floors, was marked by “highly visible mechanical equipment”—apparently enough to cost the developer the super-tall crown.

ebrown@observer.com

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/burdened-jean-novel-tower-expected-feel-planning-commish%E2%80%99s-200-foot-chomp

Copyright The New York Observer.

[londonlawyer]

This is BS!

[Derek2k3]

I don't believe the 200 foot "chop." Why don't they just ask for a redesign - the mechanical space has to go somewhere.

Maybe it's between these two designs.

[Alonzo-ny]

While I'd much prefer a 1250' building I would still be ecstatic with a 1050' version.

[lofter1]

Maybe it's between these two designs.


That is basically what is going on.

They will tweak the 1st (1089') design, not simply decapitate the taller version.

[lp640]

Hell no I won't be happy with a 1050 ft building. That's too short.

Why aren't tall buildings allowed in New York? Other cities build higher buildings but NOTHING over 1,000ft seems to be allowed in communist New York besides the Trade Center. In a city where fugly buildings seem to rise like mad with no opposition whatsoever it's always the beautiful (and tall) ones that get slapped down.

Amanda Burden is a dumb bitch.

[NoyokA]

Idiot.

[GordonGecko]

Why aren't tall buildings allowed in New York? Other cities build higher buildings but NOTHING over 1,000ft seems to be allowed in communist New York besides the Trade Center. In a city where fugly buildings seem to rise like mad with no opposition whatsoever it's always the beautiful (and tall) ones that get slapped down.
Sure seems that way, New York falls behind again.

[JCMAN320]

Agreed. This is dumb beyond belief.

[kz1000ps]

The reasons cited are stupid, but overall I don't mind the shortening; it'll still clear the Midtown plateau by 250+ feet. And besides, the NY Times and BOA towers have turned me off to the dematerializing crown look. I say if you're gonna peek your head out above the fray, do it in a solid, substantial way.

[brianac]

September 9, 2009, 1:30 pm

Panel Votes for a Shorter Skyscraper Next to MoMA

By The New York Times (http://wirednewyork.com/author/the-new-york-times/)The New York City Planning Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/city_planning_commission/index.html) voted on Wednesday morning to cut 200 feet off a proposed Jean Nouvel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/jean_nouvel/index.html) tower that was to have rivaled the Empire State Building in height. The tower, being built by the international real estate developer Hines, is planned for a site next to the Museum of Modern Art (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/museum_of_modern_art/index.html).

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/panel-votes-for-a-shorter-skyscraper-next-to-moma/

Copyright 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[londonlawyer]

On the positive side, it's still an very tall, stunning, iconic tower, and it appears that it will be built.

[lp640]

So is this it?

Now that the dictator has spoken, Nouvel must shorten the height? I don't know much about the process.

[lofter1]

It seems that what took place today at City Planning is being misunderstood.

The 1250' Tower Verre was the second version of this project as proposed by Jean Nouvel / MoMA / Hines. The original proposal was ~ 1050' tall, which was buildable as-of-right under the arcane NYC Zoning Regulations regarding mass, setbacks, rear yards, etc. When the original was first proposed almost everyone here thought it would be a brilliant building.

Then, in essence, MoMA / Hines proposed that 200' be added to the original design; Nouvel made some changes in the original design to better accommodate the hoped-for added height and massing. However the additional requested mass & the incursion into rear yards / set back planes resulting from the added height were not allowable under the Zoning Regs, and therefore MoMA / Hines had to request a Variance to those regulations.

Today the Variance was denied by CPC (btw: the vote was unanimous from the entire Commission; it was not a ruling of one woman / one vote by Amanda Burden).

So now MoMA / Hines will basically be able to build what we all saw the first time the tower was proposed:

Jean Nouvel's fantastic 1050' Tower Verre.

[londonlawyer]

Although it was a little disappointing initially, this is still a magnificent, Chrysler-sized tower. More importantly, it appears that this will be built. I truly doubt that a developer of Hines' calibre is putting this much effort into a project that it simply might build.

[Tectonic]

If we can't build a tall building in the heart of midtown. This city is a has been.

[lofter1]

Nothing stopping anybody from building 10 miles high as-of-right -- as long as they have a large enough plot to start from.

The limitation here is mainly due to the small size of the lot.

[Derek2k3]

^There's no site that large and even if there was there are street wall and base bulk requirements so you can't take a large site and build an enormous tower on a small portion of it



It'd make more sense if they just said the tower was too tall for it's lot. The ESB spire argument is nonsense. Just one block away from the ESB, Vornado is planning to knock down the great Hotel Penn and build a 1200' soulless office building...not to mention the handful of 1000' proposals that will blot out its view from the west side.

In fact Burden and city planning crafted that rezoning and tried to attain a limitless F.A.R for a site on 34th and 10th.

Yet this site, 20 blocks away, is bad company to the ESB.

[lp640]

Not according to her. According to Amanda Burden, the spire just wasn't aesthetically pleasing enough to compete with the top of the Empire State Building so intead of having it revised, just chop it off!

Have any of you seen the top of the Empire State Building up close in the daytime? There is nothing aesthetiy pleasing about it. It looks disasterous. Amanda is just an idiot who should have came up with a better lie than the top not meeting her aestehtic preferences (who the hell is she, anyway?)

[lbjefferies]

I think Lofter is writing the truth.

[Tectonic]

:(:confused:

[dtolman]

A well written piece - they should staple this to the head of all the commission members.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/arts/design/10building.html?_r=1&hpw

Off With Its Top! City Cuts Tower to Size
By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
Published: September 9, 2009

Does Manhattan have a future as a great metropolis?

If you hope the answer is yes, you will be disheartened by the City Planning Department’s decision on Wednesday to chop off 200 feet from the top of a proposed tower next door to the Museum of Modern Art on 53rd Street in Manhattan.

Designed by Jean Nouvel, the building would have been as tall as the Empire State Building minus its antenna, a fact that probably made planners tremble. Amanda Burden, the city planning commissioner, said the tower’s top, which culminates in three uneven peaks, did not meet the aesthetic standards of a building that would compete in height with the city’s most famous towers. And who, after all, wants to be responsible for ruining the most famous skyline in the world?

Still, the notion of treating the Midtown skyline as a museum piece is more disturbing. The desire of each new generation of architects and builders to leave its mark on the city, to contribute its own forms, is essential to making New York what it is. The soaring height and slender silhouette of Mr. Nouvel’s tower not only captured the spirit of Midtown — the energy and hubris that transformed this island into a monument to American cosmopolitanism — it also brought that spirit forcefully into the present.

Mr. Nouvel’s design was conceived as a giant spire, like the Empire State’s but without the boxy building. Supported by a matrix of interwoven steel beams reminiscent of a spider’s web, it tapers jaggedly as it rises, evoking a shard of glass. The beams are flush with the building’s glass surface, giving it a taut muscular appearance; an underground restaurant and lounge, visible from the sidewalk, root the structure to the site.

The design’s beauty stemmed from its elegant proportions, particularly the exaggerated relationship between its small footprint and enormous height. Seen from the street, its receding facades would have induced a delicious sense of vertigo.

Ms. Burden’s objections were directed at the top of the building. “Members of the commission had to make a decision based on what was in front of them,” she said. “The development team had to show us that they were creating something as great or even greater than the Empire State Building and the design they showed us was unresolved.”

It’s true that aspects of the design had yet to be developed fully. The three peaks were too symmetrical, which gave them a slightly static appearance. And they could have been sharpened to finer points. But Mr. Nouvel, one of the profession’s most creative forces, would have been more than capable of dealing with these issues.

With the new height restriction in place, though, his original design concept will surely be diminished. And the loss of as much as 150,000 square feet of floor space could also lead to cuts in the design budget, which could mean cheaper materials and more cramped interiors. Or, just as bad, it could push Hines, the building’s developer, into finding a way to pack more space onto the lower floors, which could further distort the building’s proportions.

But the greater sadness here has to do with New York and how the city sees itself. Both the Empire State and Chrysler buildings, built during the Great Depression, were celebrated in their time as emblems of the city’s fortitude. The Freedom Tower, our era’s most notable contribution to the skyline, is a symbol of posturing and political expediency. And now a real alternative to it, one of the most enchanting skyscraper designs of recent memory, may well be lost because some people worry that nothing in our current age can measure up to the past. It is a mentality that, once it takes hold, risks transforming a living city into an urban mausoleum.

[AMGLANYC]

Manhattan Borough Office:
Tel. 212-720-3480

I just left her a message, if you call they are happy to have her call you back. I suggest leaving messages and letting her know that we are interested in this project, and we would like to see Jean Nouvel given the freedom to design this building without arbitrary restriction.

It does nothing to bitch, but call and share our feelings. I think she operated in box.

[lofter1]

This whole "Chop off the top" is such a crock.

The way these articles are written leads one to believe that the great Jean Nouvel has no option but to give the Tower Verre a flat-top.

Hines / MoMA proposed the 1250' building in order to maximize the return on their investment, plain and simple. To get the taller building (which did not comply with the various Zoning Regs covering the four different zoning districts that, unhappily for MoMA / Hines, intersect on that lot at 53 West 53rd) a variance was required (the 1250' tower could NOT be built as of right) and requested. A variance -- taking into consideration a great number of issues -- could be granted by CPC. Yesterday the CPC as a whole voted to deny that variance.

NOTE that none of the Zoning Regs are a specific Height Limitation, but simply result in certain maximum heights due to FAR, setback regs, etc. So in actuality the CPC did NOT vote to limit the height. Rather, they denied certain variances which would have allowed it to rise to 1250'.

If folks here have any belief in the brilliance of Mr. Nouvel, they should trust that he will meet the challenge of re-designing what will now be the THIRD iteration of this tower.

It will be built.

And the McSam <> Nouvel discussion is pointless: apples and pomegranates.

Did ANY of those who are now saying that Amanda Burden's only issue was an aesthetic problem with the top: Did any of them actually go to the CPC meeting yesterday where this decision was voiced? Or are they simply believing the simplistic "Chop if off" reporting that everyone is waving around?

And for folks who have issue with the CPC: I suggest that they start putting in the time required to get the NYC Zoning Regs re-written -- to achieve that should only require about 20 years of your time.

[scumonkey]

From:

http://archpaper.com/images/anp_logos/anplogo.gif
09.09.2009
Lopped Off
Nouvel's skyline-altering Midtown tower loses 200 feet
http://archpaper.com/uploads/image/53W53RD-entrance-rendering.jpg While the tower will be substantially trimmed, revisions to the rest of the building envelope are a possibility after this morning's vote.
Courtesy Hines

Poised to become the second-tallest building in Midtown—surpassing the Chrysler Building and the observation deck of the Empire State Building—Jean Nouvel’s proposed tower for Hines Interests drew wary attention from the City Planning Commission earlier this summer, as commissioners debated whether or not the 1,250-foot tower—next door to MoMA and in need of numerous zoning allowances—was worthy of such a privileged position on the skyline.

Despite being the work of a Pritzker Prize winner, the answer is apparently not, as the commission voted today to knock 200 feet off the top of the building.

“While the proposed design of the building is exemplary,” said commission chairwoman Amanda Burden, “the applicant has not made a convincing argument that the building’s top 200 feet be worthy of the zone in which it would rise.” The commission approved the building at a modified height of 1,050 feet by a vote of 9-0 with two abstentions.

Both Hines and MoMA—which would occupy the second through fifth floors of the new tower as part of a 2007 deal that sold the development parcel to Hines for $125,000—were disappointed by the commission’s decision, though they said they would continue to work with commissioners on the design.

George Lancaster, a spokesperson for Hines, declined to say what direction the developer would be taking, but made it clear that Hines was not giving up. “We will soldier on,” Lancaster wrote in an email. “It is not scrapped!”

During a July public hearing (http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3688), Hines had dismissed neighbors’ complaints about possible adverse impacts such as traffic and shadows by noting that it could build as high as 1,050 feet as of right, and given Nouvel’s notable design, an additional 200 feet would make little difference. That strategy appears to have backfired today despite earlier indications that commissioners had been swayed. Indeed, Burden took the developer at its word, saying that the building could be just as good, if not better, at the default height. “The new building as modified can be a strong addition to Midtown and the city,” she said.

What continued to bother Burden and her fellow commissioners was the design of those last 200 feet. While the commission’s report outlined concerns such as “highly visible mechanical equipment” atop Nouvel’s tower, it does not appear that the architect would be entitled to improve the crown of his building and receive approval at the originally proposed height.

The other zoning waivers the developer sought—allowing for the building’s distinctive shape and the transfer of air rights from the University Club and St. Thomas Church down the street—are still in place, with the potential for the building to remain at 650,000 square feet, though the reduced height and parameters of the zoning envelope make that unlikely. Any new designs by Nouvel must return to the commission for approval.

Hines and MoMA are not the only ones irked by the decision. In an interview, Justin Peyser, director of the Coalition for Responsible Midtown Development, a group of neighbors and local businesses opposed to the tower (http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/3973), said the commission had not gone far enough.

“A Chrysler-sized building is still too tall for the middle of this block,” he said.

Matt Chaban

[Alonzo-ny]

So at 1050' are there any further roadblocks to getting this built?

[Derek2k3]

I'm still waiting for an official press release from city planning. The blips of information in these articles sound very arbitrary.

I'm sure there is more behind their decision than the design of the top didn't meet their standards.

Has the city ever awarded a variance for exemplary design? Phillip Johnson's building tried that in Hudson Square and was turned down. Usually there has to be some kind of hardship on the developer or the building has to provide some sort of benefit to the community...and sadly in New York, good design seems to add very little value.

If the community board voted in favor of the project, the 1250' version probably would have been approved.

Hines should have never had Nouvel design/display two options, especially being that Ms. Burden is in love with the design. It should have been the 1250' tower or nothing.

[lofter1]

So at 1050' are there any further roadblocks to getting this built?


Money

[lofter1]

Hines should have never had Nouvel design/display two options, especially being that Ms. Burden is in love with the design. It should have been the 1250' tower or nothing.

The first design didn't require ULURP or CPC approval, so perhaps when it was proposed (before the economy crashed) it seemed the best way to go.

The second taller version came along post-crash, so it could be that they crunched some numbers and determined that the additional space to sell would make it more viable. I know for a fact that all involved agreed that the taller version was a more attractive design.

Maybe if MoMA / Hines had waited one more year -- or at least until after this fall's mayoral election -- the CPC would have given the 1250 footer an OK.

[meesalikeu]

Maybe if MoMA / Hines had waited one more year -- or at least until after this fall's mayoral election -- the CPC would have given the 1250 footer an OK.

bingo!

that was the first thing i thought of when i heard this retarded news.

ms. burden and the cpc wring their hands a little and finally vote in favor of the rich moma spire neighbors (their moneyed peers and the mayor's no doubt), meanwhile homes are knocked down and crap fedders specials apts are ok to go up in places like flushing. ugh. i know, i know those things not really directly related, but you cant help thinking like that.

[spyguy999]

More importantly, it appears that this will be built. I truly doubt that a developer of Hines' calibre is putting this much effort into a project that it simply might build.

Not to get too off topic, but this is what many people in Chicago thought when Hines proposed their River Point tower a few years back. Of course that was an office building but it had a reputable developer behind it, good location, and almost 2/3 leased by creditworthy tenants (Baker & McKenzie and William Blair). It's basically dead now after Hines was unable to line up financing.

Anyway, even though the reduced height is disappointing, I still think this tower will look spectacular.

[Derek2k3]

The first design didn't require ULURP or CPC approval, so perhaps when it was proposed (before the economy crashed) it seemed the best way to go.

The second taller version came along post-crash, so it could be that they crunched some numbers and determined that the additional space to sell would make it more viable. I know for a fact that all involved agreed that the taller version was a more attractive design.

Maybe if MoMA / Hines had waited one more year -- or at least until after this fall's mayoral election -- the CPC would have given the 1250 footer an OK.

Actually, renderings of the 1250' and the 1,080' versions were released at the same time and resulted in some confusion on the forum. The height for the taller version was just announced later. They were planning this from the start.

I think if they didn't demostrate to CP that Nouvel could still design an outstanding tower at a reduced height, the taller version would have stood a better chance for approval.

[lbjefferies]

At the risk of sounding nimbyish, I think this building will work better at 1050 than 1250. Walk by the lot and look at it, it's super skinny. Too skinny for 1250 I think (winces, waiting for backlash).

Now let's build this thing and find Nouvel another lot on which he can design up to 1500 feet.

[Derek2k3]

Yea, it's aggravating that lots that could support towers like this as-of right - get squat boxes instead.

I don't think you can really tell a 200 foot difference when looking up - especially since the building tapers. But I'm alright with the height reduction, it's still going to be taller than the Shard in London.

[Alonzo-ny]

So...?

As long as it is very visible on the skyline I'm happy. Citicorp may be competition looking from Queens.

[Derek2k3]

I used the Shard to give an idea how tall it is...

[RedFerrari360f1]

^Indeed, we do need to keep those upitty Britts in line! On a more mature note, it is disapointing to see that so many "community leaders" felt this wonderfull example of architecture needed any tinkering at all...

[Derek2k3]

Burden 2 months ago:

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/3973

“We’re an optimistic city, we’re a skyscraper city, so this project would not be out of place” Burden said. “It must be iconic, it must be distinguished. To get to that height in the sky, it’s got to be great. I don’t have a problem with the height. But let’s see it, and see where it falls with the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building and if it deserves it.”


Guess it didn't deserve it.
Solution: make it shorter.

[MidtownGuy]

I don't understand the directive to make it shorter instead of just redesigning the top. Shorter sucks. We have a chance here to really poke above the plateau and instead they want to pound it down. This is idiotic.

[lofter1]

Look at it this way: CPC didn't make it shorter. They just didn't allow it to go higher than it could be built as-of-right. But CPC did give an OK to some of the needed variances regarding arcane Zoning Regulations (rear yard requirements, etc.) that will allow Nouvel's design for such a tower to be built up to 1050'.

This is Bloomberg's way of trying to show the voters that he's not a complete pushover to developers [stifling a laugh].

[MidtownGuy]

Understood, but however you prefer to look at it, the bottom line is this: we have a developer who wants to build a beautiful structure of 1250 ft , which will make a more impressive impact on the skyline. They are now being told 1050 is the limit.

In this case I'm less interested in how the sausage is made than in the final product. 1250 to 1050 is a significant difference.

[lofter1]

1050' was always the as-of-right limit for this parcel.

Don't get me wrong: I'm 100% for the 1250' Nouvel tower (or even taller if they'd proposed that).

[Derek2k3]

Usually height caps don't count spires and rooftop bulkheads. So I'm guessing 1,050 is probably the height City Planning is limiting to the top floor. The top floor on the 1,250' version was at 1,154 feet.

If that's not the case, it will be a much bulkier/boxier building that would far exceed the setback planes CP waived...and since Nouvel's design is supposedly so integral, I don't see why they'd do that.

The as-of right setback planes maxed the tower's height at a little under 1100', which is why the initial proposal could rise 1,089' to the top of the spire/enclosed mechanical bulkheads.

Since the setback planes were waived there was nothing stopping the building from getting as tall or as fat as it wanted (besides floor area of course), which is why I guess they set a height cap and made sure we'd get a similar design.


So I think we'll be getting a bulkier building 100'-150' shorter (that is if they allow them to transfer all the additional area they want). The fact that Hines said they would continue to work with commissioners on the design and that the commissioners want to keep Nouvel's design is good news.

[Derek2k3]

Here's a good diagram:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3468/3913546565_288665a60f_o.jpg
The last diagram shows in red how much the tower was encroaching into the envelope and what CP just waived.

[lofter1]

Thanks for posting that ^

It's helpful to clarify that this isn't as simplistic as the news keeps reporting.

[Tectonic]

Interesting...

[Derek2k3]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3468888456_b93398aeb2_o.jpg
stef.nyc (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35091718@N03/3468888456/sizes/o/)

It'd be great to see the tower rendered here.

[ablarc]

^ It would ... but the 1250-foot version, please.

Derek, why don't you e-mail that photo to Amanda Burden.

[Derek2k3]

Just did. They don't accept attachments though so I sent the link.

[lofter1]

The CPC Report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/090432.pdf) [September 9, 2009 / Calendar No. 16; C 090432 ZSM (pdf)] with more details than most could give two hoots about.

[Derek2k3]

Thanks for finding that Lofter.

Idiots.
Here's the important part of that document. The document also shows how arbitrary and overly complicated our zoning and approval process is. Nitpicking doesn't create a better city. In fact since the 1961 Zoning Resolution has passed, it has resulted in some of the worst streetscapes anywhere.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/cpc/090432.pdf

CONSIDERATION

The Commission believes that the special permit (C 090432 ZSM), as modified, in conjunction with the related application for a special permit (C 090431 ZSM), as modified, is appropriate.

The Commission notes that the proposed design of the building is exemplary, and that the building - its tapered, sculpted form, unique diagrid structure and curtain wall, and overall design ingenuity - would be a strong addition to the City and its architecture. The Commission also notes that this building will help fund the maintenance of two landmarks – the University Club & St. Thomas Church – in addition to providing MoMA with expanded gallery space to display more of its permanent collection.

The Commission recognizes that as the building rises it pulls back dramatically from West 53rd Street and West 54th Streets and at its top floors has a floor plate of approximately 2,889 square feet – equivalent to approximately 15% of the total lot area. The Commission believes that the tapering design with a decreasing floor plate as the building rises requires the minimum amount of height and setback waiver in order to achieve a functional design.
As certified, the building would rise to a height 1250 feet, the same height as the Empire State Building below its antenna. The Commission believes that the applicant has not made a convincing argument that the design of the tower’s top (the uppermost 200 feet of the building) merits being in the zone of the Empire State Building’s iconic spire, making the building the second tallest building in New York City. This part of the building would have the greatest impact on the City’s skyline and the Commission notes that it appears less attention has been paid to this portion of the building when compared to the rest of the structure. In particular, the Commission is not satisfied with the attempts at incorporating mechanical equipment into the tower top, which results in a tower top with highly visible mechanical equipment. Therefore, as a condition of its approval and to minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area the Commission is modifying the application to reduce the height of the building to 1,050 feet.

The Commission has also considered the particular development site on which the proposed building would be constructed. The Commission notes that proposed building is located on a midblock, through lot, fronting on both West 53rd Street and West 54th streets. The Commission further notes that the proposed building is adjacent to an approximately 500 foot tall office building, the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), and the Museum Tower condominium. The Commission believes modifying the building height to 1,050 feet is also appropriate in consideration of both the building’s relationship to the Midtown Manhattan skyline and the area surrounding the development site. The Commission notes that this reduced height is approximately what could be built as-of-right under existing zoning. .
The Commission notes that the proposed building, at its modified height, would still be a tall and significant structure, and that the important design features that contribute to its architectural success, and which minimize its adverse effects on the surrounding area and enhance the character of the proposed development, will be maintained. Such design features are attached in Exhibit B. The reduction in height will be achieved in a way that maintains the overall integrity of the design, massing and building proportions. For this building to be constructed the applicant must return for certification by the Chair of the Commission that the final architectural design complies with the specific requirements of the approved special permit and restrictive declaration.


The sacred 250' spire of the Empire State building. Maybe we should chop this off too, because in its current state it does not merit being in the zone of the iconic spire of the Chrysler Building.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/3421702281_bb78b6985f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3618/3422509672_aee243cd48_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2539491932_1f3094a203_b.jpg

[lofter1]

It's political. The CPC had to give the appearance of throwing a bone to those who were against a tower of any kind, without rolling over for them.

IMHO this is the key part of the report that covers both of those bases:


The Commission believes modifying the building height to 1,050 feet is also appropriate in consideration of both the building’s relationship to the Midtown Manhattan skyline and the area surrounding the development site. The Commission notes that this reduced height is approximately what could be built as-of-right under existing zoning.

[Derek2k3]

Agreed, also its an election year. The city doesn't want to seem too chummy with developers.

[stache]

Perish the thought! ;)

[antinimby]

Okay, so what's going to happen?

Is Hines going to get Nouvel to redesign the whole thing in order to fit in under the new envelope?

What are their options? What is likely going to happen?

[Derek2k3]

I think that's the only option. City Planning wants the same tapering tower just slightly miniaturized.

[lofter1]

I've heard the CPC-requested version described as "circumsized" :cool:

Some are still hoping that the 1250' version might get the OK from NY City Council ...


... the 53 West 53 Street project, designed by Jean Nouvel, developed by Hines Interests, and slated to be built in the vacant lot west of the MoMA complex ... With the project’s ULURP (New York City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure) coming to an end, the meeting of the New York City Council Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee (http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=80189&GUID=1DE1E048-3833-40D1-87B1-4C6CCDFE560C&Search=) will most likely be your last chance to make your voice heard by New York City government.

The subcommittee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, October 6 at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall:

The New York City Council
Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises

ULURP, W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC, Manhattan (C09043ZSM (http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=488879&GUID=3888FACE-A321-48CB-85CA-7E87D3DB4891&Options=&Search=))

Application no. C 090431 ZSM, submitted by W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC pursuant to Sections 197-c and 201 of the New York City Charter, for a special permit pursuant to Sections 81-212 and 74-79 of the Zoning Resolution to allow the transfer of 136,000 square feet of floor area to facilitate the development of an 85-story mixed use building in Council District 3. This application is subject to review and action by the Land Use Committee only if called-up by vote of the Council pursuant to Rule 11.20b of the Council and §20-226(g) of the New York City Administrative Code.

ULURP, W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC, Manhattan (C090432ZSM (http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=488880&GUID=64612396-2231-45FD-9083-866F203068DB&Options=&Search=))

Application no. C 090432 ZSM, submitted by W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC pursuant to Sections 197-c and 201 of the New York City Charter, for a special permit pursuant to Sections 74-711 and 81-277 of the Zoning Resolution to facilitate the development of an 85-story mixed use building on property located at 53 West 53rd Street (Block 1269, Lots 5,6,7,8,9,11,12, 13,14, 20, 30, 58,66, 69 and 165). This application is subject to review and action by the Land Use Committee only if called-up by vote of the Council pursuant to Rule 11.20b of the Council and §20-226(g) of the New York City Administrative Code.

[londonlawyer]

So was Amanda Burden's dictate only advisory? If the City Council approves this, the 1,250 foot plan can proceed?

[antinimby]

^ I thought the same thing. I thought they needed approvals at everything stage (excluding the CB's of course).

[Stroika]

Futurecity, if you want to direct your rage about a lack of supertalls somewhere, this one looks like as good an instance as any.

[BrooklynLove]

The sacred 250' spire of the Empire State building. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3618/3422509672_aee243cd48_b.jpg

I like how the originally planned blimp docking station is visible in that shot.

http://www.esbnyc.com/images/tourism_news_blimp.jpg

[lesterp4]

This was built in the 30s. It's over 80 years old. We are on the road to becoming a "has been" city. Size does matter!!!!!! .

[lofter1]

If the City Council approves this, the 1,250 foot plan can proceed?




I thought they needed approvals at everything stage (excluding the CB's of course).

The ULURP Process Explained (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml)

It's a long and winding road, but 53 W 53rd can still be approved at 1250'

[futurecity]

This was built in the 30s. It's over 80 years old. We are on the road to becoming a "has been" city. Size does matter!!!!!! .

Its over. NY has given up on any interest in competing with the giants of Asia in skyscraper construction. We have too many height limits and zoning constrictions and Nimbys. The hudson yards are excpted to get buildings of lessor height than the ESB, an opportunity wasted. Mixed use towers of massive height would have been the best choice, but that is not going to happen.

Of course, we will have to focus on some other goal from now on -- like environmentalism, transport, or high quality design perhaps. You can't compete with 1.3 billion people with a massive emerging economy for building construction.

[antinimby]

Actually design matters more. In cases where the developer goes out of their way to create something iconic, beautiful and timeless for this city, the dumb city bureaucrat morons should realize that they should welcome it, not oppose it.

These iconic buildings will define this city, they will be here when everyone here will be long gone. They are the legacies we leave for future generations of New Yorkers.

[antinimby]

The ULURP Process Explained (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml)

It's a long and winding road, but 53 W 53rd can still be approved at 1250'Yes!! http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

(But will Hines elect to go down that road? Let's hope so.)

[futurecity]

Size does matter, yes...that is why I'm so appalled at putting any limits on HY which is basically a superblock and does not impinge on too many people. The only other places to build tall after that opportunity is wasted on small towers will need to use demolition of existing superblocks --> a costly proposition. I have several places in mind, for 2030 and beyond, if the economy comes back...one place is a mass of ugly brown towers.

[lofter1]

We have too many height limits ...


No such thing exists in NYC.

But when one chooses to live in a fantasy world reality doesn't matter.

Or become a city planner and start re-writing NYC Zoning Regulations. They don't get re-written on their own, and not without a lot of hard work and many many many hours of time.

Crying about it here won't get it done.

[antinimby]

^ Actually, there are height limits in some areas in the city.

[futurecity]

There might as well be a height limit with all the complexities in zoning. Anyway, there is a limit at 2000 feet which is another abomination... that means no buildings are ever likley to break that cieling.

Anyway, Its true that NYC should not be placing the ESB in the Eiffel tower role.... That will turn this city into a museum.

[scumonkey]

From The NY Observer:
Nouvel/MoMA Tower Opponents Target Quinn in TV Ads (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/nouvelmoma-tower-opponents-target-quinn-tv-ads)


By Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/author/eliot-brown/)
October 5, 2009 | 1:02 p.m

It seems opponents of the Jean Nouvel-designed skyscraper planned to rise next to MoMA are well-funded.
The opponents, mostly neighbors of the 1,050-foot tower-to-be, are hitting the airwaves Monday with a television ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHwwRGQNUc&feature=player_embedded) that directly targets Council Speaker Christine Quinn, urging her to oppose the development, planned to be built by the Texas firm Hines. The ad buy comes a day before the City Council holds a hearing on the building, which needs Council approval to go forward.
The building has elicited impassioned reactions from both the architectural community, which generally loves it, and neighbors, who detest it, saying it is grossly out of scale.
“This tower will overwhelm the neighborhood and crowd streets. Christine Quinn: Say no,” the ad says, narrated by a deep voice that seems at home in a negative political ad. “Air rights are sold off and the people are sold out. Christine Quinn: Say no.”
The politics of the tower are slightly more complicated than normal. The Council often defers to the local member on land-use decisions, and, in this case, the local is Ms. Quinn. But the constituents who are most upset and loudest—members of the West 54th - 55th Street Block Association—are in the district of Councilman Dan Garodnick.
Neither Ms. Quinn nor Mr. Garodnick have taken a strong stand either way on the MoMA tower. Last month City Planning Commission chairwoman Amanda Burden took an action that Council members often seek when they’re looking for a compromise: she decreased the height of the tower by 200 feet (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/amanda-burden-chop-200-feet-nouvel%E2%80%99s-moma-tower). (While many in the architectural and development communities have denounced that move, the opponents, who have formed a group called the Coalition for Responsible Midtown Development (http://www.no2moma.com/Home.html), called the height chop insignificant, noting the tower would still be as tall as the Chrysler Building.)
A spokesman for Ms. Quinn, Anthony Hogrebe, said in a statement that the Council would be looking for a balance. "As always, the Council will be working to find an appropriate balance, providing for development that addresses the needs of the community," he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHwwRGQNUc&feature=player_embedded

[Tectonic]

There's an air of selfishness in this city where people want to move into neighborhoods and be then be the only ones to live there. Clog Midtown? over crown Midtown Manhattan? That sounds so stupid.

[Bob]

I would LOVE IT were the developer to say, "Yep. You're right. We don't think we should construct this in your neighborhood. We will build it elsewhere. Thank you very much for your input." And then, leave the lot empty. For decades.

[Derek2k3]

That's actually going to be on TV. It looks like a joke.

[antinimby]

Why are these people so afraid of tall buildings that they would go to this length to fight it?

And if they are so afraid of tall buildings, why the hell on Earth would you choose to live in the middle of Midtown Manhattan in the largest, densest skyscraper city in the country?

Why?!! Why?!! Why?!!

Go 10 miles (in many cases, not even that far) in any given direction and you will be completely free of those scary tall skyscrapers and you can get all the air/light/open space you'd ever want or need.

Damn these people. (Makes me just want to choke them to death.)

[NoyokA]

Unfortunately a 9am meeting works best for blue haired NIMBY's who go to sleep at 8pm and have no work in the morning. Hopefully someone from the support side can counter them. The New York City Council subcommittee hearing for the Nouvel project is taking place tomorrow, Tuesday, October 6 at 9:30 a.m. downtown at City Hall. You're best bet is to show up early to find the room and to register to speak.

[Bob]

I should point out what many of you already know: New York City is by far and away one of the most EFFICIENT cities in the world, in the per-capita use of energy. Verticality and density promote mass transit and huge efficiencies of scale. Contrast with, let's say, the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Another good reason to go VERTICAL.

[londonlawyer]

There was a rumor on Curbed that Nouvel is no longer on this project. I hope that there is no shred of truth to that.

[Stroika]

Nouvel/Hines to Ask Council for Their 200 Feet Back on MoMA Tower

By Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/author/eliot-brown/)
October 6, 2009 | 9:19 a.m.
http://www.observer.com/files/article/skyline%20view.JPG (http://www.observer.com/files/full/skyline%20view.JPG)

The Jean Nouvel-designed skyscraper planned to rise next to MoMA goes before the City Council today for a hearing, where, according to a person informed of the decision, developer Hines Interests plans to request that its original height be restored.

The request comes after City Planning Commission chairwoman Amanda Burden c (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/amanda-burden-chop-200-feet-nouvel%E2%80%99s-moma-tower)hopped 200 feet off the top of the tower (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/amanda-burden-chop-200-feet-nouvel%E2%80%99s-moma-tower), which was to rise to 1,250 feet, the height of the Empire State Building. And it’s a bit of a reverse of the usual scenario: Typically, when developers reach the Council—the last stage in the city’s land-use approval process—the Council members negotiate with them to make their project smaller, not bigger.

It's probably important to note that 1,250 hasn't always been its height. Back in 2008, when the project went through the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the developer put its planned height at 1,155 feet (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/nyregion/09moma.html); so before it shrunk by 200 feet, it apparently grew by 95.

We’ll have more from the hearing later today.

ebrown@observer.com

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/nouvelhines-ask-council-their-200-feet-back-moma-tower#

[Derek2k3]

Here's our chance to get all our friends and family out.

[TREPYE]

From The NY Observer:
Nouvel/MoMA Tower Opponents Target Quinn in TV Ads (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/nouvelmoma-tower-opponents-target-quinn-tv-ads)


These are surely some deranged folks. What the eff is wrong with them that this building that dire for them?! To waste money on an ad to prevent a tall scraper from being built. Forget about the fact that this building is perfect for NYC. Even if it was something as despicable and graceless as the PanAm bulding on Park ave that was being built, the mere fact that they are wasting money on this instead of doing something more noble or even with merit like donating it to charity or something more useful than preventing tall buildings is just, just....deranged priorities. :rolleyes:

[chris]

Here's our chance to get all our friends and family out.


I'm on board.

I just read this in the WCBS website and I'm mad as hell.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/moma.skyscraper.building.2.1231719.html

When/where are we going to organize?

This is NYC. Who the hell is going to have the audacity to be anti-skyscraper and think they can get away with it? We've knuckled under to the NIMBYs too long.

Does anyone here have labor union relationships? They want the jobs, and they know how to organize.

Write to info@skyscraper.org and request Carol Willis to get involved, if nothing else, by way of her mailing list.

Write to pov@metropolismag.com and request that Susan Szenasy get involved then by way of her mailing list or editorial... anything she would be willing to contribute.

They're both good people, too.

I wonder if Trump would speak up? He hates these obstructionists and loves the opportunity for some media exposure.

It would be a motley contingent, but someone has to stand up to these ass-hats.

That is all.

(a million ways to contact me at: chrisgrayson.com)


.

[lofter1]

This cry to arms ^ is most likely too late. Tuesday was the hearing.

Interesting that CBS is presenting the story in that way. Their headquarters is directly across W 53rd Street from the MoMA site.

[antinimby]

Did anyone go to the hearing yesterday? Can anyone report on whether the general sentiment was pro or against? (Like I have to ask)

As for doing something, people here can write/email/call their city council members and Christine Quinn and let them know you support this project.

As for Trump, I wouldn't go that route. His name alone brings up too many negative emotions among people in this city. He is just too polarizing.

[lofter1]

‘So Slim!’: Frenchman Begs Burden for Reprieve on His Chic Tower

NY Observer (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/‘so-slim’-frenchman-begs-burden-reprieve-his-chic-tower?page=all)
By Eliot Brown
October 7, 2009

Jean Nouvel wants his 200 feet back. Mr. Nouvel, the bald Frenchman who won architecture’s esteemed Pritzker Prize in 2008, engaged in a last-ditch effort on Tuesday, Oct. 6, to save the 1,250-foot height of the tower he’s planned to have rise next to the Museum of Modern Art.

Four weeks after City Planning Commission chairwoman Amanda Burden put her own giant stamp on the project, chopping the allowed height to 1,050 feet, Mr. Nouvel went before a City Council subcommittee and pleaded to raise the tower’s height back up.

“You have to keep the city alive,” he said, speaking with a heavy French accent. “I try to respect the neighborhood. The building is so slim.” He was joined in his appeal by the project’s developer, the Texas-based Hines Interest, which claimed that a suddenly smaller building—brought down from the level of the Empire State Building to that of the Chrysler Building height—would threaten the economics of the situation.

But still, it wasn’t an all-out threat to scrap the tower.

The project manager for Hines, David Penick, was asked by Councilman Dan Garodnick flatly: “Can this building not be built at 1,050?”

His response? Six seconds of silence, followed by: “It’s—it’s very hard to say.”

Much will depend on the market, Mr. Penick added, in an almost refreshing bit of candor compared with the typical developer who comes before the Council and disingenuously pronounces that even the slightest change to his planned building would have an apocalyptic effect on his project.

After the hearing, Mr. Nouvel was kept muzzled by Hines, as Mr. Penick said to him on the way out, “Now, I don’t want you talking to reporters.”

He didn’t.

[Derek2k3]

We remember Dan Garodnick as the councilmember who fought for a 495 foot height limit on the Con-Ed Site.

[antinimby]

Dan Garodnick is a vote pandering moron. He will say and do what is needed to be in favor with voters or what he thinks are the voters.

Never mind what's necessarily best for the city.

[Stroika]

I have never heard Garodnick say or do anything that didn't strike me as patently idiotic. I wish I lived in his district so I could vote against him.

[londonlawyer]

If the NY proletariat kills this masterpiece, I will write this city off as utter sh..it!

[ablarc]

Proletariat? It's mostly the gentry, isn't it?

[oquatanginwan]

The proletariat are too busy making a buck to care about this tower--and they certainly don't live in midtown. It's the excessively privileged and self-regarding chattering classes doing all the complaining about "their light."

[fioco]

Once emotion enters into the equation, reason becomes crowded out. Nonetheless, I'm confused as to why this tower is so threatening to the neighborhood. Could there be business interests on other blocks who might be hiding behind this gentried cabal? What is the apocalypse they fear? I can't believe that sunlight-starved kittens have prompted such a virulent and well-financed campaign. What's the underlying motivation?

[lofter1]

The underlying motivation is that the people who live across the street don't want a big building on the now-empty lot. It's that simple.

However, logic dictates that a building will rise on the MoMA lot, and most likely anything that goes up there will be tall enough to interfere with the amount of sky they see. Perhaps they believe that this fight will put off that encroachment. But they might end up with something bulkier (who ever builds will definitely fill up the available FAR envelope) that still blocks the sky & brings in additional bodies / vehicles -- and doesn't look as good.

[chris]

Hrumph...

Like so many other people, I get caught up in my day-to-day life, and I don't learn about these things in time.

I really feel there is an opportunity here. There are many many people in New York who love architecture and the grandeur of our city's skyline. But they don't follow the day-to-day events on the topic. It's not their business to, it's not their line of work, they have personal matters in their own private lives to concern themselves with.

People who have a (however selfish) vested interest in opposing something are always the louder voice, even if they are in the extreme minority.

But writing an email to a city council member is a low-commitment, action. With a little bit of organization, I bet we could get more pro-voices than the small but vocal anti-voices who don't want towers like this built.

[Alonzo-ny]

I feel like this project proves a point. That the kind of people who are pro this kind of development are incapable of organising a significant voice. If they can't do it for probably the best project in NY since the Empire State they can't do it for anything. Hopefully that apathy changes.

[NoyokA]

Did you write to the City Planning Commission?

[Troyeth]

What happens when you combine New York City, some of the most aggravating NIMBYS anywhere and a highly competent Modernist architect?

Well, you get nothing less than the bastardization of an assured landmark, the sacking of the most exceptional skyscraper proposal in New York since the Jazz Age.

This is all rather unfortunate, but perhaps quite predictable.

[CitiesfromSpace]

Hey Guys,

I'm so sorry I haven't been posting lately, I started a new job that's had me flying all over the place and working like a dog, but I have been at least trying to stay current with all the news and do my part for this bad boy.

I just wanted to chime in and say that whatever sense of victory those guys get for the next couple years will have been eclipsed by the enormity of this loss to the city's urban destiny. We've got a Jetsonsesque, FifthElementastic future to build, and time's a wastin'!

I know 200 ft isn't the end of the world, but we need to be pushing the envelope here, not getting complacent with 1000' buildings.

I want that building from Kings, dammit! (Ok, too much tv.)

[Travis]

Once emotion enters into the equation, reason becomes crowded out. Nonetheless, I'm confused as to why this tower is so threatening to the neighborhood. Could there be business interests on other blocks who might be hiding behind this gentried cabal? What is the apocalypse they fear? I can't believe that sunlight-starved kittens have prompted such a virulent and well-financed campaign. What's the underlying motivation?

My impression, albeit from the other side of the country, is that what these people really want is for the MOMA itself to move and take all the tourists with them. I think they see opposing this as part of their anti-MOMA strategy.

[BrooklynLove]

A little too late for an anti-MOMA strategy.

[londonlawyer]

New York is a city in serious decline. When I was in the city yesterday, it struck me how shabby and pathetic looking it is. Moreover, when developers want to improve it, they're successfully opposed. NY will be the next Detroit.

The funny thing is that the schmucks that opposed (and most likely killed Torre Verre) are probably the fools who think that NY is the "world's greatest city". What a joke. Perhaps they should fly to London and see what a great, innovative city looks like.

World Capital:

http://www.skyscrapernews.net/images/pics/719LondonBridgeTowerSecuresKeyEquity_pic1.jpg

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/122leadenhall.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2839TheBishopsgateTower_pic7.jpg



Schmuck Capital:
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9682/img0361bl.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/2193951864_e9ca675b02.jpg?v=1200353960
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6781&d=1232032716

[MidtownGuy]

:D:D:D:D:D
hilarious! look at how he stacked the deck!

[MidtownGuy]

I always did want NY to get a pyramid shaped tower, though. Really adds spice.

[Stroika]

^^ oo, that'd be cool. i wonder why it's never occurred to anyone to build one. lofter, derek, you guys are some of the more encyclopedic guys here. you know if that sort of building was ever seriously proposed, and, if so, what happened?

[lofter1]

Off the top of my head: Methinks there was one semi-pyramidical tower proposed for the eastern edge of the financial district, sort of like the new 1WTC but more severely angled (although not so much as the Transamerica Tower in SF). Seems someone in Asia ripped off the design and built a stunted version there.

[Alonzo-ny]

Yes there was, I believe, an NYSE tower proposed on the East side of downtown. Near the Paramount-esque building. I think it got shot down by the FAA.

[ASchwarz]

New York is a city in serious decline. When I was in the city yesterday, it struck me how shabby and pathetic looking it is. Moreover, when developers want to improve it, they're successfully opposed. NY will be the next Detroit.

The funny thing is that the schmucks that opposed (and most likely killed Torre Verre) are probably the fools who think that NY is the "world's greatest city". What a joke. Perhaps they should fly to London and see what a great, innovative city looks like.


LL, one of the London buildings you posted probably isn't going to be built, and the other is just a hole in the ground, so no.

And anyone could just post a picture of some horrible council estates in East London, or maybe the Barbican Center, or even much of the postmodern crap in Canary Wharf, and then compare them with an NYC Gehry, Koolhaas, Nouvel, Piano, Meier, Portzamparc, etc.

As for these idiots in the NY City Council, everyone PLEASE contact Christine Quinn's office and ask for her to reconsider.

This building is in her district, not Daniel Garodnick's district, and she is the City Council president!

If enough of us call her, maybe she will reconsider. After all, she is Council Speaker, and can determine the final vote!

Speaker Christine Quinn
District Office Phone
(212) 564-7757

It may be worth calling Daniel Garodnick's office too. While it is not his district, his constituients were complaining about too much traffic (moreso than the height) so supposedly he sought a decrease in height as a remedy for "traffic" (not sure about that logic on so many levels...)

Daniel Garodnick

District Office
211 East 43rd Street, Suite 2004
New York, NY 10017
T: (212) 818-0580
F: (212) 818-0706

Legislative Office
250 Broadway, Room 1841
New York, NY 10007
T: (212) 788-7393
F: (212) 442-1457

Or at the very least, send Quinn or Garodnick an email!

[londonlawyer]

LL, one of the London buildings you posted probably isn't going to be built, and the other is just a hole in the ground, so no....

The Shard and the Bishopsgate tower are under construction. Moreover, 122 Leadenhall will resume when the recession fades. The developer did not spend a fortune on the land and the design with no intention of building it.

[Alonzo-ny]

The developers of 122 Leadenhall are in talks to be bought over. The tower has planning permission. If it is not built anything on the site will have to be smaller. I believe there is a good chance of it being built.

[TonyO]

I hope now that they build an ugly box, as bulky and bland as possible.

[futurecity]

LL, you are such a moan. NY isn't a capital city, NY is a commercial city with fluid developmet. Face facts. NY won't ever live up to your potential, ever as a beautiful city. So, please spare us the same old photos of NY you post on nearly every thread!!!

As someone who likes tall buildings, London will never be much of a skyscraper city as long as City Airport remains.

[futurecity]

I hope now that they build an ugly box, as bulky and bland as possible.

Please, as long as we get a similar design, I'll be happy.... This is what happens when you live in NYC, face facts...we are not Shanghai, the days of the pioneering spirit have faded.'

The way i see it is, Asia is the new NYC, we are now like the old world

[ablarc]

...face facts...we are not Shanghai, the days of the pioneering spirit have faded.'

The way i see it is, Asia is the new NYC, we are now like the old world
Exactly.

[futurecity]

Sad though -- b/c NY is defined by scrapers, wheras old world cities arn't. Thus, we have to strive on lest we become a second rate museum city.

[Derek2k3]

I think we're in the middle-ground. We are still building the most amount of skyscrapers in the western hemisphere.

[Alonzo-ny]

I've said it before but skyscrapers are not the measure of the city. Dubai might have the tallest skyscrapers but they are also the worst. It is also one of the worst urban environments imaginable. Also cities like London, Paris, etc are not known for their skyscrapers at all. They are still some of the best cities in the world. This project would be the best skyscraper built, in my opinion, since the Empire State. That is miles better than a 2000' eyesore on a superblock.

[Alonzo-ny]

In complete contrast to this situation... (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=44257430&postcount=534)

[Stroika]

Agree with Alonzo. Futurecity, you've gotta take your meds ... or at least a deep breath. Any place can build skyscrapers. That doesn't mean it'll have good architecture -- and, as Alonzo notes, Beijing and Dubai are full of garbage. Similarly, while many of NY's older skyscrapers and new designs like Beekman or Tour Nouvel are beautiful, a city of Sixth Avenues or 1 Penn Plazas would be almost unliveable. I'd take the superior architecture, quality of life, melange of styles and cosmopolitanism of London over Shanghai's scrapers in the park any day. And, given the economics of building today, London can always add a few high-rises today, while Shanghai will never be able to build a Park Avenue Armory (and neither could NYC or London).

With that said, it's a shame that NIMBYs do have the power they have. Actually, that's not a shame. It's good that people can exert some say over their environment; and for that reason, NYC has immensely greater quality of life than a Chinese provincial city with towers in the park and police beating the crap out of anyone who doesn't gleefully allow the city's wise authorities to bulldoze their home to build a tower in the park. What's a shame in New York is that NIMBYs' concerns are so stupid and misplaced. There's rage at a beautiful, tall building, but not at the McSams. That's wrongheaded, and it will -- and does -- lead to bad results and a worse-off city.

Rather than moan that "NYC is a museum," or about anything, people should take action in more constructive ways. Here, that could be done by pre-empting the NIMBYs -- creating a group called "New York NIMBYs" that would speak for NIMBYs ... but channel their worries in a more holistic, balanced and architecturally interested manner. Build on the strengths of a place -- beautiful existing buildings, a market for beautiful new buildings, and the right to have your voice heard -- and you'll accomplish a lot more.

[Alonzo-ny]

Is there an echo in here?

[futurecity]

Agree with Alonzo. Futurecity, you've gotta take your meds ... or at least a deep breath. Any place can build skyscrapers. That doesn't mean it'll have good architecture -- and, as Alonzo notes, Beijing and Dubai are full of garbage. Similarly, while many of NY's older skyscrapers and new designs like Beekman or Tour Nouvel are beautiful, a city of Sixth Avenues or 1 Penn Plazas would be almost unliveable. I'd take the superior architecture, quality of life, melange of styles and cosmopolitanism of London over Shanghai's scrapers in the park any day. And, given the economics of building today, London can always add a few high-rises today, while Shanghai will never be able to build a Park Avenue Armory (and neither could NYC or London).

With that said, it's a shame that NIMBYs do have the power they have. Actually, that's not a shame. It's good that people can exert some say over their environment; and for that reason, NYC has immensely greater quality of life than a Chinese provincial city with towers in the park and police beating the crap out of anyone who doesn't gleefully allow the city's wise authorities to bulldoze their home to build a tower in the park. What's a shame in New York is that NIMBYs' concerns are so stupid and misplaced. There's rage at a beautiful, tall building, but not at the McSams. That's wrongheaded, and it will -- and does -- lead to bad results and a worse-off city.

Rather than moan that "NYC is a museum," or about anything, people should take action in more constructive ways. Here, that could be done by pre-empting the NIMBYs -- creating a group called "New York NIMBYs" that would speak for NIMBYs ... but channel their worries in a more holistic, balanced and architecturally interested manner. Build on the strengths of a place -- beautiful existing buildings, a market for beautiful new buildings, and the
right to have your voice heard -- and you'll accomplish a lot more.

London? A great city, but seriously it will never be a skyscraper city....NY is NY, our image is the scraper, you can't compare them. Of course it doesn't need it, we all know that, but come on... NYC relies on its scrapers as one of our primary tourism draws, we don't have palaces, parliments, etc...its vital we at least maintain some ability to build tall.

Oh, and Shanghai's pudong skyline at night is exillerating --- who cares if they are towers in the park, i'm sure they relish the open space in such a city.

[lofter1]

FC: How many stories do you require before you call a building a "skyscraper"?

[Derek2k3]

So it seems likely it will be approved by the full council at 1,050' and if it retains the previous square footage, it will actually be more economically viable for the developer.


Posted by Stroika in the thread that was closed:

[size=4]MoMA Monster Downsized: City Council Committee Approves 200-Foot Height Reduction

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/Sillerman.jpg
Michael Sillerman, attorney for the planned MoMA/Hines tower

The NY City Council's Land Use Committee today approved by a 12-2 vote the City Planning Commission's reduction of the height of the MoMA/Hines tower from 1,250 to 1,050 feet. The developer, Hines, acceded to this reduction during negotiations with Council members after the hearing held Tuesday by the Council Land Use Committee's Subcommittee for Zoning and Franchises.

As luck would have it, Michael Sillerman, attorney for the project, sat down next to me in the meeting room. So I asked him after the vote if the project would go forward under the conditions approved today by the Committee (which still have to go back to the CPC, and then back again to City Hall for a vote by the full Council).

His answer was, "Yes."

It appears, therefore, that Tuesday's lament by David Penick, managing partner for developer Hines on this project, about the loss of financial viability if the building height was reduced was just a step in the negotiation dance.

The Council members and the developer hammered out a plan for the Jean Nouvel-designed tower to have less than 100,000 square feet of hotel space. This would mean that the tower would not be legally required to have a loading dock with curb cut---a concession to neighborhood opponents who are concerned about increased activity on their street. The Museum of Modern Art's space on the new building's lower floors would remain the same---about 52,000 square feet, connected seamlessly to the existing galleries.

Melinda Katz, chair of the Land Use Committee, said before the vote that residential space in the tower would total 495,000 square feet. This would make the maximum square footage almost 647,000 square feet. But Sillerman told me afterwards that the actual agreement is for a maximum of 658,000 square feet---the SAME AMOUNT that was to have been encompassed by the proposed (now shortened) 1,250-foot-high building.

Since this could mean squashing the same floor area into a shorter building, I asked Sillerman if the slender structure would grow fatter, or whether ceiling height would be reduced. He could only say that a significant redesign would now ensue, and he didn't yet know what exactly that would entail or what the actual square footage total would turn out to be. He assured me that architect Jean Nouvel is on the case.

While we await further developments, here's one bit of good news: MoMA has committed to improving the visibility of the sculpture garden from the street and "enhancing the pedestrian experience on W. 54th Street"---an amelioration of what I had previously dubbed (scroll to #7) "the 54th Street Prison Wall."

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegr...d_city_co.html

[Derek2k3]

Previous administrations would probably not have allowed a tower to so greatly exceed its envelope.

CitySpire went through a debacle with the city regarding its height too. It was built 11 feet taller than zoning allowed and the city forced the developer to temporarily dimantle the ribs of the domed top.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/09/nyregion/cityspire-to-dismantle-part-of-tower.html

...In April, the Koch administration announced a tentative settlement with Mr. Eichner in which he would be allowed to keep Cityspire as built, in exchange for adding 7,200 square feet of rehearsal space at the site, as well as other concessions...

[Derek2k3]

Went to Top of the Rock Tuesday. The tower will still be the great focal point of the northern view:
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/440/501910ak4.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3996810789_c49e30bc89_o.jpg
I highlighted the site in yellow.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3996810783_2fa93b39e5_o.jpg
Extell's Park Hyatt might end up being taller than this tower. It'll rise behind the Carnegie Hall/CitySpire/Metropolitan tower trio.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2638/3996810787_e26f1c5f06_o.jpg
There are a couple other towers that will rise in this view such as a 40+ story tower by Extell/FXFowle at the Ritz Furs site, a 50 story tower near the corner of 6th and 57th, and a 30 story tower at midblock between 5th and 6th. And to the far left a 500' foot tower by Pelli at 220 Central Park South, and another very tall skyscraper by Extell/Portzamparc at 225 W 57th.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3522/3996810791_b1b8f0e751_o.jpg
Hopefully the redesign will keep this feature:

Nouvel goes on to compare the building, which "changes shape as it ascends," to "three fingers pointing into the sky." And just as Frank Gehry did with his glacier-like headquarters for Barry Diller's InterActiveCorp, Nouvel has thought a lot about the building's night-time lighting, promising that "it will make it look like it has blood running through the veins of the structure."



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/3996810779_f7f66969c7_b.jpg

[londonlawyer]

.... I asked Sillerman if the slender structure would grow fatter, or whether ceiling height would be reduced. He could only say that a significant redesign would now ensue....
http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegr...d_city_co.html

I wonder if this is more posturing by the developer. Since the original design looked basically like the taller one that eventually emerged, I don't see why they simply don't use it.

[lofter1]

They added square footage to the taller version. They want (need?) that additional space (space = $$). So a shortened version would need to be bulked out somewhat in order to incorporate the space lost when circumcizing the top 16 [?] floors / 200'.

[Merry]

An excerpt from the article Look who remade New York (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20091011/FREE/310119996) in Crain's yesterday:


“I have my dream job,” says Ms. Burden. “I want to create places people walk by and fall in love with, and want to be in.”

Some wish she were employed elsewhere. Many New York real estate executives accuse Ms. Burden of overstepping her authority by involving herself in design minutiae, dictating such details as the size of window sills and the height of park benches. Many lawyers, architects, planners and developers complain that she is unyielding in her vision and that catering to her taste adds time and money to their projects. Over a dozen industry heavyweights, however, declined to attach their names to their objections, for fear that offending her could waylay their plans.

Her detractors say her obtrusiveness hit a new high last month, when the planning commission effectively lopped 200 feet off the top of a tower on West 53rd Street being designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Jean Nouvel. Ms. Burden said the unfinished design for the planned 1,250-foot tower was unworthy of the prominent spot it would occupy in the New York skyline. The project had been granted special permission to rise to that height.

In response, New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff praised the architect as “one of the profession's most creative forces,” and warned that Ms. Burden's decision could force harmful changes to the rest of the tower. He also accused her of treating the skyline as a museum with no room for architectural innovation.

Ms. Burden counters that Mr. Nouvel didn't present a finished design, even after having years to complete it, which she calls disrespectful. She brandishes a rendering of the tower with an unfinished top—a simple, open triangle enclosing a box that will house the building's operating mechanisms.

“They wanted special permission for this?” she asks contemptuously.

Mr. Nouvel didn't return a call, and the developer, Hines Interests, declined comment. In the past, Hines has said it needs to build to the full height for the tower to be economically viable.

[TonyO]

That article on Burden is good. She really did overstep her bounds with the Moma tower, and talking about a triangle at the top is disingenuous, the design presented was surely enough to make a decision. For once I agree with Ouroussoff and his quote about her treating the skyline like a museum is priceless.

[scumonkey]

New York Post:

Big stall over MoMA tower

Last Updated: 3:55 AM, October 20, 2009
Posted: 1:59 AM, October 20, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/rw/SysConfig/WebPortal/nypost/images/columnist_headshots/steve_cuozzo.pngSteve Cuozzo


Is Hines deliberately angling to stall on its controversial, Jean Nouvel-designed tower next to the Museum of Modern Art (http://www.nypost.com/t/Museum_of_Modern_Art), and blame the city for the delay? Hines, one of the world's largest developers, and Nouvel have clammed up. So it isn't entirely unreasonable to speculate that they're in no rush to build the asymmetrically contoured condo/hotel/museum tower next door to MoMA on West 53rd Street -- which city Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden held to a mere 1,050 feet in height despite Hines' plea to make it 200 feet taller.
Hines is grumbling that a shorter tower might not be economically viable. The company went to the City Council last week pleading to get the height back but failed. The Council also threw in a monkey wrench by limiting the hotel portion of what's supposed to be an 850,000 square-foot tower to under 100,000 square feet, nearly one-third less than what Hines wanted.

But blaming the city is too easy. When Hines and Nouvel showed the plans last month, they had to know that Burden, who has a well-known interest in architecture, expected to see what the whole building would look like.
Instead, the model was conspicuously unfinished, showing the tallest of three triangular spires as an open framework with a cube-shaped box for mechanical elements.
Since so much of the debate has to do with the project's skyline impact, how could Hines have gone to the city without showing the crown? "Better to blame the city for an ugly, empty lot next door to the Museum of Modern Art than to say, 'We bought an empty lot and it will stay an empty lot,' " suggested one of our cynical sources who keeps an eye on stalls around town.

A Planning Department spokesperson declined to comment. Calls to Hines Managing Partner David Penick were not returned. Nouvel's Paris-based assistant, Charlotte Kruk, said, "Unfortunately Mr. Nouvel is out of the office today and it's impossible to answer your question."
But a source said Hines and Nouvel were fully aware the 60-day clock was ticking down on the time period when the Planning Department needed to consider the 1,250-foot proposal -- and now, time's up. "Maybe it's because everything in Paris closes up for the month of August," an insider said half-jokingly.
At the Council hearing, Penick told CultureGrrrl blogger Lee Rosenbaum the job might not start for a while even if it gets approved.
That sounds like an understatement. In a market without credit, could Hines build the thing even if were only six feet tall?
It could cost up to $1 billion to construct. Since Hines announced the scheme two years ago, construction financing has been nonexistent. Also, the market for ultra-luxury condo residences is flat at best and the local hotel market seriously over-saturated.
Real Capital Analytics research chief Dan Fasulo noted that the $125 million Hines paid MoMA for the land -- which doesn't include all the air rights it would still need "was made at the top of the market, and it would surely be structured differently today."
Even so, Fasulo said, "Hines is one of those companies that can put in more equity" than most -- up to 35 percent or more -- which might make it easier to find a lender.

[Alonzo-ny]

Why didnt the city simply ask for a redesign or at least a complete design of the pinnacle? It doesn't make sense not to approve it without asking for that.

[BrooklynRider]

To me, it just seems like Amanda Burden is having a temper tantrum. It is the crowning 250 feet of a Nouvel tower. I haven't had the chance to review her portfolio of skyscraper designs. Has she designed a similar tower that gives her this expertise?

Maybe Bloomberg is holding off on directing the approval until after election day.

[londonlawyer]

Can the mayor override Burden's and the City Council's decisions? If so, that would be a further reason to vote for him notwithstanding his overt anti-Arab bias.

[scumonkey]

From Artsjournal.com
CultureGrrl (http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/)
Lee Rosenbaum's cultural commentary



Only Two More Hurdles for the MoMA Monster: City Council and the Economy


http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/Gottfried.jpg
NY Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, would-be slayer of the MoMA Monster

At its review session Monday, New York's City Planning Commission gave its go-ahead for Jean Nouvel's MoMA/Hines tower, as modified (http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2009/10/moma_monster_downsized_city_co.html) by the City Council's Land Use Committee. The project still needs to be approved by the full City Council, which may well happen at its Oct. 28 meeting.

The full Council almost never goes against the decision of its Land Use Committee, which on Oct. 8 approved a somewhat shortened version of the proposed tower (1,025 feet high, instead of 1,250 feet). This means that the strong, vocal protests of the neighbors, the neighbors' City Councilman (Daniel Garodnick), the Community Board, and both the State Senator and State Assemblyman (Liz Krueger and Richard Gottfried, respectively) who represent the Manhattan district of the MoMA/Hines site are likely to be unavailing.

The bottom line is that this building---now reduced to the height of the Chrysler Building instead of the Empire State Building---is still way too tall for the small footprint of its midblock site. As Assemblyman Gottfried declared in a statement (http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=075&sh=story&story=33768) submitted to the City Council's Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises:
Unlike other skyscrapers, the MoMA/Hines site is not on a wide avenue or a wide crosstown street; it is mid-block on a narrow mixed-use side street with its back on a residential street [W. 54th St.].
No other New York art museums seem to feel compelled to accompany their expansions with tall commercial structures that are out of character with their immediate surroundings, not to mention with the proper pursuits of nonprofit cultural institutions. If the MoMA Monster gets built, the Museum of Modern Art (whose current chairman is real estate mega-developer Jerry Speyer) will have violated the lowrise character of its midtown side street three times---the Cesar Pelli-designed Museum Tower luxury apartment building; the Yoshio Taniguchi-designed office building; and now, Jean Nouvel's Tower Verre.

These may have been clever financial deals, but MoMA's erections notwithstanding, the commercial real estate business is not a compatible fit with the mission of museums. As David Penick, managing partner for developer Hines on this project, previously told me (http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2009/10/moma_monster_refuses_to_shrink.html), the Nouvel tower won't begin construction until financial conditions in the real estate industry improve. This means that MoMA's expansion, dependent upon Hines' construction, could be stalled for a long time.

In the meantime, maybe the museum can use that empty lot (which it has sold to Hines for $125 million) for a few more innovative architecture exhibitions (http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2008/01/slaying_the_moma_monster_russe.html), like this one:

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/MoMALot.jpg
MoMA's 2008 Home Delivery (http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/50) exhibition, on the site of the proposed Nouvel tower

[lofter1]

Can the mayor override Burden's and the City Council's decisions?


Nope.

[londonlawyer]

Thanks

[TREPYE]

If a tower of this quality and aesthetics cannot happen in NYC then NOTHING good will ever get done in this city with the effing idiots running [and ruining] it.

NY, the ex-city of skycrapers. A skyline chiseled by the brute hand of aristrocrats who have this delusion of black ol sun as soon as a tall scraper is even suggested...

Insanely frustrating...

[Derek2k3]

http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=075&sh=story&story=33768

MoMA/Hines Development:
Reject Proposal for 1,050 Foot Tower
Testimony before the New York City Council,
Subcommittee on Zoning & Franchises
City Hall
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

I am Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried. I represent the 75th Assembly District in Manhattan, which includes Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen, Murray Hill, and parts of the Upper West Side and Midtown, including the area where the MoMA/Hines building at 53 West 53rd Street is proposed.

A building of this magnitude on a mid-block location immediately adjacent to a historic residential neighborhood violates the basic principles of New York City zoning and good urban planning. It should not be allowed.

In order to permit the transfer of development rights to 53 West 53rd Street from the two landmarks, the University Club and St. Thomas Church, the City Planning Commission has approved special permits under §74-711 and §74-79.

St. Thomas Church, an individual landmark in good condition, applied for a special permit under §74-711 to sell all 275,000 square feet of its air rights, arguing that the preservation plan it is currently undertaking satisfies the findings required by the zoning code. If St. Thomas Church wants to upgrade the building, it should do what congregations do, and turn to its members.

The University Club applied for a special permit under §74-79 to sell all 136,000 square feet of its air rights, presenting a preservation plan which also falls short of demonstrating financial need. Neither landmark is in danger of deterioration, or has a stated lack of resources. It is wrong for the church and the University Club to finance their operations by imposing the burden of the MoMA/Hines building on its neighbors.

Community Board 5 reports that both are currently in good condition with ongoing maintenance plans. There is no “burden” that needs to be relieved and no landmark preservation purpose to be served by the air rights sale.

However, there is substantial public burden resulting from the excessive height and density, shadows, traffic, and other impacts the proposed tower will impose on the community. While the Environmental Impact Study asserts no “significant adverse effect” of shadows from the MoMA/Hines tower, that is preposterous.

The building, as originally proposed, would have been 1250 feet high. The City Planning Commission has required that the height be reduced by 200 feet to 1,050 feet. However, the proposed tower remains far too tall – indeed, as tall as the Chrysler Building, , making it one of the tallest buildings in New York City. Unlike other skyscrapers, the MoMA/Hines site is not on a wide avenue or a wide cross-town street; it is mid-block on a narrow mixed-use side street with its back on a residential street.

A §74-711 permit also required a finding that the building will relate harmoniously to the transferring landmark. Some might claim that because of the distance between the development site and the landmark, the harmoniousness standard was met.

The harmful impact the tower will have on St. Thomas Church and the surrounding area is substantial despite the distance between the tower and the landmark. It is shocking to think that a building of this size can be put up near this landmark church simply because, when standing next to the church, you cannot see the top of the tower without craning your neck. That is not the limit of the adverse impacts. The proposed Tower would dwarf the landmarked CBS Building and would loom above the eight individually landmarked historic buildings on 54tth Street.

With respect to the University Club, the zoning text is clear. There must be a preservation plan that benefits the landmark without adding burden on the community. Fifty-third Street is characterized by low-rise mixed-use development. The MoMA/Hines plan is inconsistent with and degrades this character.

Traffic and pedestrian impacts are important and relevant to the weighing of advantages and disadvantages under Section 74-711, and they should be taken into account under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City regulations implementing that statute.

A building of this magnitude will dramatically increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic. If the permits are approved, MoMA/Hines must present a substantial plan for significant mitigation for this increased traffic.

Currently, the MoMA foot patrol and line regulators cannot do enough to moderate the throng of pedestrians that clog the sidewalk, thus preventing residents from easily accessing their homes and others from using the street. With an increase in tourist traffic at MoMA, especially Friday evenings when the museum offers free admission, more queuing should take place inside the building.

The adverse impacts need not be so traumatic. The community has indicated that it would be willing to live with a tower up to the height of the CBS Building – 490 feet. This would provide the developer with much of the FAR it is seeking while also allowing significant financial benefits to flow to St. Thomas and the University Club through the transfers of a portion of their air rights. The return would be a more contextual building: still massive, but no longer overhanging and overwhelming the adjacent neighborhoods.

Not-for-profit organizations and cultural institutions are increasingly trying to make use of their air rights to build residential or commercial towers that undermine landmark, historic district, and zoning regulations. This trend is detrimental to communities and should be resisted by community boards, City agencies, and the City Council.

I urge the Council to reject the proposed 1,050 foot tower.



"It is shocking to think that a building of this size can be put up near this landmark church simply because, when standing next to the church, you cannot see the top of the tower without craning your neck. "

The horror! Has he noticed how close the GE building is to St. Patrick's.

Our politicians are idiots. How does reducing the height of the building but keeping the same floor area reduce vehicular and pedestrian traffic? It is too painful to even follow this project anymore.

[HoveringCheesecake]

Wait wait wait. Isn't that Extell tower going to be in the same area and be 1000 feet + as well? That renders most of his argument invalid.

[TonyO]

I am Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried. I represent the 75th Assembly District in Manhattan, which includes Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen, Murray Hill, and parts of the Upper West Side and Midtown, including the area where the MoMA/Hines building at 53 West 53rd Street is proposed.

Tell Assembly Member Gottfried what you think of his opinions:

GottfrR@assembly.state.ny.us

[NYatKNIGHT]

Very good, thanks, I did just that.

[scumonkey]

YES- I did as well!
I let him know what qualities he possesses that will stop
me from ever voting for him in the future;)

[Derek2k3]

Mayor Bloomberg says he plans on letting go many commissioners of certain agencies. Hopefully Amanda Birdhead is at the top of the list.

The only thing I applaud her for is the rezoning of West Chelsea around the High Line, besides that, her nitpicking has hardly brought better buildings. The rezoning of the West Side is an enormous missed opportunity that could have ensured whatever goes up there is wonderful. Now it's up to the will of developers. And has anyone seen Fourth Ave in Brooklyn. Yuck.

[scumonkey]

from Curbed:
MoMA Mia! Nouvel's 53rd Street Tower Gets City Council Nod


Wednesday, October 28, 2009, by Joey

After getting praised, panned, beaten, battered, held up as an example of what NYC should be striving to build and then ultimately decapitated by the City Planning Commission (feel like reliving this epic saga (http://curbed.com/tags/53-west-53rd-street)?), French starchitect Jean Nouvel's planned serpentine skyscraper next to the Museum of Modern Art was approved by the City Council today in a 44-3 vote. This was the last hurdle in the public land-use approval process made necessary by Tower Verre's desired zoning variances and air-rights deals. Now that the anger-tinged approval process is in the rear-view mirror, here come the bigger questions: Will the project's developer Hines actually build the 1,050' version of the West 53rd Street tower? If so, when and with whose money? Will the lot be empty for years? Will Steve Cuozzo's conspiracy theory (http://curbed.com/archives/2009/10/20/jean_nouvel_saboteur.php) come true? Can the next Bond super villain put down a deposit on the penthouse right now? The fun is just getting started in Midtown!
· All 53 West 53rd Street coverage (http://www.curbed.com/tags/53-west-53rd-street) [Curbed]

[GreenwichBoy]

Posted: Wednesday, 28 October 2009 5:04PM

82-Story MoMA Tower Approved by City Council



NEW YORK (AP/ 1010 WINS) --

The Museum of Modern Art's proposal for a new 82-story tower has cleared its final hurdle.

The New York City Council voted Wednesday to approve the plan for a 1000-foot mixed-use tower on West 53rd Street between Fifth and Sixth avenues. It was the final hurdle for the plan's approval process.

The museum already has its main exhibition space on that block.

The MoMA Web site says the museum will gain approximately 40,000 square feet of new gallery space _ a 30 percent increase.

The building plan also calls for 150 residential apartments and 100 hotel rooms.

Architect Jean Nouvel designed the tower, which tapers as it rises to a spire.

TM & Copyright 2009 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO & EYE Logo TM & Copyright 2009 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. TheAssociated Press contributed to this report.

[TREPYE]

Spendid news!!

Thank god the council did not listen to that imbecile Gottfried.

[Alonzo-ny]

Even at the shorter height this is absolutely fantastic. Lets get it built now.

[Tectonic]

This is great new for NYC architecture. Let's hope it actually gets built.

[Peteynyc1]

hahahahahahahaha @ all those NIMBY's over at http://www.no2moma.com/Home.html

[Dagrecco82]

Erased...

[scumonkey]

From the NEW YORK POST:

Win for 'high' art

MoMA 82-story tower OK'd as foes rage

By TOM TOPOUSIS and SALLY GOLDENBERG
Last Updated: 7:19 AM, October 29, 2009
Posted: 3:17 AM, October 29, 2009
The City Council put the finishing touches yesterday on the Museum of Modern Art's request to build an 82-story tower that would rise as high as the Chrysler Building, granting the project final approval -- and leaving Midtown neighbors seeing red."Nobody is against fine architecture. The problem is where it's being built," said Justin Peyser, whose West 54th Street apartment faces the tower site that sits mid-block between Fifth and Sixth avenues next to the museum. Peyser, a member of the anti-tower Coalition for Responsible Midtown Development, said the group's next step would likely be a legal challenge. The MoMA tower, designed by French architect Jean Nouvel, would rise 1,025 feet, with its main entrance on 53rd Street. It would include luxury housing, hotel rooms and more exhibit space for the museum, under a deal with the developer, Hines. First proposed at 1,250 feet -- as tall as the Empire State Building without the antenna -- the project's height was cut by the city Planning Commission last month. Despite community opposition, the tower's zoning variances sailed through the council yesterday by a vote of 44-3. "This is going to be an iconic addition to New York City's skyline, really a one-of-its-kind building," said council Speaker Chris Quinn (D), whose Manhattan district includes the tower site. Councilman Dan Garodnick (D), whose district begins on 54th Street just north of the tower, said neighbors got a bum deal."The size is what really makes it difficult for my constituents to support. If it was a smaller building with fewer years of construction it might be a different story," said Garodnick, one of the dissenting votes.Daly Reville, who lives across the street from the site, said she was mystified as to how a developer could win the right to build such an enormous tower in the middle of the block, surrounded by lower-scale buildings. "The whole idea of zoning is that the taller buildings be on avenues because they're wider and easier to access," said Reville. "I'm not sure what the brilliance is of this particular concept. A spokesman for Hines yesterday said the firm has not yet determined when the project would get under way, or how long it would take to build. The Museum of Modern Art was paid $125 million by Hines for the site. Yesterday, a spokesman said the tower would "contribute significantly to the city's architectural heritage and economy while enabling the museum to show even more of our collection to the public." tom.topousis@nypost.com

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/10/29/news/photos_stories/cropped/buildings--300x300.jpg

[Travis]

This decision leaves me very depressed. This was a one shot deal to get somethign grand and unique and now all that is gone.


Gone gone gone

Gone gone gone

Gone gone gone

Gone gone gone

gone gone

gone

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
?

[lofter1]

... somethign grand and unique ...


Since when isn't 1000' + grand?

As for unique: Where is there another building that looks anything like this one?

[scumonkey]

From the New York Post:
Panel eye on MoMA tower

By TOM TOPOUSIS
Last Updated: 5:37 AM, October 30, 2009
Posted: 3:30 AM, October 30, 2009
Jean Nouvel may be one of the world's most famous architects, but it will be the city's chief planner -- currently Amanda Burden -- who will have the final say over the design of a soaring luxury tower next to the Museum of Modern Art. The City Planning Commission is requiring that a completed design would have to be approved by the commission's chair before a building permit can be issued. The commission approved the tower with several changes, the most significant being lowering its height from a proposed 1,250 feet -- about as tall as the Empire State Building without the antenna -- to 1,050. Final approval was granted by the City Council this week. Jean Nouvel (http://www.nypost.com/t/Jean_Nouvel) may be one of the world's most famous architects, but it will be the city's chief planner -- currently Amanda Burden -- who will have the final say over the design of a soaring luxury tower next to the Museum of Modern Art (http://www.nypost.com/t/Museum_of_Modern_Art).
The City Planning Commission is requiring that a completed design would have to be approved by the commission's chair before a building permit can be issued.
The commission approved the tower with several changes, the most significant being lowering its height from a proposed 1,250 feet -- about as tall as the Empire State Building without the antenna -- to 1,050.

Final approval was granted by the City Council this week.

[Travis]

^
?

Posting when tired can be somewhat surreal.


Since when isn't 1000' + grand?

It isn't, anymore. It's just enough to get into the club. Kinda like out here in Cali where you have to have a $58,000+ car before you can even think of asking a lady out on date. Nothing may come of the relationship but you still needed that car before she would even agree to start it. So now with buildings you can be a supertall but that doesn't mean you're grand especially with the added competition out there. That extra 200' was very necessary to make this an icon for the ages and not just some barely-a-supertall novelty.


As for unique: Where is there another building that looks anything like this one?

It might be unique. Too bad it won't be visible.

[ZippyTheChimp]

It isn't, anymore. It's just enough to get into the club. Kinda like out here in Cali where you have to have a $58,000+ car before you can even think of asking a lady out on date. Nothing may come of the relationship but you still needed that car before she would even agree to start it.Interesting choice for an analogy.

Think about what sort of relationship would evolve from the criteria you set, and relate that to your criteria for an iconic building.

[hbcat]

I love this plan. Haven't been to the MoMa in years and years. Next time I am in the city, it will be on top of my list of places to visit.

[lofter1]

It might be unique. Too bad it won't be visible.


It will be very visible from many points around town and from more distant spots.

[ZippyTheChimp]

From Bayonne?

[lofter1]

I'd say YES, all the way from Bayonne -- at least based on Google Earth and this shot by Gert Jonkman (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/23789283) from the end of the pier at The Peninsula at Bayonne Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peninsula_at_Bayonne_Harbor).

[TonyO]

If you can vote in this year's election, you can vote against this Moma Tower foe:

Dan Garodnick - 4th Council District - Councilman Dan Garodnick (D), whose district begins on 54th Street just north of the tower, said neighbors got a bum deal. "The size is what really makes it difficult for my constituents to support. If it was a smaller building with fewer years of construction it might be a different story," said Garodnick, one of the dissenting votes.

http://archrecord.construction.com/yb/ar/article.aspx?story_id=137088124


Meanwhile you can vote FOR Speaker Christine Quinn - 3rd Council District - has been a positive force behind the tower. Make sure you vote for her.

“This is going to be an iconic addition to the New York City skyline, really a one-of-it’s-kind building,” said Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose district includes the planned tower.

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/city-council-oks-new-moma-tower-that-will-rival-chrysler-building-1.1555582

[meesalikeu]

""I'm not sure what the brilliance is of this particular concept."

wow, how silly. why doesnt that guy just stop lyin and say the truth, that they'll be building this tower right across the street from him and all that ruckus will be such a bother. :rolleyes:

[Stroika]

If you can vote in this year's election, you can vote against this Moma Tower foe:

Dan Garodnick - 4th Council District

Meanwhile you can vote FOR Speaker Christine Quinn - 3rd Council District

I like the idea of an architecture lobby helping sway votes based on elected politicians' stances on the built environment :D

In all seriousness, it'd be great if politics/politicians could stay out of these sorts of things as much of possible, outside of questions of zoning, e.g., since historically a heavy state hand seems to have had questionable effects. This being New York, that's obviously not possible. And since the built environment impacts directly on quality of life for all New Yorkers, sensitivity to architecture (versus positions on, e.g., "affordable housing" or megaprojects, no matter the effect such projects have on the aesthetic environment of the city at large) is a valid political question, and if Dan Garodnick is going to advocate idiotic populist positions that will cost the city beautiful, iconic buildings, he shouldn't be elected. Good thinking, TonyO.

[ZippyTheChimp]

In all seriousness, it'd be great if politics/politicians could stay out of these sorts of things as much of possible, outside of questions of zoning, e.g., since historically a heavy state hand seems to have had questionable effects.I think the problem is the other way around.

There is no codified standard for architecture in the city, except for the Arts Commission, which has control of city owned property; and the LPC which controls landmarks.

City involvement occurs when a variance is needed to break zoning rules. The city has no say in how as-of-right buildings look, as long as they meet building codes.

Take a simple thing like signage regulations (do we even have them anymore?). If the Woolworth weren't landmarked, nothing could stop a retailer from putting up a big-ass yellow vinyl sign.

[Stroika]

Don't quite see how that refutes my point. I'd say bylaws just distort behavior, forcing developers to resort to weird, mutant ideas to build what they intended to originally, but in a way that is in accordance with the bylaws. The biggest, most impactful example would be the last 40 years of crappy plazas that litter the city's streetscape, all created because zoning laws tell developers they need setbacks. Developers, rather than follow the vision of the original law and build the sort of ziggurat-style skyscrapers they did till the 50s, decided they'd make better returns by throwing out a pointless, unused bit of plaza to satisfy the setback from the street, then plow ahead with their original intention and build straight up, sans any real setbacks. The law may have been well-intentioned and even quite ingenious for inspiring a sui generis style of architecture... but like any such regulation it proved dumber than people, who were able to thwart it. Once they did, it distorted the way things were built. Imagine if there were no such law, and if all the crappy plazas were structures instead of odd-looking, empty eyesores. It'd also result in more space for living, working, commerce, etc.

If some bylaw were passed today to prettify the McSam buildings and other such fecal matter, the bottom-feeder developers like Chang would find some way around it that, like the plazas, may make things even worse off.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Your logic escapes me.

Before there was any regulation, buildings went straight up. The 1916 zoning resolution created the condition which resulted in towers with setbacks.

The crappy plazas didn't force the developers to build straight up. It helped them to do exactly what they wanted to do - go straight up. If that's not the case, how do you explain buildings in Houston that go straight up?

What do you think would have happened if nothing were done in 1916 in response to the Equitable Building; if built, what do you think the ESB would have looked like?

[Stroika]

I'm not saying developers wouldn't have built straight up without any regulation; they likely would have. My point is that the effect of the regulation was that developers were able to build straight up anyway (as they previously were) but the city was littered with awkward, pedestrian-unfriendly plazas in front of buildings set back far from the street (to be in acccordance with the regulation).

Thus, the regulation didn't result in ziggurat-esque set-backs instead of buildings that go straight up. Rather, buildings went straight up anyway, only they were often surrounded by unused plazas. You get rid of the regulation, and buildings will still go straight up, but there won't be any need for pointless plazas. And that space could be better used filled with apts, offices, shops, etc.

Point being that laws that attempt to micromanage commerce often have unintended consequences whereby the market participants get what they wanted in the first place, but with some awkward, unnecessary, inefficient or just plain unwanted side effect.

[scumonkey]

Thus, the regulation didn't result in ziggurat-esque set-backs instead of buildings that go straight up.Am I missing something here?
I thought the law was made so air and light would still be able to reach us on the ground, NOT to control what the buildings looked like ie:ziggurat-esque set-back.
Like them or not (and I don't) straight up with a"pointless plaza" fulfills that purpose.
I think the law should just be amended to stop developers from fulfilling that obligation in this particular manner.

[lofter1]

... Thus, the regulation didn't result in ziggurat-esque set-backs instead of buildings that go straight up. Rather, buildings went straight up anyway, only they were often surrounded by unused plazas.


That didn't really kick in until the 1961 zoning changes (http://www.gothamgazette.com/landuse/feb.01.shtml) went into effect.


One tool being debated is the Plaza Bonus. This carrot created in the 1961 zoning resolution was an attempt to create more "open space" in a city then seen to be rapidly losing such space. The bonus essentially allowed developers that preserved public space at the ground level to build their building with more bulk (i.e. height) than zoning would ordinarily allow. The bonus ran up to 18 percent depending on circumstance. This bonus was part of the "tower in the park" philosophy that was prevalent among planners of that era.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'm not saying developers wouldn't have built straight up without any regulation; they likely would have. My point is that the effect of the regulation was that developers were able to build straight up anyway (as they previously were) but the city was littered with awkward, pedestrian-unfriendly plazas in front of buildings set back far from the street (to be in acccordance with the regulation).But that's exactly why I said that this...


In all seriousness, it'd be great if politics/politicians could stay out of these sorts of things as much of possible, outside of questions of zoning, e.g., since historically a heavy state hand seems to have had questionable effects....is backwards.

It's a matter of opinion if shorter, fatter boxes is preferable to what was ultimately built. Plaza bonuses weren't instituted for the same reason as the 1916 regulation; they were done to spur commercial development in Manhattan at the time when the city was in decline. And the stock of plazas are a mixed bag.

Zoning is strictly about the mechanics of the city - density, light, utilities, transportation, land-use. It has nothing at all to do with architecture.

Some cities are starting to realize the problem. (http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3978)

[gundam00]

Is the only thing standing in this tower's way financing?, or is there more approval necessary?

[CitiesfromSpace]

No more approval, now just working out the market timing and finishing up the construction loans. Last we heard the loans looked like they were on track, right?

[BrooklynLove]

I don't recall seeing anywhere that this project had financing. In fact I think I read somewhere that the developer hasn't even looked into it yet.

[londonlawyer]

http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/33...illion-on-air/

MoMA Spends $14.5 Million on Air

January 27, 2010

NEW YORK—Even for the richly endowed Museum of Modern Art, $14.5 million is a lot of money. However, in order facilitate the building of a tower on an adjacent property by the Hines development company, that is the amount it will pay the University Club in order to acquire the air rights for the space, blogger Lindsay Pollock reports. In addition, it is helped along by $125 million it received from Hines in exchange for the property and the right to complete the project.

According to a letter from University Club president George E. Pine to the club’s members, the museum paid about $11 million to the club in December. A second payment, totaling $3.6 million, will be paid to finance capital improvements to the club’s historic building.

McKim, Mead, and White, the firm responsible for the Brooklyn Museum, the original Morgan Library, and the master plan of Columbia University’s Morningside Heights campus, designed the University Club. It was completed in 1899 and will undergo extensive repairs and refurbishment using the money provided by MoMA.

Pollock also points out that the stunning $14.5 million sum is equal to a $20 admission charge for 725,000 visitors to the museum. It’s also almost enough to buy a choice Giacometti sculpture, though the museum already has plenty in its collection.


http://lindsaypollock.com/news/moma-...or-air-rights/

MoMA Forks Over $14.5m For Air Rights



Lindsay Pollock

New York’s Museum of Modern Art is enriching its neighbor, the starchy University Club, to the tune of $14.5 million for 136,000 square feet in air rights, as part of a development deal to build a new glassy Jean Nouvel condo and hotel on West 53rd Street. This equals a $20 admission charge from 725,000 museum visitors.

MoMA paid out $11 million in December, 2009, according to a Jan. 15 letter sent to University Club members from the club’s president, George E. Pine. The remaining $3.625 million is earmarked for the club’s capital projects, required by NYC’s Landmarks Preservation Commission. Funds will be used to repair roofs, replace windows and restore the interior marble steps, among other projects.

The palazzo-like University Club is located on West 54th Street, one block north of MoMA. The 1899 building, designed by McKim Mead and White, is landmarked.

The 75-story tower is being developed by the Houston-based Hines, who purchased an empty lot from MoMA for $125 million. The project has met with opposition from area residents and others over the proposed height.

The lofty design also requires 275,000 square feet in air rights from the neo-Gothic Saint Thomas Church on Fifth Avenue.

[londonlawyer]

These people are nuts.

Jean Nouvel's MoMA Tower Hit With Legal Challenge
Thursday, March 11, 2010, by Sara

Angry Midtowners never break a promise, so Jean Nouvel's planned MoMA tower now has a legal challenge to go along with its approval by the City Planning Commission. Blog CultureGrrl, no particular fan of the project, offers a rundown on the petition. The arguments against Nouvel's Tower Verre: problems with the environmental impact statement (which ignores how the tower will affect nearby buildings), and an illegal transfer of development rights from St. Thomas Church to the 53 West 53rd Street lot. Plus there's the fact that, the petition argues, "this expansion will not result in one additional visitor to the Museum." Ouch! But really, given the long odds on the actual construction of this thing, is the legal wrangling necessary? Can't we all go see some wacky Tim Burton drawings together and be friends?

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2010/03/11/jean_nouvels_moma_tower_hit_with_legal_challenge.p hp

[MidtownGuy]

what a pisser...these people are unbelievable!!

[TREPYE]

Selfish A--holes!

[Tectonic]

How about they go volunteer some time cleaning the park instead of this. They obviously have too much free time. :mad:

[londonlawyer]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aQMf6szWNbl0

Jean Nouvel Builds Insect Eye Condo, Abu Dhabi Louvre

by James S. Russell
March 23, 2010



Nouvel doesn’t stay put much, these days, though the changing economy reduced his atelier.

“We were around 200 people a year ago. Now we are 100.” He’ll follow his muse, he says, but with smaller budgets and more emphasis on the environment.

... He’s reworking a 75-story tower proposal in New York next to the Museum of Modern Art. It’s the bottom that’s too beefy, but New York City’s Planning Commission demanded that he lop 200 feet off the top.

“It’s too early to talk about it,” he says, curtly.

Meanwhile, the Arab world has been very good to Nouvel....

[londonlawyer]

It seems that Novel is at least still on board. I hope that the skanky t.wat Amanda Burden is happy. I'm outraged at her. It's absurd that she's dictating architecture to a master.


http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2010/03/nouvel_on_the_hinesmoma_tower.html

Nouvel on the Redesigned MoMA/Hines Tower: "More Like a Skyscraper"

Architect Jean Nouvel at press lunch for planned National Museum of Qatar, held yesterday at Museum of Modern Art

Although I was preempted by the NY Time's Nicolai Ouroussoff from reporting on the plans for the National Museum of Qatar, I did elicit some new information from the architect, Jean Nouvel, about his project just next door to the Museum of Modern Art, where the Qatar press lunch was held.

Nouvel told me that he's still working on his redesign of the MoMA/Hines tower, necessitated by the city's requirement that he lop off 200 feet (making it, at 1,050 feet, Chrysler Building-height, down from the Empire State Building height of the original design). He reconfirmed what I've previously reported---that only the height will shrink, not the square footage:


We have to stay with the same volume. But the proportions will not be the same. It will be shorter. It will not be like a spire. It will be more like a skyscraper.

In other words, the City Council's action did nothing to ramp down the building's excessive density in this midblock, partly residential location. It only reined in the excessive height and (along with it) the architectural interest.

At the City Planning Commission's hearings on the project, the architect had proudly described the tapering at the top of the tower in his original design and stated that "it's very important to have this needle at the end and this immateriality at the end." At one point, Nouvel had even suggested to me that he might drop out of the project if the city insisted on the 200-foot height reduction.

Yesterday he told me that he didn't know how long his redesign would take, nor when the tower's construction would begin. He noted that the latter would depend, in part, upon financial conditions (also, presumably, upon resolving the new court challenge by neighborhood residents). When I asked if it would be months or years before groundbreaking took place, he replied, "Not months."

Seeing him seated with Nouvel at yesterday's lunch, I also asked David Penick, the managing partner of this project for the developer, Hines, about the current status of the 53rd Street glass-and-steel, mixed-use tower (which would contain space for MoMA's next expansion). Penick declined to comment.

And in other Nouvel news, Business Intelligence Middle East yesterday reported:


Abu Dhabi's Tourism Development & Investment Company (TDIC) said on Tuesday it has launched the main tender competition [a request for contractors' bids, I presume] for building a branch of the Louvre museum on its flagship development Saadiyat Island.


"The main contract works, the dome, mechanical, electrical, is tendered today," Felix Reinberg, director of projects delivery at TDIC's museum division, told reporters on the sidelines of a tour of the island.

Reinberg said the tendering process would close in June.

Nouvel is the architect for the Louvre Abu Dhabi, which, he said, is now under construction. It is scheduled to open in September 2013.