Con Ed site on the East River [Archive] - Page 2

pianoman11686

June 25th, 2005, 07:14 PM

HAHA! That was the most ludicrous thing I have ever seen posted. Please tell me that was a joke, how you could have read the post and thought that I confused goldman Sachs with Saks Fifth avenue. Firstly there are in two different parts of manhattan, secondly one is a clothing store and one is an investment banking firm, thirdly, if you read what i wrote, how could you even think that? Shoot yourself.
Just incase there was possible confusing areas in my post, i reread it and eventhough it still makes sense, I edited it to make it more clear....I still don't know where you pulled that one from.
Just to powerphrase my post: What i was saying, i wasn't aware of the example of when the proposed Goldman Sachs tower was opposed by American Eagle. Also that that type of thing happens, and i gave an example, and offered a second view on it.
Did you even fully read what was written?--I hope you didn't if that was what you gathered from it.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a joke. And while I don't mind correcting people sometimes, as I understand mistakes can be made, I don't appreciate being insulted and told to "shoot myself" for pointing it out. You don't have to tell me the difference between Goldman Sachs and Saks Fifth Avenue, as I explained the difference in my original response. It seems now that you're trying to cover your tracks, but in doing so, you've managed to create an even more nonsensical post. Firstly, I believe the word is "paraphrase", not powerphrase. Secondly, you've stated that American Eagle, a clothing company, opposed the Goldman Sachs tower. Because of your awkward wording, I originally thought that you were describing Goldman Sachs as the clothing company, but apparently you were describing American Express (which you conveniently happened to change to American Eagle this time). Let me point out that American Eagle is not located in the world financial center. Rather, American Express - the Fortune 100 firm that has a credit card division, travel services, insurance, and all other kinds of financial services - has its own building in the world financial center. Thus, not only did you state your original post very awkwardly, but didn't realize the inherent absurdity in saying a clothing store would object to a new highrise tower.
I was trying to do you a favor in enlightening you about the difference between Goldman Sachs and Saks Fifth Avenue. You've turned it around against me by pointing out my apparent stupidity. But now it seems you've made an even more improbable error in associating a different, singular clothing store with a corporate giant that has its own tower. Congratulations, you've managed to outdo yourself.

sfenn1117

June 25th, 2005, 11:05 PM

BrooklynRider

June 26th, 2005, 01:45 AM

This is a development that has been in the works for a long time, its not new. The towers planned have been virtually the same size along the way. The zoning is there, particularly for the office tower.

I think do hope designs are released for this project in advance of further WTC design, if for no other reason that to show that less chiefs mean better leadership and clearer vision.

Given the time this is under development, it has been especially effective in minimizing info leaks. The mystery of this project is much more intriguing than the anti-climaticism of the WTC.

pianoman11686

June 26th, 2005, 02:13 AM

this thread goes back to 12/02! Here we are 3 years later, any idea when the renderings come out, and when the power plant is demolished? I always hated seeing that power plant on the way to Grand Central to see my family in CT. And hopefully soon it will be replaced by [hopefully] awesome 79+ story towers.

Maybe the Pfizer building will start being built before the power plant comes down. I'm very excited about that, 80 story office building must be a 1,000 footer!

As far as I know Pfizer abandoned the plan for a new office building and just consolidated everyone into 5 buildings surrounding the headquarters at 235 E 42nd. The plan for the site still calls for an 85 story building though, so even if it gets scaled back somewhat, it will probably still be of significant height.

NYguy

June 26th, 2005, 03:42 AM

NYGuy, where did you get those satellite images? Or are they from a helicopter looking straight down?

Those photos are from the NEW YORK PHOTO ATLAS, a must have for NY lovers. The images were put together in 2004 I believe. But every block in the city is photographed, along with a few surrounding areas.

I got my copy from Coliseum Books (42nd st) a few months ago, 30% off...

NYguy

June 26th, 2005, 04:15 AM

So they are real satellite images in it? I was looking at it online a few days ago.

Here's what it says in the book:

Tristam Cary
Managing Director, Getmapping plc
April 2004

We are all familiar with aerial photographs of well-known places, usually taken obliquely from a particular angle and direction to show off a famous landmark to its best effect. This atlas is quite different in concept - it uses vertical aerial photography to create a photographic map of the five boroughts of New York City. This treatment lets you see the city as it really is, not flattering any particular aspect, but revealing each area in its true proportions and each building in its proper place. It is extraordinary how the photography brings the city alive. An ordinary map tells you how to find your way to a place, but it gives you no concept of what the place will look like when you get there. By contrast, this atlas gives you a bird's-eye view of New York as it really is.

Aerial photography is interesting because it shows a familiar environment from an unfamiliar perspective, forcing you, the viewwer, to interpret the scene anew. From these photographs you will notice patterns that are invisible from the ground, discover surprising links between unconnected areas, find large areas of greenery you never knew existed, and explore new neighborhoods.

Getmapping was founded in 1998 to make a complete and map-accurate photograph, known as the Millennium Map, of the whole of England. In 2000, HarperCollins published LONDON: THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS, which proved to be such a success thtat a second edition has already been published to reflect the rapid development of the city. The New York Atlas, as the first companion volume to be published outside Britain, is a real landmark, but we expect toextend the catalog to cover many other major cities over the next few years.

Keystone Aerial Surveys Inc. took the photography for NEW YORK: THE PHOTOS ATLAS in the summer of 2003 using a large-format survey camera flown at 5,500 feet in a specialist survey airplane. The camera uses conventional 9-inch film...

NYguy

June 26th, 2005, 04:22 AM

Oh, Im buying that tomorrow. I was wondering why it took you so long to respond. Thanks for taking the time.

It's my favorite NY book.

NewYorkYankee

June 26th, 2005, 03:18 PM

Thats cool that it shows all five boroughs. Ill have to pick this up when I get to NY. Perhaps there is a website anyone?

alex ballard

June 26th, 2005, 03:26 PM

How big will the footprint for the 85 story tower be? if it's like 40,000 ft per floor, then that's over 3 million sq ft.

Do you think it will all get rented?

Is there a second office tower planned? How about twin 80 story buidlings? That would be cool.

NewYorkYankee

June 26th, 2005, 06:56 PM

Why thank you Law and Order!

Deimos

June 26th, 2005, 07:21 PM

Johnnyboy

June 27th, 2005, 09:48 AM

Im somewhat confused. Can anyone please tell me if or what parts of this project is getting build and can someone please post renderings.

NYguy

June 27th, 2005, 09:55 AM

NYguy

June 27th, 2005, 09:59 AM

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45269539/medium.jpg

A few shots from the area of development (June 26, 2005). At least two of the sites have been cleared for a while now, with a third one basically a parking lot (below). If there is a tower at this site, that may mean one tower on the site of the actual plant itself...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45367540/large.jpg

And the site of the potential 85-story (we hope) office tower...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45367568/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45367595/large.jpg

hey19932

June 27th, 2005, 01:49 PM

when will the con ed plant be demolished?

Kolbster

June 27th, 2005, 06:19 PM

Unfortunately, it wasn't a joke. And while I don't mind correcting people sometimes, as I understand mistakes can be made, I don't appreciate being insulted and told to "shoot myself" for pointing it out. You don't have to tell me the difference between Goldman Sachs and Saks Fifth Avenue, as I explained the difference in my original response. It seems now that you're trying to cover your tracks, but in doing so, you've managed to create an even more nonsensical post. Firstly, I believe the word is "paraphrase", not powerphrase. Secondly, you've stated that American Eagle, a clothing company, opposed the Goldman Sachs tower. Because of your awkward wording, I originally thought that you were describing Goldman Sachs as the clothing company, but apparently you were describing American Express (which you conveniently happened to change to American Eagle this time). Let me point out that American Eagle is not located in the world financial center. Rather, American Express - the Fortune 100 firm that has a credit card division, travel services, insurance, and all other kinds of financial services - has its own building in the world financial center. Thus, not only did you state your original post very awkwardly, but didn't realize the inherent absurdity in saying a clothing store would object to a new highrise tower.
I was trying to do you a favor in enlightening you about the difference between Goldman Sachs and Saks Fifth Avenue. You've turned it around against me by pointing out my apparent stupidity. But now it seems you've made an even more improbable error in associating a different, singular clothing store with a corporate giant that has its own tower. Congratulations, you've managed to outdo yourself.

In retortion solely to your last post on this matter.

If you are going to go around correcting people on mispelled words all over the forum, good look with that and first make sure that all of you posts are with out flaw.
when i corrected my first post so that it could be understood by forum more easily, i didn't change american my words from American express to American Eagle, you must have misread.
In my initial post, i didn't even elude to the possibility of Goldman Sach's being the clothing store, i actually quoted a previous post and stated that eventhough i wasn't aware of that specific example, and i credited them saying that this type of thing has and can happen.

Also, If in your "correction", you were trying to enlighten my "mistake", i don't know what your idea of critism is. In your highlighting an "apparent flaw" in my post, you sucessfully made me seem like a dumb ass on the forum...over some mistake that wasn't even there.
And please, do not try to claim your innocense in all of this. I was not mixing up a corporate giant with a clothing store, in any moment of my post; not before my initial rewording, nor after. And by you saying that i did such a thing, i believe that you have out done yourself.

On a broader theme and a different note.

I fully admit that my post was too harsh and vindictive. There were a lot of things that i included that shouldnt have been posted. It is a simple mistake and we are blowing it up into something which doesn't deserve this much credit. I was wrong to have said the things that i hd said...i should have thought about it and tried to seen the reason for your post, instead i posted a rather mean post. Again that was my fault. I will reiterate what i said in the Pinnacle thread, i am willing to burry this if you are too.

pianoman11686

June 27th, 2005, 06:39 PM

Kolbster: I don't view it as my job to go around correcting people's spelling errors on this forum. It is a place for informal discussion, and typos will be made. There's at least one typo in almost every post I read, mine not excluded. It's not something that bothers me or that I feel must be corrected. That wasn't my intention in "correcting" you the first time and second time in this thread. The only reason I did so was because your posts discussed a "clothing store" and I couldn't think of a reasonable connection between that and a dispute between American Express and Goldman Sachs, which as we both know are two corporate giants, and as far as I know, the only players that were involved in this particular dispute. I was only trying to give you advice on how to make your posts easier for people to read and understand, because, as you can clearly see, I had trouble with them. I hereby retract my previous statements which suggested that you made the unlikely mistake of confusing either of the two financial companies with a clothing store, because now I realize how absurd that sounds. I simply felt, at the time, that I should let you know the truth so that you wouldn't keep misassociating one with the other.
All that being said, apology accepted. Let's do the right thing in putting this silly discussion behind us and focus on the real issues at heart in this forum.

GLNY

June 27th, 2005, 07:32 PM

One thing to remember is that the community is livid about the loss of the Robert Moses park, and wants to have that parking lot on the west side of 1st ave between 39th and 40th turned into a replacement park. Having a massive tower on that site will hurt the Tudor City neighborhood, as it will block all sunlight into the quaint little parks, however the rest of the plots of land shouldn't impact all that many people. The only unfortunate matter is that 5 Tudor City is the only Tudor City building that has east facing apartments, so the 708 First Ave building will impact some people.

Now that the previous conflict has been resolved, it's time to start anew.

Deimos, you are correct re the pressure to turn the plot on the west side of 1st Avenue into a park, and this may be a viable solution if FARs are increased along the FDR. However, can you please clarify your assertion - or perhaps, opinion - on the issue of shadows? At what time of year will a tower on this site cast a shadow to the northwest, i.e. into Tudor City Park (quaint) or the playgrounds along 42nd Street (not so quaint)? I can't recall seeing the sun rising from or setting into the SE.

In any case, TC Park is bathed in shade virtually all day from the surrounding ring of mid-rise structures, coupled with mature trees supporting unimaginable numbers of squirrels.

NYguy

June 27th, 2005, 08:26 PM

Deimos, you are correct re the pressure to turn the plot on the west side of 1st Avenue into a park, and this may be a viable solution if FARs are increased along the FDR.

I don't see how. Most of the buildings in that area have their own personal park space anyway. Turning that small piece of property into a park won't help as far as that goes. I'm guessing the Con Ed development will feature park space as part of the overall plan.

hey19932

June 27th, 2005, 08:28 PM

when will the con ed plant be demolished??? :confused:

GLNY

June 27th, 2005, 08:54 PM

I don't see how. Most of the buildings in that area have their own personal park space anyway. Turning that small piece of property into a park won't help as far as that goes. I'm guessing the Con Ed development will feature park space as part of the overall plan.

Re FARs, I believe the lots west and east of 1st Avenue can trade air rights as one contiguous parcel. The east side clearly contains more prominent development sites, and preliminary designs have pushed these towers close to 1st Avenue to open up green space along the river (actually, the FDR). The CB has focused on the west parcel, possibly because a) it's more integrated into the neighborhood; b) it could compensate for any future loss of the similarly-sized Robert Moses Park, and c) the (slight) possibility of eliminating a Con-Ed substation occupying the remainder of this block to create a more substantial park. Paradoxically, the shadows generated by the Con Ed site towers would exert their greatest impact on this area.

On a comic note, the community’s self-appointed advocates are leafleting neighboring buildings - including the Corinthian (58 stories) and Horizon (44 stories) - to find high-rise denizens opposed to tall(er) structures. Not sure if anyone will fall for such hypocrisy.

Hey19932: Demolition is underway, with a cleared site at 41st and 1st, and work continuing on the rear of the plant between 38th-39th Street. Scaffolding encloses most of the remaining structure.

hey19932

June 27th, 2005, 08:59 PM

thank you so much GLNY! :)

June 27th, 2005, 09:17 PM

>>

On a comic note, the community’s self-appointed advocates are leafleting neighboring buildings - including the Corinthian (58 stories) and Horizon (44 stories) - to find high-rise denizens opposed to tall(er) structures. Not sure if anyone will fall for such hypocrisy.

<<

Don't be too sure the NIMBY's won't find plenty of like-minded company in those high-rises, GLNY. If I were on the fifty-fifth floor of the Corinthian looking east over the river, I'd probably sign a petition to make all of those empty lots into parks myself. When it comes to nearby towers, the average resident likes his nabe frozen in time...to the precise moment that he or she moved in.

tmg

June 28th, 2005, 12:00 AM

when will the con ed plant be demolished??? :confused:

Hopefully, the plant won't be completely demolished. I'd love to see the facade incorporated into one of the new buildings. This area has a long industrial history, and the Con Ed plant is just about the only remnant of that.

NoyokA

June 28th, 2005, 12:11 AM

The following are the NIMBY's demands:

1. We want sensible development in our community but not the high density that is proposed by the DGEIS.

2. We want as much park space as possible. We are especially concerned about this in view of the recent New York Times article that appeared on September 20th. It discussed the United Nations' plan for building a 35 story, 800,000 square feet, office building on a 1.3-acre asphalt active park. This park is located at 41st Street on the east side of First Avenue ands is called the Robert Moses Park. Obviously, the loss of this park would further reduce park area in our community. Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff suggested that the city construct an esplanade and bike path along the East River to compensate for the loss of the Robert Mosses Park. MECA finds this suggestion unacceptable for two very important reasons:
a. First, the esplanade is not an active park.
b. Second, the esplanade has always been part of the city's master plan going back during Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger's days. Therefore, the esplanade would not give the community a true replacement for the Robert Moses Park.

We suggest that PSC, as a condition of sale of the Con Edison Properties, insist that the 685 First Avenue property be giving to the community to be used as an active park. By so doing, would solve a number of problems:
a. It would drastically reduce the shadow impact on the land marked Tudor City Parks.
b. It would create a much-needed open space, air and light for the many buildings near the 685 First Avenue property.
c. It would show special respect for the land marked and historic Tudor City Buildings.
d. It would replace the loss of the active Robert Moses Park that the UN wants for a 35-story office building.

3. We would like to see a platform constructed above the FDR Drive that would create a beautiful park on it, similar to the one that is being promoted by the Municipal Art Society of New York.

4. We do not want to see a tall building on 38th street so close to the FDR Drive. We want to see more park space between the building and FDR Drive. A tall builds on 38th street would have a great adverse impact on many residences of the Horizon and the Corinthian.

5. We want 39th and 40th streets, between First Avenue and the FDR Drive remapped, not merely reopened.

6. We want to see local retail shop and a supermarket that will serve the needs of the community.

7. We do not wish to retain the old, contaminated, industrial-looking Waterside plant buildings, but would rather see new buildings that are sensible in density and that allow for open space, light and sightlines around them.

pianoman11686

June 28th, 2005, 12:57 AM

That's quite a long wish list.

Deimos

June 28th, 2005, 01:22 AM

Now that the previous conflict has been resolved, it's time to start anew.

Deimos, you are correct re the pressure to turn the plot on the west side of 1st Avenue into a park, and this may be a viable solution if FARs are increased along the FDR. However, can you please clarify your assertion - or perhaps, opinion - on the issue of shadows? At what time of year will a tower on this site cast a shadow to the northwest, i.e. into Tudor City Park (quaint) or the playgrounds along 42nd Street (not so quaint)? I can't recall seeing the sun rising from or setting into the SE.

In any case, TC Park is bathed in shade virtually all day from the surrounding ring of mid-rise structures, coupled with mature trees supporting unimaginable numbers of squirrels.

Mid afternoon in the fall/spring is when I would expect a 70ish storey building's shadow to impact the south park in tudor city. That lot is pretty big, and it extends to 2 tudor city place (if my memory serves me correctly) so any building will be visible from the park. I'm not sure what the height will look like next to 5TCP however. If from the park it won't look any taller than windsor tower, then it shouldn't be all that bad.

However I do feel that the issue is more or less moot, as utilizing that space as parkland to replace robert moses (and perhaps actually making a park that is more than an asphalt jungle) would be the best of all worlds for the area. A place for kids to blow off some steam is always a good thing... one of the aspects of tudor city that I fell in love with back when i lived there is how kids were playing in the street in the cul-de-sac (if you can call it that) south of 41st street on tudor city place. However, if those kids had a real park to go to, it would be even better! Of course the transfer of that parkland should also transfer the air rights to the rest of the project to help make the new buildings even grander.

On a side note (and i really hope this doesn't add any fuel to other fires), I never found the view eastward all that special... long island city isn't quite the same as viewing over the hudson to midtown from jersey. A modern landmark building could actuallly help the residents of the corinthian et al with their views. Does someone in 45 tudor city place complain that a big needle looking building blocks their view westward? Of course not, that big needle actually raises their land values even though it's a newer building... oh by the way, I'm talking about the chrysler building.

Deimos

June 28th, 2005, 01:29 AM

1. We want sensible development in our community but not the high density that is proposed by the DGEIS.

sensible |?sens?b?l|
adjective
(of a statement or course of action) chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit

the question is, who is to benefit? The city sure could use the extra taxes from a higher density development.

alex ballard

June 28th, 2005, 07:33 AM

NIMBY's 1, Progress 0

So, are they gonna put swings in the new park? Weeeeeeeee:D

Kolbster

June 28th, 2005, 10:28 AM

czsz

June 29th, 2005, 10:26 PM

As long as spelling is in the docket, may I say it annoys the piss out of me when people spell the word "Manhatten" with impunity?

macreator

June 29th, 2005, 10:40 PM

Went by the Con Ed site today, looks like the front facade of the plant is being dismantled.

hey19932

June 30th, 2005, 11:04 AM

YAY! i hate that plant!

Deimos

June 30th, 2005, 07:51 PM

Went by the Con Ed site today, looks like the front facade of the plant is being dismantled.

Man do i wish i was still in my old apartment to watch this happening live!

nycgq

July 3rd, 2005, 12:14 PM

How will this development affect existing Condominium sites? Is it better to sell for example a condominium now in either the Horizon or the Corinthian, or wait until the plant is dismantled and something new is built. Will the Con Ed and 36th and 1st ave development positively or adversely affect real estate prices of existing apartments and condos.

Gulcrapek

July 3rd, 2005, 08:05 PM

Passed the site today, there's some equipment there, I don't know exactly what, kinda looked like a truck-mounted mini-mini-crane.

sfenn1117

July 8th, 2005, 11:59 PM

I was reading at SSC and I saw that Madrid has a project called the Arena Towers, 4 towers of about 800 feet. The awesome thing is that each building is completely different, designed by a different architect, including Foster and Pelli. Each is almost futuristic and awesome for the city of Madrid.

I REALLY hope something similar happens at this site. I don't want 4 identical buildings, no matter how nice they look. Give each one it's own style, it's own height, it's own identity.

And do that with the other 4 towers at the WTC site too.

Is it too much to ask for? Unfortunately in this city it might be. :(

NYguy

July 10th, 2005, 06:04 PM

Just a reminder if anyone's interested in attending.... i'm not sure if i can make it anymore, so hopefully someone can definitely be there to report back on what's said

EAST MIDTOWN COALITION FOR SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Some relevant news...

Sunday, July 10, 2005
News from MECA (Midtown East Community Association)
May-9-2005

On March 14, 2005, East Midtown Coalition for Sensible Development (EMCSD) had its annual membership meeting. At this time a new member of the EMCSD Board of Directors, Sherri Plotkin, was elected. She is an attorney and will be a great asset to the Board. The rest of the EMCSD Board members were reelected. They are Edan Unterman, President; Ellen Imbimbo, Vice President; Fred Arcaro, Treasurer; Charles Buchwald, Secretary; David Lowenherz, Fund Raising; and George Brown.

MECA Updates

We donated $2,000 to EMCSD as our support to this organization continues.

The cleanup of the 685 and 616 Con Edison site is complete.

As for the old power plant, Con Edison has started to remove some asbestos associated with the high voltage lines and transformers. The high voltage lines are being rerouted in preparation of the closing of the plant, which should be completed by the end of the year (subject to the approval of New York State Public Service Commission).
As for the steam tunnel, operational testing is still being conducted. Full steam capacity has been injected into the new steam line successfully without major problems. As for the 14th Street Repowering Plant project, it is on schedule and is expected to be completed this summer. When PSC certifies that the Repowering Plant Project meets all of its requirements and regulations, it will also determine that the Waterside Plant would not be needed.

Con Edison will be submitting plans for the demolition of the Waterside Power Plant in May to Community Board Six’s Public Safety, Environmental and Human Rights Committee, which I chair, as to the method of demolition and removal of all contaminates from the site.

There is nothing new to report about the Third Water Tunnel 32B Shaft located at St. Vartan Park (35th Street and Second Avenue).
Robert Moses Park update: Community Board Six has passed a resolution urging the State legislature to enact pending legislation that will force the United Nation Development Corporation to subject its project to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. Without such legislation, UNDC would be exempt from ULURP, which denies public review of the United Nation Project. The United Nation Development Corporation has picked an urban designer and engineer to design its East River Walk Extension, which will serve to replace the loss of Robert Moses Park and to mitigate for the building of a 950,000 square foot, 35-story United Nation building in the site. UNDC has yet to submit final plans.

eblackmouth

July 10th, 2005, 06:26 PM

Here is a picture of the site from my apartment. It seems like little is happening. There goes the view!

macreator

July 10th, 2005, 11:01 PM

So the UN project is on again or still off?

Very confusing.

Pottebaum

July 16th, 2005, 09:06 PM

I hate to play the dumb one, again, but what's all happening on this site? Which buildings are in question? The 85 story one, or all four?

PHLguy

July 26th, 2005, 04:06 AM

all 4 I think. one can only dream of 79 story apt's in midtown, let alone an 85 story OFFICE tower!

That would be too cool, just don't get your hopes up. The only city that would ever have a chance in is chicago.

Johnnyboy

July 27th, 2005, 10:46 PM

keep your hopes up and fingers crossed

PHLguy

July 27th, 2005, 10:54 PM

Something will go there, it's land in manhattan but I think we all have doubts about anything being over 1000 feet, plus it will take a while.

PHLguy

July 28th, 2005, 04:08 AM

The UN tower will go there I think, That should be 500 feet.

BrooklynRider

July 28th, 2005, 11:21 AM

As much as you are excited and pushing for height, I'd prefer to see some stonishing architecture - even if height must be sacrificed. Either way, all we can do is wait (patiently) to see what height and designs will be presented.

PHLguy

July 28th, 2005, 04:57 PM

Oh me too, I don't see why everyone thinks I'm a height freak, I like tall buildngs but I care more about looks indeed, I'll take Hearst tower over some grey 800 foot box anyday.

elfgam

July 28th, 2005, 07:48 PM

It's just a shame that Chicago is still talking about adding serious skyscrapers to the skyline and in New York we're afraid of anything even close to a 1000 feet.

PHLguy

July 28th, 2005, 11:07 PM

I said that once before I just got jumped on by some nameless people who seem to take alot of posts the wrong way. :rolleyes:

NoyokA

July 28th, 2005, 11:54 PM

Probably because you posted it in the WTC Memorial Thread or something along those lines....

Oh me too, I don't see why everyone thinks I'm a height freak, I like tall buildngs but I care more about looks indeed, I'll take Hearst tower over some grey 800 foot box anyday.

Nice to hear that you've been enlightened although none of us have witnessed it, I would like to see some architectural commentary but thus far nothing has strayed from your fanatical spam that we (NYC) don’t build tall enough. Yawn.

pianoman11686

July 29th, 2005, 12:22 AM

The UN tower will go there I think, That should be 500 feet.

The plan to build a new UN Tower in Robert Moses Park was vetoed a long time ago, hence the UN's frantic search for office space in Midtown and Brooklyn recently. There was never a plan to build the UN Tower on the Con Ed site.

kliq6

July 29th, 2005, 12:01 PM

yes the Moses site is dead, they will rent space, maybe in manhattan or in a new building inBrooklyn and then when done move back to that old relict on the river

macreator

August 20th, 2005, 11:59 PM

In tomorrow's Times:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article3/nyt_logo_sm.gif
August 21, 2005
Developers Find Newest Frontier on the East Side

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Lower Manhattan and the West Side may have occupied the headlines for the last few years as New York City has plotted the direction of its growth. But it is the East Side riverfront of Manhattan that may be about to undergo the city's most imminent transformation.

Developers are now moving forward with three large projects on the far East Side between 42nd and 23rd Streets, demolishing the last vestiges of the area's industrial past to make way for one of the city's tallest residential buildings and several large office towers and bioscience buildings. As many as 4,000 new apartments would house at least 8,000 residents in the area.

A series of related projects would also reweave the neighborhood's fabric, eliminating the 42nd Street ramp to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive in favor of a pedestrian bridge over the highway that would provide public access to the waterfront. The city also plans to fill in the missing links in the grassy esplanade that runs along the East River.

Long ago, the area's breweries, slaughterhouses, coal yards and warehouses began yielding ground to the United Nations and other residential and commercial buildings. But the latest round of projects represent the biggest development surge on the far East Side since the early 1980's, according to architects, real estate lawyers and neighborhood planners.

The projects include a 35-story office building for the United Nations on First Avenue between 41st and 42nd Streets and a $700 million medical research center called East River Science Park, which would be built on 4.5 acres along First Avenue, between 28th and 29th Streets.

Perhaps the most significant project lies in between those two and involves one of Manhattan's largest swaths of undeveloped land, 9.2 acres south of the United Nations, where Con Edison's 105-year-old Waterside Steam Plant is scheduled for demolition. There has been little information released publicly about plans for the site up to now.

According to lawyers and architects working on the project, Sheldon H. Solow, the developer who bought the property from Con Edison for $600 million last year, plans to build a commercial tower and an apartment building south of 41st Street, each of which would rival the height of Trump World Tower, the city's tallest residential tower.

Mr. Solow's residential tower is being designed by Richard Meier, the architect whose glass-and-steel towers in the West Village have attracted public attention and celebrity tenants. David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is designing the commercial tower, which may include apartments and a rooftop restaurant.

Mr. Solow is also proposing three other residential towers east of First Avenue and a roughly two-acre public park between 39th and 40th Streets that would offer unobstructed views of the East River and Queens. The developer plans to unveil his proposal after Labor Day and to begin the city's seven-month land-use review process later this year, or in early 2006.

"If we weren't doing ground zero and the West Side yards," Mr. Childs said, "this would be called the project of a century. There will be real questions about height and density and shadows and all those things that communities worry about. But it's too important a piece of property not to do it right. We want to do a superb project with really outstanding architecture."

Some neighborhood groups and members of Community Board 6, whose district embraces the far East Side, are wary of the project's scale, the proposed height of the buildings and plans for a commercial tower in what is now a residential neighborhood. They complained that they have not been able to get much information up until now.

"We supported East River Science Park," said Edward Rubin, chairman of the community board's land-use committee. "We supported the United Nations tower. We're not an anti-development board. But we do want planning input. We don't look kindly on commercial, nor on buildings taller than the U.N. Secretariat."

Mr. Rubin said he and other members of the community board met on Thursday with Mr. Solow's development team and city planning officials to schedule a series of meetings.

The Con Ed property is actually three parcels, the largest stretching from 38th Street to 41st Street, east of First Avenue. Demolition of the generating stations, where Mr. Solow has plans for three residential towers, a commercial building and the park, has already begun. At this time, the plan is to construct the tallest building on the west side of First, between 39th and 40th Streets. All told, the developer is planning five million square feet of buildings with about 4,000 apartments.

Mr. Childs said that work is not as far along on the third parcel, which sits on the east side of First, between 35th and 36th Streets. That project could include a variety of uses, a school and housing for New York University Medical Center among them, he said.

The real estate boom in the late 1990's largely bypassed the far East Side. But during the mid-1980's, the neighborhood experienced a building boom as developers created nearly 2,500 apartments in what had been a largely industrial area, between First Avenue and the East River.

Bernard Spitzer, father of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, built the Corinthian, a 57-story apartment building at 38th Street and First Avenue, where the East Side Airlines Terminal once stood.

At the site of a Coca-Cola bottling plant, Donald Zucker built Rivergate, a 34-story apartment house on First, between 34th and 35th Streets. And Jeffrey Glick replaced a series of garages and warehouses on First Avenue with Manhattan Place, a 35-story building between 36th and 37th Streets, and the Horizon, a 44-story tower between 37th and 38th Streets.

The three projects now being proposed, Mr. Rubin said, could produce twice as many apartments as the earlier towers, along with workspace for thousands of new office workers, in a neighborhood that could use more schools and the long-delayed Second Avenue subway. While the three apartment buildings built in the 1980's were no taller than 44 stories, Mr. Solow is proposing one, and possibly two, 68-story towers.

"Those towers would put Tudor City in complete shadow," said Jack Lester, a lawyer and community activist who is running for the City Council, referring to the apartment complex at the end of East 42nd Street, "and create a whole new neighborhood character. And it would bring an additional 14,000 people to a community hard pressed for services."

The United Nations, with the support of the Bloomberg administration and Congress, has also proposed building a 35-story, one million-square-foot tower in what is now known as Robert Moses Playground, a 1.3-acre asphalt park on the south side of 42nd Street, east of First Avenue. Diplomats and staff members would move into the building while the United Nations conducts a renovation of the Secretariat building. Afterward, the building would become office space for the United Nations.

The United Nations, which pumps $2.5 billion a year into the city's economy, agreed to build an esplanade along the river for public use. But in a setback to the Bloomberg administration and the United Nations, the State Senate has blocked the project for the time being, with legislators complaining about the unpaid parking tickets of diplomats and anti-Israel votes in the General Assembly.

The Bloomberg administration announced earlier this month that Alexandria Real Estate Equities would build a long-sought bioscience research center on the campus of Bellevue Hospital Center, farther south on First Avenue. Work is set to begin next year and the city hopes the project will encourage growth of the biotechnology industry in New York.

Farther south in Manhattan, a residential tower designed by Santiago Calatrava is proposed for a South Street site near the Brooklyn Bridge. The tower's concrete core will rise 835 feet, with 12 four-story town houses cantilevered from its sides.

In June, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg also announced a $150 million beautification effort for the East Side waterfront from East River Park, near 14th Street, south to Battery Park. The project would include bike paths, a link in the East Side promenade, a marina and a sandy beach.

-------

Interesting that the tallest building of the new complex will not actually be on the Con Ed site but rather across the street.

Also it appears the UN plan is still not officially dead yet I suppose ------- I can't wait to see Solow's plan when he presents it in early September

Unfortunately with the land-use review and such, it looks like we won't see construction begin until Summer 2006 at the earliest :(

Gulcrapek

August 21st, 2005, 12:58 AM

David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is designing the commercial tower, which may include apartments and a rooftop restaurant.

UUUGGGGGHHHHHH

NYguy

August 21st, 2005, 01:30 AM

According to lawyers and architects working on the project, Sheldon H. Solow, the developer who bought the property from Con Edison for $600 million last year, plans to build a commercial tower and an apartment building south of 41st Street, each of which would rival the height of Trump World Tower, the city's tallest residential tower.

Mr. Solow's residential tower is being designed by Richard Meier, the architect whose glass-and-steel towers in the West Village have attracted public attention and celebrity tenants. David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is designing the commercial tower, which may include apartments and a rooftop restaurant.

I wonder just how tall Childs building will be with the apartments and restaurant at the top...

Mr. Solow is also proposing three other residential towers east of First Avenue and a roughly two-acre public park between 39th and 40th Streets that would offer unobstructed views of the East River and Queens. The developer plans to unveil his proposal after Labor Day and to begin the city's seven-month land-use review process later this year, or in early 2006.

The wording makes it appear that there are five towers planned, but I believe its still four. How soon after Labor Day will this be released I wonder...

At this time, the plan is to construct the tallest building on the west side of First, between 39th and 40th Streets.

That would be here:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45367540/medium.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/46124997/medium.jpg

NYguy

August 21st, 2005, 02:31 AM

Here's my understanding of the updated plans:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/47976053/medium.jpg

PHLguy

August 21st, 2005, 10:11 AM

This looks cool, even if we wait a year for construction we hope it'll be worth it!

BPC

August 21st, 2005, 12:47 PM

Forgive me, as I am new to this thread, so this may have already been covered. (I skimmed the old posts and did not see anything.)

I had no idea the grand old Con Ed steam plant, with the beautiful arches, was going to be demolished. (I obviously did see the less attractive building to the north demolished last year.) Has there been any kind of historical preservation review? The plant is a piece of fantastic, 100 year old industrial architecture. I have no idea whether it is still operational, but given all the fights over where to site new energy plants, tearing down an old one for yet another Richard Meier or David Childs glass box of luxury condos seems foolish, to say the least.

For most of its existence, Manhattan was an industrial center. Are we going to preserve any of its architecture? If we are, then this building seems like exactly what we should be saving.

NewYorkYankee

August 21st, 2005, 03:38 PM

NYGUY, could you make the updated plans a lil' bit bigger? This Dial up Im on makes it fuzzy and hard to read.

pianoman11686

August 21st, 2005, 03:38 PM

Just a little reminder of the original proposal:

FSM East River Masterplan Competition Entry Con Edison Site (http://www.richardmeier.com/02_Projects_Masterplans_List.htm)

Richard Meier's towers are the two that are linked by skybridge (!) at 60 stories.

On another note, while Gulcrapek's immense "ugh" made me laugh out loud, I too feel unenthusiastic about David Childs' tower. If it doesn't turn out to be nothing short of spectacular (and we can all decide on an "odds system"), who else here thinks he should be banned from designing anything for Hudson Yards? It might be good to leave him out of at least one large-scale development in Manhattan.

***

And some images from macreator's article:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/08/21/nyregion/21eastside.xlarge1.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/08/21/nyregion/21eastside0.184.gif

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Fabrizio

August 21st, 2005, 03:58 PM

Despite all of it´s troubles, look how "brand new" the UN building looks in this photo .... as modern as anything. Not bad for 50 plus years.

BrooklynRider

August 21st, 2005, 07:40 PM

...I too feel unenthusiastic about David Childs' tower. If it doesn't turn out to be nothing short of spectacular (and we can all decide on an "odds system"), who else here thinks he should be banned from designing anything for Hudson Yards? It might be good to leave him out of at least one large-scale development in Manhattan.

Ooooh, what will he design? would anyone would surprised is it was another glass box? What else can the guy design? I'm sayin this derisively, because heralding this guy as a "great architect" just seems insulting. He has had alot of designs built, be he is no artist.

PHLguy

August 21st, 2005, 08:38 PM

I like TWC and Bear stearns, so hopefully it will be tall and look very nice.

macreator

August 21st, 2005, 10:17 PM

I like TWC and Bear stearns, so hopefully it will be tall and look very nice.

I like Bear Stearns too but compared to what we could have had (Travelstead building) I am dissapointed. It is not that Bear Stearns is bad, or TWC for that matter, but they are not as unique as other projects around the world or for that matter the Hearst magazines building. We've had our share of plain, boxed glass-curtain wall, we need some substance in new buildings going up in NYC.

An example of taking glass and steel a bit further and coming up with a unique design is One Bryant Park which by using some defined angles curving upward creates an amazing effect. I can't wait to see BoA rise.

PHLguy

August 25th, 2005, 02:26 PM

With david childs, it would not really look bad or that great, Kind of in the middle, all of his buildings IMO are slightly bland to nice.

NYguy

August 26th, 2005, 07:57 PM

NYGUY, could you make the updated plans a lil' bit bigger? This Dial up Im on makes it fuzzy and hard to read.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/47976053/large.jpg

NYguy

August 27th, 2005, 07:52 AM

I have 2 overview pictures of the place you labeled as Richard Meler Residential, from 1 UN Plaza if anyone wants to see them. Just tell me and I will scan them.

Scan them. I'm still not even 100% sure from the writing of that article, but its most likely Childs' tower will be the taller of the two, which would put them in those locations. The location of the park means (as I predicted earlier) that each of the new towers will have unobstructed views of and from the river.

NewYorkYankee

August 27th, 2005, 06:47 PM

Thank you NYGuy

RJW

August 28th, 2005, 02:04 AM

With david childs, it would not really look bad or that great, Kind of in the middle, all of his buildings IMO are slightly bland to nice.

David is a not a maverick but his buildings are never poor or distasteful. We can, at least, be sure that it will not be another Westin.

NewYorkYankee

August 28th, 2005, 08:21 PM

I MUST have that boook!

NYguy

August 29th, 2005, 06:34 PM

It's a great book, (my favorite NY book)

Here's what it says in the book:

Tristam Cary
Managing Director, Getmapping plc
April 2004

We are all familiar with aerial photographs of well-known places, usually taken obliquely from a particular angle and direction to show off a famous landmark to its best effect. This atlas is quite different in concept - it uses vertical aerial photography to create a photographic map of the five boroughts of New York City. This treatment lets you see the city as it really is, not flattering any particular aspect, but revealing each area in its true proportions and each building in its proper place. It is extraordinary how the photography brings the city alive. An ordinary map tells you how to find your way to a place, but it gives you no concept of what the place will look like when you get there. By contrast, this atlas gives you a bird's-eye view of New York as it really is.

Aerial photography is interesting because it shows a familiar environment from an unfamiliar perspective, forcing you, the viewwer, to interpret the scene anew. From these photographs you will notice patterns that are invisible from the ground, discover surprising links between unconnected areas, find large areas of greenery you never knew existed, and explore new neighborhoods.

Getmapping was founded in 1998 to make a complete and map-accurate photograph, known as the Millennium Map, of the whole of England. In 2000, HarperCollins published LONDON: THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS, which proved to be such a success thtat a second edition has already been published to reflect the rapid development of the city. The New York Atlas, as the first companion volume to be published outside Britain, is a real landmark, but we expect toextend the catalog to cover many other major cities over the next few years.

Keystone Aerial Surveys Inc. took the photography for NEW YORK: THE PHOTOS ATLAS in the summer of 2003 using a large-format survey camera flown at 5,500 feet in a specialist survey airplane. The camera uses conventional 9-inch film...

Here's more:

If you mean for the book. Just type it into google, or go to barnes and noble, and all those shopping sights. Here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060594993/qid=1119817041/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/002-1969978-3612847?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) it is on amazon.

krulltime

August 29th, 2005, 08:01 PM

This is just an overview of the site, from the New York Photo Atlas.

Sorry if you cant read the street numbers, I was having trouble. Thanks to imageshack.us for image hosting.

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/268/conedoverview1hq.jpg

Ok if you guys didn't know... The little building on 46th is going to be demolish and a new residential bulidng is going up! Here is the news about it...

Macklowe buys U.N. Plaza site

August 22, 2005

Macklowe Properties has purchased 823 U.N. Plaza at East 46th Street from the Anti-Defamation League for an undisclosed price.

The 11-story office building, which was built in 1952, will eventually be torn down and replaced with a residential high-rise, according to brokers familiar with the plans.

The ADL has occupied more than 80,000 square feet of the 150,000-square-foot building since 1979. It has yet to find new space, an ADL spokeswoman says. The nonprofit, which will probably not move from its offices until late next year or early 2007, has hired brokerage CB Richard Ellis.

Other tenants at 823 U.N. Plaza include the Austrian and Belgian missions to the United Nations. A spokeswoman for the Austrian Mission, which occupies over 12,000 square feet, says it has not found a new site. A spokeswoman for the Belgian Mission declined to comment.

Macklowe has completed a flurry of deals recently, including selling a 41-story residential tower at 515 E. 72nd St. and building a 31-story condo project at 310 E. 53rd St.

--Julie Satow

©2005 Crain Communications Inc.

Here is the site... (I assume is the long building on that picture on 46th)

http://i.pbase.com/v3/55/435155/1/48068349.823UNPlaza.JPG

August 29th, 2005, 10:28 PM

Good find, Krulltime. This building won't be anywhere near the size of its behemoth neighbor across the street, but I wonder just how big it will be.

My guess: thirty-five stories. Macklowe will propose fifty, get the neighborhood up in arms, then make a compromise.

sfenn1117

August 29th, 2005, 11:18 PM

I'd say 35-40 too. I'm hoping for glass, seems to be popular right now.

Pottebaum

September 4th, 2005, 02:59 PM

Aren't they supposed to release the renderings for one of the towers tomorrow?

sfenn1117

September 4th, 2005, 03:07 PM

I think sometime after Labor Day. These things often happen on Wednesdays.

hey19932

September 4th, 2005, 03:37 PM

hun? i thought they had demolished the con ed plant...how com its still there on that photo? :(

NYguy

September 5th, 2005, 04:45 PM

hun? i thought they had demolished the con ed plant...how com its still there on that photo? :(

They are working on that now. What was demolished was a lowrise office building.

As you can see from this pic, a park will sit on half the site of what is currently the plant...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/47976053/large.jpg

NYguy

September 5th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Aren't they supposed to release the renderings for one of the towers tomorrow?

All eyes are waiting for that one. Maybe this week, maybe next week.

kliq6

September 6th, 2005, 05:17 PM

this area has alot of money and powerful residents, they killed the UN expansion project and that was a warm up fo rthis fight, this will get ugly

PHLguy

September 6th, 2005, 07:04 PM

^How did TWT get built then?

macreator

September 6th, 2005, 07:06 PM

this area has alot of money and powerful residents, they killed the UN expansion project and that was a warm up fo rthis fight, this will get ugly

The UN expansion project wasn't killed by area residents, it was killed by the State Legislator which has many anti-UN representatives on board who cited "anti-semitism" in the UN. Basically Albany killed it because they didn't like the fact that the UN questioned some of Israel's motives.

The area residents/community board actually approved the UN expansion project.

lofter1

September 6th, 2005, 07:25 PM

Albany killed it because they didn't like the fact that the UN questioned some of Israel's motives.
I thought it was because of all those unpaid parking tickets.

macreator

September 7th, 2005, 02:59 AM

I thought it was because of all those unpaid parking tickets.

Not anymore. The City set-up some deal with the UN a few years ago basically giving diplomats a pass on parking tickets and I think setting up some flat-rate missions/diplomats pay yearly to basically cover parking. Anyone else know if that's the new system? Nontheless the diplomats no longer have parking issues.

kliq6

September 7th, 2005, 10:36 AM

PHLguy, TWT does not block there view of the river, this project puts 90 story building on the river, that is going to be a big issue. It will be built, im just saying it wont be over night.

Its true the State leg did officially kill it, but it helped that the Turtle bay Civic Association gave about $200,000 to various Republican State Senators along with Bruno, to help make up there mind.

NYguy

September 8th, 2005, 09:20 AM

I thought it was because of all those unpaid parking tickets.

It had a lot to do with the so called scandal that has been going on at the UN....

NYguy

September 8th, 2005, 09:22 AM

The area residents/community board actually approved the UN expansion project.

Yeah, but they won't really get irate until the heights of these new towers are officially unveiled. Then all hell breaks loose...

Some neighborhood groups and members of Community Board 6, whose district embraces the far East Side, are wary of the project's scale, the proposed height of the buildings and plans for a commercial tower in what is now a residential neighborhood. They complained that they have not been able to get much information up until now.

"We supported East River Science Park," said Edward Rubin, chairman of the community board's land-use committee. "We supported the United Nations tower. We're not an anti-development board. But we do want planning input. We don't look kindly on commercial, nor on buildings taller than the U.N. Secretariat."

NYatKNIGHT

September 8th, 2005, 10:28 AM

They live in Manhattan and they don't look kindly upon buildings taller than the U.N. - riiiiiiiiiiight.

But of course they do, as long as they're Not In My Back Yard!

ablarc

September 8th, 2005, 10:45 AM

We don't look kindly on commercial...
Where does the wisdom enter this statement?

Nuke those corner groceries. This guy must like to walk to get his provisions.

kliq6

September 8th, 2005, 11:48 AM

Its mainly a residential area besides the UN, not that much "office work" is completed in there anyway. I agree with them, this spot is good for residential. they had a chance in the 1960's to really use that land for a great commercial project that the Governor let slip away

pianoman11686

September 9th, 2005, 01:48 PM

From http://cityrealty.com:

Open spaces at Con Ed sites on First Avenue debated 08-SEP-05

The land-use committee of Community Board 6 heard a presentation last night from Marilyn Jordan Taylor of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill about the open space plans of developer Sheldon H. Solow for the Con Edison sites on First Avenue south of the United Nations that he hopes to develop.

Mr. Solow has commissioned S.O.M. and Richard Meier to design buildings for the site, which will require a zoning change to develop with residential uses. All but two of the seven major buildings planned for the sites are residential.

The meeting with the subcommittee is one of several planned before the huge project is officially "certified" into the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP).

The sites include the full block bounded by First Avenue and the FDR Drive and 35th and 36th Street, the three full blocks bounded by First Avenue and the FDR Drive and 38th and 41st Streets and the eastern half of the block bounded by Second and First Avenues and 39th and 40th Streets, a site known as 675 First Avenue.

Ms. Taylor indicated that the developer wanted to maximize open space and improve the neighborhood ambience of First Avenue. The current scheme calls for the project’s main open space to be the full block bounded by First Avenue and the FDR Drive between 39th and 40th Streets with an open lawn on the eastern half and an elliptical pond with low-rise pavilions on the western half. The tallest tower in this section of the development would be on the western half of the block bounded by First Avenue and the FDR Drive and 40th and 41st Street. A shorter tower would rise on the eastern half of that block and two other towers would occupy the block bounded by First Avenue and the FDR Drive between 38th & 39th Streets. This three-block-long portion of the development would rise to a height of about 36 feet adjacent to the FDR Drive, high enough for a bridge to cross over the drive to esplanades along the riverfront.

Ms. Taylor emphasized, however, that any such bridge, or bridges, and esplanades, were not included in the developer’s plans because they were not part of the site.

Frank Sanchez of the Municipal Art Society argued that the current plan was inadequate to address the importance of the site and suggested that at least part of a power plant on the site that the developer plans to demolish could be preserved to create a spectacular "indoor open space" similar to the Tate Modern’s conversion of a power plant on the Thames in London. He said that the turbine room of the north plant was extremely impressive and one committee member suggested that it could perhaps act like the Wintergarden at the World Financial Center at Battery Park City as a major gateway to the waterfront.

John West, a committee member, suggested that the plan for the block between 35th and 36th Streets, which now calls for a tower, with the address of 616 First Avenue, along the avenue with open space in the center of the block and a "community facility" near the FDR Drive, misses an opportunity to complement other existing open spaces.

Edward C. Rubin, the chairman of the committee, that the committee "can’t conceive of supporting a restrictive declaration to turn over the control of [such large] open spaces to a condo association" and that it could not support any plan that does "not have a positive connection" to the waterfront such as was accomplished by developer Jeffrey Glick at the nearby Horizon apartment tower and esplanade.

Several committee members expressed concerns that the Solow plan should be coordinated with plans for the Robert Moses Park on the block between First Avenue and the FDR Drive and 41st and 42nd Street, a possible decking over of the drive, the disposition of a nearby parking lot along the river, the creation of a new ferry terminal near 35th Street on the river, and expansion plans of the United Nations.

krulltime

October 4th, 2005, 11:20 AM

October 4, 2005

Far from spotlight, but close to major growth
Far Upper East Side to get 1000s of apts. and major science park

By Tom Acitelli

Some of the briskest development in Manhattan may soon happen on the far East Side, past First Avenue, in moves that would alter the landscape of a slice of the city not noted for coveted addresses. When the far East Side is considered at all, it's the sort of address from where one hikes just to buy groceries or a sitdown meal, but plans in place will change that.

At least four residential buildings are either proposed or planned between East 34th and East 42nd streets that could add up to 4,000 apartments. The residential towers would join the few high-rises already there, like the Corinthian on 38th Street, Manhattan Place on First Avenue, and the Horizon just off the FDR Drive.

Star architects Richard Meier and David Childs have been recruited by developer Sheldon Solow to design residential and office buildings, respectively, on a First Avenue site purchased from Con Ed five years ago, the New York Times reported. Both buildings would reportedly rival nearby Trump World Tower in height.

The influx of apartments could either be a boon to the far East Side or be too many apartments at once that will be hard to sell and even rent, especially if they come on after the housing market has cooled. The far East Side doesn't have the same amenities – restaurants, grocery stores, retailers – that even the East Side west of Second Avenue has.

"I lived in the Horizon back in the mid and late 1990s," said Paul Purcell, a former Douglas Elliman president and co-founder of Braddock + Purcell, a residential real estate consultancy. "Interestingly, I felt removed. I felt like I had to get over to Third Avenue for any services. I felt like I lived on a big highway. But now I think it's changed. Now, you only have to go, like, one block over."

Retail development, though, may very well follow any major residential, some real estate professionals say, and commercial development, too, should happen concurrently. The United Nations may temporarily relocate within the area, and the East River Science Park, according to information from Community Board 6, will soon go up next to the Bellevue Hospital Center farther south.

The UN relocation is on hold amid political wrangling over the scope of renovations to the world body's Turtle Bay headquarters as well as the temporary relocation itself.

In early August, however, the city announced that Alexandria Real Estate Equities, a California-based REIT, would develop the East River Science Park into what would become the biggest commercial bioscience center in the five boroughs. The 870,000-square-foot facility, to be built on city-owned land around 30th Street at First Avenue, is expected to create more than 2,000 permanent jobs, according to the city, and 4,000 construction jobs over the next decade. The $700 million cost will be privately financed.

But it's the residential buildings that would probably have the most impact.

Janice Silver, an executive vice president at Bellmarc, managed her firm's former First Avenue office on the far East Side. She remembers many years ago seeing buildings like the Corinthian and the Horizon going up east of Second Avenue. "I thought," she said, "along with everyone else, 'Wait a minute, these are out of the way.' At the time, there weren't that many buildings going up out there."

The new towers could fetch prices similar to those in the Corinthian or the Horizon, Purcell said, or they could go much lower in a post-boom market. The average sales price in the Horizon this year has been about $856,000 and about $880 a square foot; in Manhattan Place, the averages have been $781,000 and $902 a square foot.

On the First Avenue parcels between 35th and 41st streets once owned by Con Ed, residential buildings and at least one commercial tower, possibly with apartments, are planned. In November 2000, Con Edison announced the sale of the parcels – 9.2 acres total – to FSM East River Associates, a partnership between Fisher Brothers and Solow Realty & Development.

The sale, at the time, according to Con Ed, was for between $576 million and $680 million. FSM East River Associates had announced intentions to build residential and office towers on the parcels – 616 First Avenue between 35th and 36th streets; 685 First Avenue between 39th and 40th streets; 708 First Avenue between 40th and 41st streets; and 700 First Avenue between 38th and 40th streets, the site of Con Ed's 104-year-old steam electric generating station.

Another commercial tower and residential building, according to the Times, are planned for 41st Street and First Avenue, with the residential building designed by Meier and the commercial tower by Childs. (A representative from Meier's office told The Real Deal it was too early to comment on the residential building's specifics.)

Three other residential buildings have been proposed on the former Con Ed parcels, the Times reported, as well as a two-acre public park between 39th and 40th streets with views of the East River and, perhaps ironically, of similarly big construction in Long Island City, Queens.

The plans are reportedly moving forward, with demolition already beginning on some of Solow's sites, although much could change as the land-use review process gets under way and area residents add input. If all goes forward as planned, the far East Side may become a much busier area, perhaps as envied address-wise as Manhattan west of Second Avenue.

"This will be the last segment to sort of transform that whole stretch," Purcell said, "into what will be very nice buildings and very residential."

Copyright © 2003-2005 The Real Deal.

antinimby

November 10th, 2005, 05:03 AM

Dipping City's Toes Into the East River
By ROBIN POGREBIN
Published: November 10, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/arts/design/10east.html?8hpib
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/10/arts/10east.650.jpg

The architects Richard Meier and David M. Childs have completed a master plan for four buildings, a park and an ice rink on part of a nine-acre site near the United Nations.
They say the designs, filed with the city last week as part of an environmental assessment statement, will restore a sense of the Manhattan grid to the edge of the East River. The project is part of a four-parcel property between 35th and 41st Streets that Sheldon H. Solow, the developer, bought from Con Edison for $630 million in a deal approved last year. Given the vast size of the parcel, architects and urban planners have been avidly following the project, which began with a design competition four years ago involving celebrity architects like Christian de Portzamparc, Peter Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas.

Although the design jury selected Henry N. Cobb of Pei Cobb Freed & Partners and Marilyn Jordan Taylor of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill as the winners, Mr. Solow chose to eliminate Mr. Cobb from the project. "I felt there was too much difference in what Skidmore and Cobb had in mind," he said.

Mr. Childs, the architect for the redesigned Freedom Tower at ground zero and the Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle, has taken the lead on the project for his firm.

Last year Mr. Solow also enlisted Mr. Meier, architect of the Getty Center in Los Angeles and three glass-and-steel apartment buildings on the Hudson River in the West Village. Mr. Meier joined Mr. Solow's project when Mr. Childs was wrestling with the architect Daniel Libeskind over the design of the Freedom Tower.

The landscape architect Diana Balmori is designing the park and skating rink. For the area surrounding the rink, between 38th and 41st Streets, the master plan calls for three residential buildings by Mr. Meier and one largely commercial building by Mr. Childs, with apartments on the upper floors.

Many people in the neighborhood oppose the project's size and scale. The four buildings, ranging from 550 feet to 864 feet tall, would all exceed the 505-foot height of the United Nations complex.
"The heights are Donald Trump size - huge buildings," said Edward Rubin, chairman of the land-use committee for Community Board 6, which covers the far East Side. "There is a real serious issue whether that's an acceptable paradigm for what high-rise development should be on the East Side."

Because the park would be surrounded by the towers, people may not "perceive it as open space," Mr. Rubin added.

The specifics of the buildings' materials and design have yet to be determined. Mr. Meier said the four towers would take the United Nations as a starting point, "then spiral around." Individually, they will be distinct while forming a "family of buildings," he said.

The architects emphasized that the project would connect the area to the water's edge, with open views to the water from First Avenue, and sidewalks that extend to the river at 39th and 40th Streets. "To be able to restore the grid of the city at that edge, bring people to it, is delightful," Mr. Childs said.

"This is as much about planning as it is about architecture," he added. "To put these great vistas back."

The state is considering lowering the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive at 34th Street and eliminating the exit at 42nd Street, making the area more pedestrian-friendly, the architects said.

The skating rink - which Mr. Meier described as "a sort of shelter, an enclosure but all open" - could be used as a basin for toy boats in the warmer months, like the one in the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris, Mr. Solow said.

The rink would include a casual restaurant with outdoor dining. "We want to create a place where people can come and congregate," Mr. Meier said, "to enable them to come here and enjoy an active, lively part of the city."

Mr. Meier is also designing a tower west of the park site, also part of the ConEd parcel. Two southern towers are planned as well. Mr. Solow intends to build a total of 4.2 million square feet and 2,201 apartments over the whole property; he said it was too early to name a price for the construction. He added that the land-use review process began last week.

Mr. Rubin questioned the advisability of the skating rink, given that one had already failed at 34th Street. "If it was unsuccessful at 34th Street, why would it be successful on 38th Street?" he asked. "What we'd like to see most is open space pushed to the waterfront."

In particular, the community board and other neighborhood groups object to any buildings higher than the United Nations. "Nothing should be built taller than that icon," Mr. Rubin said.

Meanwhile, the Japanese architect Fumihiko Maki is designing a 35-story expansion of the United Nations, which would also allow for the renovation of the Secretariat building. The addition, to replace the Robert Moses Playground on First Avenue, is expected to cost about $330 million.

Mr. Meier said he was intrigued by the project's scope. "It's of a scale that not many people have done," he said.

"Rockefeller Center is a public space and a work space - it's a magnet," he added. "This is a residential idea of Rockefeller Center."

antinimby

November 10th, 2005, 05:16 AM

... said Edward Rubin, chairman of the land-use committee for Community Board 6, which covers the far East Side. "There is a real serious issue whether that's an acceptable paradigm for what high-rise development should be on the East Side."

It's not acceptable for these people in the East Side, the West Side, the North side, the South side, Uptown, Downtown, Midtown.

If these people shoot this down too, I will never forgive them.:mad:

Fabrizio

November 10th, 2005, 06:17 AM

"There is a real serious issue whether that's an acceptable paradigm for what high-rise development should be on the East Side."

Indeed.

Divide the above photo in two. On the right side we see the classic building volumes that make NYC great and distinctive. There are tall slab skyscrapers like the UN and Trump World mixed in with the lower stepped-back buildings and so on. A little bit of everything is represented. But on the left side we have fat, gigantic buildings, all clustered together. It looks clumsy... not the graceful mix we should hope for. The architects involved here are top-notch, and perhaps the plan on closer inspection is brilliant, but the community groups are right to ask questions and be skeptical in the face of a big-money corporate world that is very skillfull in getting what it wants.

NYguy

November 10th, 2005, 08:56 AM

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/10/arts/10east.650.jpg

We may need to see it from another angle, or from a river point of view. Judging from this picture of the model, it seems the tallest of the towers needs to be a little taller, maybe 150 to 200 ft taller. That would set it apart from the other towers, and create a focal point.

ablarc

November 10th, 2005, 09:01 AM

^ Yeah Fabrizio, but the whole area needs more building mass.

This project addresses that shortage where it has jurisdiction.

Maybe other projects will add it elsewhere; Trump already has.

.

lofter1

November 10th, 2005, 10:07 AM

Anyone know where other images might be available?

PS: The fact that this image is taken from the farthest vantage point (from North to South) minimizes the size / mass of the new buildings.

ablarc

November 10th, 2005, 10:13 AM

The fact that this image is taken from the farthest vantage point (from North to South) minimizes the size / mass of the new buildings.
True, and noteworthy mostly if you think building mass is a bad thing. In New York, of all places, you'd think people would have let go of this theory.

lofter1

November 10th, 2005, 10:22 AM

^ Mass in itself is not bad, but it needs to be done with some art.

Fabrizio

November 10th, 2005, 10:32 AM

Yes art...or happy circumstances...."In New York, of all places" mass traditionally had ...romance. This looks clumsy. They´ve got a clean slate and an important site...

ablarc

November 10th, 2005, 10:58 AM

Yes art...or happy circumstances....

Sure enough, those are the two conditions that will get you there.

This looks clumsy.

That's because it's not the outcome of either art or happy circumstance. It's almost-artists doing almost-happy-circumstance.

They´ve got a clean slate and an important site...

Perfect conditions for them to hang themselves.

* * *

Art might get you an internally complete cluster like Rockefeller Center; it might, however, seem aloof from the river unless the artist went to great pains to integrate it with what's already a part of this panorama.

Happy circumstance would require you to break up the site into parcels of varying size with different architects and developers. Best would be if you kept them from talking to each other or you'd end up again with the almost-artists and the almost-happy-circumstance.

Sometimes I think Costas Kondylis is preferable to the almost-artists. Then again, Meier: does he ever do anything that doesn't look good?

.

NYatKNIGHT

November 10th, 2005, 11:14 AM

Fabrizio

November 10th, 2005, 11:37 AM

The no-taller-than-the-UN-thing is stupid.

An example of what I´m talking about: no matter what you thought of the WTC (and Battery Park City)...seen from the river with the Pelli buildings ....that was a GREAT cluster. The scene was pure NYC ...romantic...it was iconic and photographed millions of times. There´s a great oppurtunity here...

krulltime

November 10th, 2005, 11:41 AM

Oh neat it looks good. Yeah I hope those east side people loose their fight. That area needs more people.

antinimby

November 10th, 2005, 02:13 PM

In particular, the community board and other neighborhood groups object to any buildings higher than the United Nations. "Nothing should be built taller than that icon," Mr. Rubin said.
HA! Funny that they should feel so cozy about this building.
If the Secretariat was to be built today, I wagered they would fight it.
"Out-of-scale", "traffic and congestion", "this is a residential area", oh yeah and since it's the UN, I'm sure they'll say "it'll be a big security problem for our residents."
But now that it suits their argument, it's an ICON.

Originally Posted by Fabrizio
Divide the above photo in two. On the right side we see the classic building volumes that make NYC great and distinctive. There are tall slab skyscrapers like the UN and Trump World mixed in with the lower stepped-back buildings and so on. A little bit of everything is represented. But on the left side we have fat, gigantic buildings, all clustered together. It looks clumsy... not the graceful mix we should hope for.
Not really. The rendering you see left out a substantial piece of the skyline culminating with the ESB on the far left as you can see below. Besides, I think that's a weak argument: can't build there because there's nothing there right now.
http://hem.bredband.net/b265662/photo/2005/newyork/007_Queens_Cemetery.jpg
by BPA, wirednewyork forum member.

What's there right now. I'm guessing Mr. Rubin is representing those people in the brick buildings, themselves--which I might add--are blocking the open views of the people behind them.
http://hem.bredband.net/b265662/photo/2005/newyork/032_38th_Street.jpg
by BPA, wirenewyork forum member.

Fabrizio

November 10th, 2005, 02:25 PM

"Not really. The rendering you see left out a substantial piece of the skyline culminating with the ESB on the far left as you can below. Besides, I think that's a weak argument: can't build there because there's nothing there right now."

Bub...don´t do the straw man stuff on me.... no where do I say that nothing should be built there. Follow the thread.

As far as: "The rendering you see left out a substantial piece of the skyline culminating with the ESB on the far left as you can below." In fact in that photo you can see the wonderful mix I´m talking about. The model of the developement instead shows a clumsy, graceless clump of tall buildings.

BTW: I have a feeling that your "one-note" agenda-driven handle will leave little room for intelligent discussion.

TonyO

November 10th, 2005, 02:26 PM

antinimby

November 10th, 2005, 02:49 PM

Bub...don´t do the straw man stuff on me.... no where do I say that nothing should be built there. Follow the thread..
You're right, you never said that. My apologies.

As far as: "The rendering you see left out a substantial piece of the skyline culminating with the ESB on the far left as you can below." In fact in that photo you can see the wonderful mix I´m talking about. The model of the developement instead shows a clumsy, graceless clump of tall buildings..

BTW: I have a feeling that your "one-note" agenda-driven handle will leave little room for intelligent discussion.
And you know that my agenda is "one-note?"
Look, like you I'm very much interested in the quality of the design and how well it blends in with the surrounding area both in appearance and street life.
But at the same time, can anyone knock these buildings to be "clumsy, graceless clumps" when all they are at this point are just "placeholders" in a very preliminary rendering?
I guess I just ran out of room for some more intelligent discussion...so I'll just have to go.

Fabrizio

November 10th, 2005, 03:47 PM

"But at the same time, can anyone knock these buildings to be "clumsy, graceless clumps" when all they are at this point are just "placeholders" in a very preliminary rendering?"

Follow the thread, I write: "The architects involved here are top-notch, and perhaps the plan on closer inspection is brilliant..."

In the meantime though, the developers are showing us these models...and so that is what one comments on. Let me put it this way:

That is one ugly, graceless clump of placeholders.

infoshare

November 10th, 2005, 04:55 PM

HA! Funny that they should feel so cozy about this building.
If the Secretariat was to be built today, I wagered they would fight it.
"Out-of-scale", "traffic and congestion", "this is a residential area", oh yeah and since it's the UN, I'm sure they'll say "it'll be a big security problem for our residents."
But now that it suits their argument, it's an ICON.
[/SIZE]

A tenant coalition (and myself) blocked the construction of a new luxury building: Along with the help of the SoHo alliance, and the community. Our reasons for objection? Anti-gentrification, the new construction may damage the very-old building next door, and some other BS.

The real reason for the protest! Most of us had unobstructed views, and good sunlight, overlooking the beautiful gardens of the original ST. Patricks church. The Site is now, and has been for years now (thaks to us) an empty lot that is used mostly as a public uranal and garbage dump. NIMBY phonies, yes I was once one myself.

The empty lot is located on the corner of Prince Street/Mulberry. Thanks antiNIMBY for outing these BS artists. This is guirilla journalism at its best.

Cantankoris pessimest.

Fabrizio

November 10th, 2005, 05:04 PM

"....yes I was once one myself."

Exactly. Everyone is a NIMBY. Everyone. Eveyone (exept perhaps for the poor) will fight for the quality of their own lives and try to protect the value of their homes. Is it right? That´s not my point. Point is: everyone is a NIMBY.

czsz

November 10th, 2005, 05:45 PM

Great...a Renaissance Center for New York...

http://www.usaswingnet.com/GM_Center_311p.jpg

And as an added bonus, it's a tower-in-the-park development, just like the projects downriver.

Fabrizio

November 10th, 2005, 05:59 PM

With a skating rink.

infoshare

November 10th, 2005, 06:38 PM

"....yes I was once one myself."

That´s not my point. Point is: everyone is a NIMBY.

Yes, point well taken.

But at what price, that lot had been an eyesore (please go seeit) for about 10 years now. Not to mention the loss to the city of thousands$ in real estate taxes.

I will have to end my retorts on this site, my wife is gettin mad at me. But, There is a great antiNimby story here. There if a treasure trove of documentatin on this community action - minuits at the community board meetings - architectural renderings of the proposed new lux condo - ect.

All the charictors are there, The soho alliance, and many community activitist from the area - all the biggest BS artists you ever met.

And the all do - a lot of damage - under false pretence.

I did not know any better at the time. As the saying goes: "The problem with youth - its wasted on the young."

cheers -

lofter1

November 10th, 2005, 09:04 PM

But at what price, that lot had been an eyesore (please go seeit) for about 10 years now. Not to mention the loss to the city of thousands$ in real estate taxes.

But at least there is no tower on that site (it's my neighborhood, too, so I have an interest in it).

I happen to love that view of Old St. Pats across that lot as I walk east on Prince. It makes me hurt to even think of a building on that corner. I'm NIMBY-as-hell for that site.

Eyesore?? There was a lovely abandoned washer / dryer unit sitting in the middle of it yesterday. Very urban. Very appropriate.

Besides if they build on that corner where would they park that old Buick (or is it a Chrysler? It's so rusted out that it's hard to tell).

PS, infoshare: I'm the cantankerous pessimist on this site: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72321&postcount=1930

November 10th, 2005, 09:40 PM

By the time "environmental impact statements" are completed, Community Board 6 chains itself to the chain link fence around the site and sings, "We Shall Overcome," and some rare type of bird--spotted owl, or perhaps pigeon--is taken into account, this project will get whittled down to a fraction of that rendering.

Having said that, when a pedestrian walks through Rockefeller Center, it's impossible not to sense the scope and coherence of a huge project. Does anyone have the confidence that for all the $$ and the glam names associated with this East River scheme the results will be at all comparable?

BigMac

November 10th, 2005, 09:56 PM

The Gutter (http://gutter.curbed.com/archives/2005/11/10/plans_unveiled_for_ground_zero_north.php)'s take:

A spiral of towers? A central water element? Restoring the grid? Neighborhood opposition? An SOM power play? Peter Eisenman among the losers? No, it's not another boring old development at everyone's favorite graveyard. Rejoice, fans of New York real estate stasis, the Con Ed site lives!

infoshare

November 10th, 2005, 10:16 PM

Eyesore?? There was a lovely abandoned washer / dryer unit sitting in the middle of it yesterday. Very urban. Very appropriate.

P.S. Keep on being Cantankoras, I like your style.

infoshare

November 10th, 2005, 10:32 PM

Does anyone have the confidence that for all the $$ and the glam names associated with this East River scheme the results will be at all comparable?

Whats not to like! It will be interesting to see which happens first: the UN rehab job next door - or - the the completion ot the Con Ed site development.

Now, I remember why I came to wired in the first place. Architecture! - NY Real Estate & Infrastructure - OH, and Meeting my Neighbors!

cheers

krulltime

November 11th, 2005, 02:02 AM

Solow master plan for Con Ed sites south of United Nations filed

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1131660265_solorwun1.gif

10-NOV-05

The master plan for the huge redevelopment of the Con Ed facilities south of the United Nations along the East River by Sheldon H. Solow was filed with the city last week as part of an environmental assessment statement.

Mr. Solow, who has built some of the city’s most distinctive towers such as the sloping 9 West 57th Street office tower and the black-glass apartment tower with curved corners at 245 East 66th Street, plans to erect seven buildings with 2,201 apartments and about 4.2 million square feet of offices on two sites, comprising about 9 acres, that extend from 35th to 36th and from 38th to 41st Streets along First Avenue.

David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is designing the commercial structures on the site and Richard Meier is designing three residential towers.

The four towers in the northern site will range in height from 550 to 864 feet and be clustered around a park with a skating rink/toy-boat pond at its center.

An article in today’s The New York Times by Robin Pogrebin quoted Mr. Meier as stating that four towers "would take the United Nations as a starting point, ‘then spiral around,’" adding that "Individually, they will be distinct while forming a ‘family of buildings.’" One of the tall towers would be on the west side of First Avenue.

The plan is likely to face many hurdles.

Ed Rubin, chairman of the land-use committee of Community Board 4 has expressed concerns about the buildings’ height. The United Nations Secretariat Building, one of the city’s most important landmarks, is 505 feet tall and until the erection a few years ago of Trump World Tower it was the tallest structure in the neighborhood. Recently, the Macklowe Organization purchased a site across First Avenue from the United Nations that conceivably could be developed much taller than the United Nations.

More importantly, perhaps, is the future of the Robert Moses playground on the southeast corner of First Avenue at 42nd Street. The United Nations Development Corporation, of which Senator Roy Goodman is president and chief operating officer, has commissioned Fumihiko Maki, the famous Japanese architect, and FXFowle to design an office tower for the site as temporary offices for the United Nations Secretariat while its building undergoes renovations. After the renovations are completed, it would be used as offices for the United Nations.

Mr. Goodman said today that the Maki project would be a bit shorter than the Secretariat Building, and would cost less than leasing space elsewhere and be more secure. The building would have about 1 million square feet and have a tunnel beneath 42nd Street to connect with the low-rise United Nations Library Building.

The building would occupy the west section of the Robert Moses Playground, but a dog run and the east section of the playground on the other side of a Queens Midtown Tunnel ventilation structure would remain.

The UN project is understood to also involve the creation of about 100,000 square feet of parks along the river that would compensate the community for the loss of about 30,000 square feet contained in the asphalt playground of the west section of the Robert Moses Playground that would be occupied by the new building.

In the wake of the oil-for-food scandal at the United Nations, the New York State Legislature, however, has held up financing for the Maki project, but Mr. Goodman said he hoped "rationality will prevail."

The Maki tower would partially obstruct some views to the north from the Solow project, but Mr. Goodman emphasized that it would be very contextual with the United Nations enclave.

Another unresolved issue regarding these developments are whether an exit ramp at 42nd Street from the FDR Drive North will be removed, which might influence the final designs of the Maki tower site and the Solow site.

Copyright © 1994-2005 CITY REALTY

BPC

November 11th, 2005, 04:01 AM

yuk

hella good

November 11th, 2005, 05:49 AM

well i think it looks great. those towers are very tall looking. i have no doubt that they will look even better from other angles.

NYguy

November 11th, 2005, 07:30 AM

Great...a Renaissance Center for New York...

http://www.usaswingnet.com/GM_Center_311p.jpg

And as an added bonus, it's a tower-in-the-park development, just like the projects downriver.

Not exactly. The towers of this development will fit into the Manhattan street grid. So using your argument, any group of towers in Manhattan would be a Renaissance Center.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/10/arts/10east.650.jpg

We may all be getting ahead of ourselves on this one though...

The specifics of the buildings' materials and design have yet to be determined. Mr. Meier said the four towers would take the United Nations as a starting point, "then spiral around." Individually, they will be distinct while forming a "family of buildings," he said.

infoshare

November 11th, 2005, 09:53 AM

There is a great antiNimby story here. There if a treasure trove of documentatin on this community action - minuits at the community board meetings - architectural renderings of the proposed new lux condo - ect.

A shout out! If the Developer/Archetect (I know who) reads this, and wishes
to take legal action against the community board - I will be glad to assist in any way I can. There is a ton a accessable documentation - and I know you all lost a lot of money by being blocked on this project. That site is worth millions more today than it was 10 years ago. I believe you were done a grave injustice and deserve recompense.

cheers....a rare op.

P.S. this was NOt a "tower" it was a lovely six story building and architecturally consistent with the bolock!

lofter1

November 11th, 2005, 10:26 AM

I'd bet that Statute of Limitations will not allow any action as you've suggested.

Curious: This took place ten years+ ago, so why are you so hell bent on what appears to be revenge now?

After all, you state that you were personally and directly involved in blocking the plan, so what about your responsibility?

Perhaps you have found some sort of anti-nimby salvation?

If so, please share -- as guidance for anti-nimby interventions could be of interest ;) .

lofter1

November 11th, 2005, 10:32 AM

...take legal action against the community board - I will be glad to assist in any way I can.

BTW: Community Boards have far less power than many assume. None of the decisions that come from CBs are binding upon any city agency. They play a purely advisory role.

See: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb_responsibilities.shtml

Community Boards / Responsibilities
Boards have an important advisory role in dealing with land use and zoning matters, the City budget, municipal service delivery and many other matters relating to their communities' welfare.

Land Use and Zoning
Community Boards must be consulted on placement of most municipal facilities in the community and on other land use issues. They may also initiate their own plans for the growth and well being of their communities. Also, any application for a change in or variance from the zoning resolution must come before the Board for review, and the Board's position is considered in the final determination of these applications.

Limitations
The Community Board, its District Manager, and its office staff serve as advocates and service coordinators for the community and its residents. They cannot order any city agency or official to perform any task, but Boards are usually successful in resolving the problems they address.

Alonzo-ny

November 11th, 2005, 10:38 AM

Most of us had unobstructed views.

So your building should be demolished because the people in buildings behind you deserve views as much as you, and the people in buildings behind them and behind them and them etc

Alonzo-ny

November 11th, 2005, 10:45 AM

Check the sercretariat as a reference to the judge the heights of these buildings

krulltime

November 11th, 2005, 11:06 AM

Recently, the Macklowe Organization purchased a site across First Avenue from the United Nations that conceivably could be developed much taller than the United Nations.

Yes the Macklowe Organization is planing a new highrise where this building is...

http://i.pbase.com/o2/55/435155/1/52095562.823UnitedNationPlaza.JPG

Here is a story...

Macklowe buys U.N. Plaza site

August 22, 2005

Macklowe Properties has purchased 823 U.N. Plaza at East 46th Street from the Anti-Defamation League for an undisclosed price.

The 11-story office building, which was built in 1952, will eventually be torn down and replaced with a residential high-rise, according to brokers familiar with the plans.

The ADL has occupied more than 80,000 square feet of the 150,000-square-foot building since 1979. It has yet to find new space, an ADL spokeswoman says. The nonprofit, which will probably not move from its offices until late next year or early 2007, has hired brokerage CB Richard Ellis.

Other tenants at 823 U.N. Plaza include the Austrian and Belgian missions to the United Nations. A spokeswoman for the Austrian Mission, which occupies over 12,000 square feet, says it has not found a new site. A spokeswoman for the Belgian Mission declined to comment.

Macklowe has completed a flurry of deals recently, including selling a 41-story residential tower at 515 E. 72nd St. and building a 31-story condo project at 310 E. 53rd St.

--Julie Satow

©2005 Crain Communications Inc.

czsz

November 11th, 2005, 12:34 PM

Bye bye view of the Chrysler Building from Queens?

lofter1

November 11th, 2005, 02:29 PM

^ So it seems, at least for anyone south of Jackson Ave. / 47th Ave.

NYguy

November 12th, 2005, 07:44 AM

NY POST

'BEAST' SIDE

By BRADEN KEIL
November 12, 2005

Noted architect Richard Meier, known for his floor-to-ceiling windows facing the Hudson, has his sights set on the East River, designing three high-rises on a site that now holds a former Con Edison power plant.

The plans for a sprawling, nine-acre, high-end residential and commercial project between 35th and 41st streets, from First Avenue to the FDR Drive, have been submitted to the city for approval. The 4.2 million-square-foot construction plan also includes one commercial building.

Central to the plan is a park of approximately 212,000 square feet that will include a skating rink.

"It's really going to bring life and light to an area that's been a no man's land for as long as I can remember," Meier told The Post. His buildings would include more than 2,200 units.

The developer of the property, Sheldon Solow, closed on the deal to buy Con Ed's 105-year-old Waterside Steam Plant last year for more than $630 million after his bid was accepted by the utility company in 2001.

The plant is scheduled for demolition by next year.

Neighbors in the area have already expressed concern that the proposed high-rises — all of different design, with heights up to 866 feet — will tower over the United Nations Secretariat building, which rises to just over 500 feet.

Only Trump World Tower, located across from the United Nations — which prompted an unsuccessful lawsuit against Donald Trump by neighbors for its monstrous height — would be taller, at 900 feet.

Meier says the plans are preliminary at best.

"Right now, it's all at a very early stage," he said. "I'm sure that what's been filed will be open to comment, and accommodations will be made. It's a give and take."

The two buildings that will be the furthest east in the complex will have "extraordinary views" north, south and east, he said.

Designing the fourth building, which comprises mostly commercial space with residences on the top floors, will be David Childs, perhaps best known as the architect of the Time Warner Center.

The Con Ed project will be the largest for Meier, whose work includes private homes, the 173-176 Perry St. and 163 Charles St. condominium buildings in the West Village and the 1 million-square-foot Getty Museum in Los Angeles.

With development plans for the rail yards on the Upper West Side, some in the real estate community refer to the Con Ed site as the last large tract of unimproved property for Manhattan.

__________________________________

Correction: Of course we know Trump Tower isn't quite 900 ft...

NewYorkYankee

November 13th, 2005, 05:10 PM

I thought that the Maki building on the park was scrapped?

Alonzo-ny

November 13th, 2005, 09:05 PM

twt is 900ft?

evil_synth

November 13th, 2005, 09:11 PM

881

kliq6

November 14th, 2005, 10:26 AM

The community wants a bigger park, twice the size they currently have planned, then they will be much more in favor of this site, from what ive been told

ablarc

November 14th, 2005, 10:47 AM

The community wants a bigger park, twice the size they currently have planned, then they will be much more in favor of this site, from what ive been told
Towers in a park?

Co-op City? Suburbia, anyone?

TLOZ Link5

November 14th, 2005, 12:39 PM

Towers in a park?

Co-op City? Suburbia, anyone?

More like a park amid towers. Think Bryant Park: a green space ensonced by buildings.

ablarc

November 14th, 2005, 03:00 PM

More like a park amid towers. Think Bryant Park: a green space ensonced by buildings.
That would be nice.

antinimby

November 14th, 2005, 04:27 PM

881
Don't think TWT is 881, unless it has magically grown 21 ft. by itself.;)

------------------------------

More like a park amid towers. Think Bryant Park: a green space ensonced by buildings.Can't compare Bryant Park with others since it is located in a very busy area, in which case a park works very well.
The Con Ed site on the contrary, needs stores and services that will serve to enliven the area such as shops, restaurants, cafes, etc.

Citytect

November 14th, 2005, 04:45 PM

The Con Ed site on the contrary, needs stores and services that will serve to enliven the area such as shops, restaurants, cafes, etc.

That type of activity usually come after development not before it, no? Also it's kind of hard to plan a park in a fully developed area of the city. Best plan for it before that happens.

antinimby

November 14th, 2005, 04:57 PM

No, retail has to be planned ahead.
My whole point is that you don't need additional parks.
Besides, the whole river front will be a much more attractive and more used park.

Citytect

November 14th, 2005, 05:34 PM

Of course we don't need additional parks. A nice park would be great though. You want retail, that's fine. Why not a park too?

kliq6

November 14th, 2005, 05:50 PM

The parks are what the CB wants, so if you want to get this done you give in, however Solow is a tough guy so i bet he wont budge on this until they turn up the heat and try to kill the whole project

Citytect

November 14th, 2005, 06:37 PM

How big is the park as it is planned now?

krulltime

November 14th, 2005, 07:36 PM

It will be so stupid to waste land for a square looking park like Bryant park... If instead they can make a better park facing the river then thats better.

lofter1

November 14th, 2005, 08:10 PM

Except for one little problem with a park facing the river: FDR Drive ...

http://hem.bredband.net/b265662/photo/2005/newyork/032_38th_Street.jpg

ablarc

November 14th, 2005, 08:15 PM

Wow, that power plant looks good!

Gonna miss it.

Johnnyboy

November 14th, 2005, 11:00 PM

are you kidding?

czsz

November 14th, 2005, 11:06 PM

It would have made for some nice lofts.

BPC

November 14th, 2005, 11:17 PM

The ConEd Plant is an elegant example of turn-of-the-century industrial architecture. It looks even better from the west side. It is far more beautiful than the hideous glass condo towers that are slated to replace it.

November 14th, 2005, 11:25 PM

Since all anybody has seen of the Con Ed site is some massing studies, it strikes me as a bit odd to speak of "hideous glass condo towers."

TLOZ Link5

November 15th, 2005, 01:53 AM

Ahhh, the age-old problem of the FDR Drive. Perhaps some tweaking of the park design, or even a rerouting of the drive itself, might be in order. I find it highly unlikely that any development would turn its back on the water.

In any case, the Con Ed site is planned as a 21st-century Rockefeller Center; if that's the case, then it's unlikely that we'll be treated to a plan that shuns street life and doesn't include ground-level retail. Has there been any indication of how much retail space will be included in the project?

krulltime

November 15th, 2005, 02:18 AM

*****

The architects emphasized that the project would connect the area to the water's edge, with open views to the water from First Avenue, and sidewalks that extend to the river at 39th and 40th Streets. "To be able to restore the grid of the city at that edge, bring people to it, is delightful," Mr. Childs said.

"This is as much about planning as it is about architecture," he added. "To put these great vistas back."

The state is considering lowering the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive at 34th Street and eliminating the exit at 42nd Street, making the area more pedestrian-friendly, the architects said.

*****

So the highway might be lower according to the state. It could become like what. A tunnel? or like West Drive [9A] (like on chelsea & the village) with traffic lights.

macreator

November 15th, 2005, 07:41 AM

The old power plant building would have been great if they had kept at least half of it, gutted it, and turned it into a Winter Garden of sorts.

Oh well, hopefully this project will turn out well. I am optimistic.

ablarc

November 15th, 2005, 08:00 AM

The old power plant building would have been great if they had kept at least half of it, gutted it, and turned it into a Winter Garden of sorts.
Best part of it, formally, is the chimneys. A different kind of high-rise.

They were even better when they had stripes in color.

Plus, they waved to their distant cousins in Queens.

lofter1

November 15th, 2005, 11:34 AM

Best part of it, formally, is the chimneys.

Before too long there will be nary a single tall chimney on all of Manhattan.

Gone: Chimneys at Gansevort Peninsula (current DOT site)

Gone: Chimney at West Side near 11th / 57th

BPC

November 15th, 2005, 03:15 PM

Agreed. Manhattan was once, not so long ago, an industrial powerhouse. Shouldn't we try to preserve, for historical purposes. at least some vestiges of that grand past? The ConEd chimneys would seem to me a good place to start. I would be willing to give up the less attractive orange brick building to the South, if we could just keep the main red brick building. The building would make excellent museum space, I think, as well.

ablarc

November 15th, 2005, 04:03 PM

^ Might make a good powerplant.

Eugenius

November 15th, 2005, 05:24 PM

^ Might make a good powerplant.
:)

In terms of lowering the FDR, it might be useful to look at the UN waterfront as an example. Where it passes the UN, the FDR is not so much a tunnel, as it is an indentation into the bank of the East River.

BPC

November 15th, 2005, 07:04 PM

^ Might make a good powerplant.

Yes, but somehow ConEd -- which every summer warns us of blackouts from overuse -- managed to convince the City that it should be allowed to shut down an existing plant and sell off the valuable real estate. Unfortunately, the plant is now gutted, and the most that can be saved is its stately exterior structure.

macreator

November 15th, 2005, 10:55 PM

Yes, but somehow ConEd -- which every summer warns us of blackouts from overuse -- managed to convince the City that it should be allowed to shut down an existing plant and sell off the valuable real estate. Unfortunately, the plant is now gutted, and the most that can be saved is its stately exterior structure.

To compensate, Con Ed added on to and reconstructed part of their notorious 14th street power plant along the FDR which seems to have a knack at catching on fire every summer.

One thing I would like to commend Con Ed for is their glass office building that they built along the FDR at 16th street. While not a skyscraper, the 4 story building which could have been a crappy brick structure is beautifully curved matching the FDR at that point and sheathed in nice non-reflective greenish glass. At night the building is also lit up. Wonderful building for the simple, probably back-office, function it serves. I wish Verizon would take a page out of Con Ed's playbook on that one, Verizon has some of the ugliest buildings I know of excluding their new headuqarters at West Street.

I'll try to find a picture of it to post.

antinimby

November 16th, 2005, 01:32 AM

Verizon has . . . their new headquarters at West Street.Really? Which one?

I'm worried about them.
They are getting very NJ-happy.
Kinda like AT&T, and now look what happened to them.

Verizon, DO NOT make the same mistake.

lofter1

November 16th, 2005, 01:45 AM

Verizon, DO NOT make the same mistake.

But please, Verizon, do something about the hideous facade on your Bryant Park tower !!!!

macreator

November 16th, 2005, 07:52 AM

Really? Which one?

I'm worried about them.
They are getting very NJ-happy.

I'm getting worried about them too. They've sold their Bryant Park headquarters building on sixth avenue (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=115496) and are going to vacate the building by the end of the year.

They are moving their headquarters to the old phone building across from the World Trade Center site at 140 West Street which is far smaller than their old space. They claim they will continue to make New York their headquarters but one can guess where all of their extra staff is going....Jersey. They also now own the old AT&T premises in Westminister, NJ I believe. Another bad sign.

lofter1

November 16th, 2005, 09:08 AM

^ Who did Verizon sell it to? Plans for renovation?

kliq6

November 16th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Verizon sold there 1095 building to a chicago firm called Equity Office. Verizonmoves out in December and then the whole building will be completely renovated and a new facade is possible.

As for Verizon, they are moving about 500 of the 1095 staff to the top 10 floors of 140 West street, which will be there headquaters. They are moving other staff to 75 Varick Street and 375 Pearl street, where they already have office. This total will be about 1500. The rest of the workers will move to the old Bedminster, NJ office of AT&T and join other Verizon NJ workers that are being consolidated in Jersey to that building.

Truth be told, when verizon mergerged with Bell Atalntic, they signed a agreement with NY state that they would keep there HQ here, however the state never made them commit to a number of employees, very dumb. They way in the futue do what AT& T did and that was keep a few people at 32 Ave of the America's as there official HQ and move everyone else to Nj inorder to take advantage of he huge inentives Jersey always offers

vc10

November 16th, 2005, 07:38 PM

Given how important that corner will become with the Bank of America building, a new facade on the 1095 is essential. That would almost complete the evolution of Bryant Park into one of the most impressive spaces in the city.

Verizon sold there 1095 building to a chicago firm called Equity Office. Verizonmoves out in December and then the whole building will be completely renovated and a new facade is possible.

ZippyTheChimp

November 18th, 2005, 10:36 AM

Yes, but somehow ConEd -- which every summer warns us of blackouts from overuse -- managed to convince the City that it should be allowed to shut down an existing plant and sell off the valuable real estate. Unfortunately, the plant is now gutted, and the most that can be saved is its stately exterior structure.

Preservation on the Edge: Our Threatened East River Heritage
http://www.mas.org/ContentLibrary/Preservation%20on%20the%20Edge%20postcard%20image. jpg(Photo courtesy of Stephanie Borgese)
On view through Wednesday, January 25, 2006.
With more than 1,000 acres of East River shoreline slated for redevelopment, preserving New York City's industrial waterfront heritage has never been more critical. As a public education measure, the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, a project of the Municipal Art Society, has assembled an exhibition of photographs and renderings titled Preservation on the Edge: Our Threatened East River Heritage.

The exhibit highlights the historic roles of six of the most important industrial buildings on the East River and suggests ways to redevelop them without destroying them, including reuse and conversion. The buildings include the former Con Ed Waterside Power Station adjacent to the United Nations in Manhattan, the Domino Sugar Plant and the Austin Nichols warehouse in Brooklyn, and the Sohmer Piano Factory in Queens. Preserving the integrity of these iconic structures is essential to the successful redevelopment of the East River shoreline.

http://www.mas.org/Events/exhibits.cfm#poteoterh

BPC

November 18th, 2005, 12:31 PM

Thanks, I will check it out.

kz1000ps

November 22nd, 2005, 05:14 PM

Here's how the sites are looking. I've included the latest massing rendering and NYGuy's aerial diagram to help everybody piece together all the sites involved.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6057/10east6505bw.jpg

Where are the two towers surrounding the tallest (seen above) located on this map? They seem to be just south and west of it. And why are the towers between 35th/36th not the same color white as the others?
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/476/large9by.jpg

The southern-most site
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6324/dscf00359kd.jpg

Just starting to chip away at the exterior of the power plants.
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/484/dscf00387rm.jpg

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7176/dscf00684od.jpg

Location of the planned Meier tower
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4805/dscf00644ve.jpg

And the site of the tallest (Child's)
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/237/dscf00706op.jpg

ablarc

November 22nd, 2005, 05:35 PM

Whatever they're like they'll be better than parking lots.

lofter1

November 22nd, 2005, 06:31 PM

seven buildings with 2,201 apartments and about 4.2 million square feet of offices on two sites
And little or no public transportation in the area (save for a bus here and there).

It would seem time to figure out a way to run some sort of light rail along the river front that would give direct access to downtown. They missed the chance on the West Side.

The only other option is a huge number of "black cars" / taxis. Looks like gridlock to me.

krulltime

November 22nd, 2005, 07:18 PM

Great job kznyc2k! Thanks for the photos.

czsz

November 22nd, 2005, 07:44 PM

And little or no public transportation in the area

Perhaps the developers could be made to contribute a little to the 2nd Ave. subway's funding?

PHLguy

November 22nd, 2005, 07:58 PM

I like it! I just hope it doesn't look like a table top being the same size as TWT. Oh well, an 860 foot table top skyline is better than a 750 foot one.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6057/10east6505bw.jpg

antinimby

November 22nd, 2005, 09:07 PM

Whatever they're like they'll be better than parking lots.Not if you asked the community board.

I like it! I just hope it doesn't look like a table top being the same size as TWT. Oh well, an 860 foot table top skyline is better than a 750 foot one."Don't count your eggs before they hatch." May not even get to 860 ft.

PHLguy

November 23rd, 2005, 12:36 AM

They said in the article that it would be 866 feet, I don't see why they would make it any lower. The NIMBYS already slashed it down from what it was going to be before so I don't think it will happen again.

I just hope the same height issue doesn't happen with the westside or WTC.

Deimos

November 23rd, 2005, 05:51 AM

Perhaps the developers could be made to contribute a little to the 2nd Ave. subway's funding?

Except that the 2nd Ave Subway won't reach the 34th-42nd st. area until phase 3 of its construction, and who knows when that'll happen... more mass transit is definitely needed in this area however.

ablarc

November 23rd, 2005, 08:17 AM

Except that the 2nd Ave Subway won't reach the 34th-42nd st. area until phase 3 of its construction, and who knows when that'll happen... more mass transit is definitely needed in this area however.
The 42nd Street light rail?

lofter1

November 23rd, 2005, 09:45 AM

^ YES!

Perfect -- bisect the island at 42nd St.

Plus a circular light rail around the waterfront.

krulltime

December 8th, 2005, 05:45 PM

Plan for Con Ed sites south of the United Nations criticized

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1134070864_solow1b.gif

08-DEC-05

The Sheldon H. Solow plan for the redevelopment of the Con Ed facilities along the East River south of the United Nations came under sharp attack last night at a meeting of the land-use committee of Community Board 6 during a "informal" presentation of its bulk configurations by Marilyn Taylor of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Richard Meier, the plan’s architects.

Ms. Taylor said that the commercial space component of the plan has been reduced to about 1.1 million square feet and that the overall development, including residential space, was about 5 million square feet, or a FAR (floor-to-area-ratio) of 12.

Edward Rubin, the chairman of the land-use committee, noted, however, that a 12 FAR was based on the project’s "demapped" streets and that if the streets were "remapped" the actual FAR was about 13.5. He noted that several large residential towers just to the south had FARs of about 10.5 and many in the audience indicated in their comments that they felt the present plan was too dense.

Mr. Rubin said that the community does not agree with the "mandate" given to the architects by Mr. Solow, adding that the plan "cannot be developed in a vacuum" and that there exists "a serious disconnect" between the Solow plan and a comprehensive approach to the site that would focus on the removal of the elevated exit ramp from the FDR Drive at 42nd Street and the riverfront.

John West, a member of the committee presented plans that showed how the removal of the ramp could lead to broad bridges over the drive, if not, a very large deck, that would dramatically enlarge open spaces and provide access to a waterfront park on what is now a former parking lot for Con Ed that is owned by the city. Mr. West and Mr. Rubin said the community was frustrated by delays by city and state agencies in addressing plans for the site.

Mr. Rubin said that Donald Trump’s Trump World Tower on First Avenue at 47th Street "dealt a serious blow" to the community by not respecting the 505-feet height of the Secretariat Building at the United Nations and was "out of scale and color." One member of the audience, which included many neighborhood residents, said that in comparison with the Solow scheme the Trump World Tower was "very elegant," a notion, she added, she thought she "never could say."

The Solow plan calls for two residential towers east of First Avenue between 35th and 36th Streets, one residential tower on the west side of First Avenue between 39th and 40th Streets, and four towers, all residential except for one that combined offices and residences, east of Fifth Avenue between 38th and 41st Streets. The mixed-use tower would be on the southeast corner of First Avenue and 41st Street.

The plan would extend 39th and 40th Streets to the FDR Drive at the elevation of First Avenue and have a large central open space east of First Avenue between 39th and 40th Streets including a large, elliptical model-boat pond/skating rink with low-rise pavilion closest to the avenue and a broad lawn to the east.

Frank Sanchez, the executive director of the Municipal Art Society, said that the lack of coordination by public agencies regarding the site was "inappropriate." He said that the New York State Register of Historic Places recently found the two old power plants on the site "ineligible based on a lack of integrity," a decision he said his organization questions, adding that the decision had "no public input." Some preservationists have indicated that at least one of the plants should be preserved.

A neighborhood resident criticized the Solow plan for not having a "cultural venue." A large powerplant along the Thames in London was converted a couple of years ago into the Tate Modern museum.

One resident in the neighborhood asked if "anyone [in the audience] feels the plan is attractive" and no one raised their hand or said yes.

Copyright © 1994-2005 CITY REALTY

TLOZ Link5

December 8th, 2005, 06:28 PM

Considering that all we've seen are massing models, there's not much to say about the design. And the community's reaction is expected.

BPC

December 8th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Frank Sanchez, the executive director of the Municipal Art Society, said that the lack of coordination by public agencies regarding the site was "inappropriate." He said that the New York State Register of Historic Places recently found the two old power plants on the site "ineligible based on a lack of integrity," a decision he said his organization questions, adding that the decision had "no public input." Some preservationists have indicated that at least one of the plants should be preserved.

The only "lack of intergrity" here is by the Historic Register, which is allowing a historically significant, beautiful building (the one-hundred year old red brick Con Ed plant) be bulldozed to further the profits of wealthy real estate interests and a public-regulated utility which owes us more.

TLOZ Link5

December 8th, 2005, 10:07 PM

The only "lack of intergrity" here is by the Historic Register, which is allowing a historically significant, beautiful building (the one-hundred year old red brick Con Ed plant) be bulldozed to further the profits of wealthy real estate interests and a public-regulated utility which owes us more.

That I can agree with. But what other conceivable usage could there be for the building? How much space does it have compared to the Tate Modern?

And once again, WHERE WAS LANDMARKS WHEN THIS WAS HAPPENING?

PHLguy

December 8th, 2005, 10:29 PM

Can anything get put up in NY without a NIMBY explosion?

antinimby

December 8th, 2005, 10:35 PM

Mr. Rubin said that Donald Trump’s Trump World Tower on First Avenue at 47th Street "dealt a serious blow" to the community by not respecting the 505-feet height of the Secretariat Building at the United Nations and was "out of scale and color."So the "serious blow" was that it was "out of scale" and the color didn't match?
My god! Trump World Tower sure turned the East side into an unbearable hell hole.

BPC

December 8th, 2005, 11:39 PM

That I can agree with. But what other conceivable usage could there be for the building? How much space does it have compared to the Tate Modern?

And once again, WHERE WAS LANDMARKS WHEN THIS WAS HAPPENING?

The Municipal Arts Society had some plans showing how it could be converted into a museum or performance space. I would have no objection to private commercial use (perhaps lofts), God knows NYC has a lot of theaters and museums. But the structure should be saved. I emailed the Landmarks Committee about it, and they emailed me back saying it was found to be "not eligible" for preservation. That really just begs the question, since they decide eligibility based on anything they want.

As for the Trump building, it is perfectly fine. Just another black rectangle in a city where they come by the dozens. It neither adds nor subtracts anything of aesthetic value to the City.

PHLguy

December 9th, 2005, 12:54 PM

I thought they were going to keep this plan secret till after it started construction like Trump W Tower did. If these can't get built now How on earth did he build that?

kliq6

December 9th, 2005, 01:45 PM

This project will be difficult to get done, unless bloomberg pushes it like he did Atalntic Yards, to give it a chance. However he probally wont since, like many other former tenants, Solow sued Bloomberg LP in the early 90's and Blooms has mass disdain for him, ive been told

PHLguy

December 9th, 2005, 08:22 PM

If bloomberg does not push for them there's no way of them getting built, The NIMBY opposition is too strong. I just wonder how towers like BOA and NYTT went up with the brutal NIMBY problem in NY.

NoyokA

December 9th, 2005, 08:58 PM

If bloomberg does not push for them there's no way of them getting built, The NIMBY opposition is too strong. I just wonder how towers like BOA and NYTT went up with the brutal NIMBY problem in NY.

They were both built in commercial districts. No nimby's because few actually live there.

antinimby

December 9th, 2005, 10:09 PM

They were both built in commercial districts. No nimby's because few actually live there.You can bet that if NIMBY's were living there, those 2 buildings would have been either scaled down or not go up at all.

PHLguy

December 9th, 2005, 10:14 PM

How come people can't just ignore NIMBY's?

It pains me to see how much power these mindless idiots have.

antinimby

December 9th, 2005, 10:30 PM

New York is going through a very conservative period right now (not politically but more in terms of the view towards development, growth, progress, etc.). But history tells us that these periods--essentially it's really people's atittude--will eventually change. Like a pendulum, it swings back and forth. The NIMBY's will always be there but the attention paid to them by the overall public and city government will change. It's just right now, that support is in their favor.

krulltime

December 9th, 2005, 10:35 PM

I think developers like to deal with NIMBY so there won't be any delays on the construction time. I believe that NIMBY can sue a developer for many reasons. Things Like traffic, saving other properties, and other things I can't think of at the moment or doesn't make sense.

tmg

December 10th, 2005, 12:47 AM

I don't see a problem here. Cities are complex and messy places. Developers want to build new things to make money. Existing residents of communities want to mitigate risks to their property values/quality of life. We elect a government to try to balance these competing interests. Hopefully, more often than not, they find a balance that everybody can live with.

Let the community articulate its concerns. If the developer is worth its salt, it will find a way to move forward.

BPC

December 10th, 2005, 12:58 AM

"NIMBY's" saved Riverside Park and Battery Park for future generations. They saved the West Village and Soho from being completely bulldozed. They saved Grand Central Terminal and innumerable other great buildings in this City. They got Fifth Avenue out of Washington Square Park. They tried, but failed, to save a lot of great neighborhoods on the Lower East Side, and in East Harlem, and in parts of Brooklyn and Queens, places now populated only by desolate Robert Moses housing projects.

To apply the label "NIMBY" on a position is to try to avoid an intelligent discussion on the merits of a development issue. Sometimes the local community is right; sometimes the developer is right. But name-calling tells us absolutely nothing about which of those that is.

krulltime

December 10th, 2005, 01:32 AM

^ I do agree about most of what you say.

But what is to save at the Con Ed site? A useless factory? A bunch of surface parking lot? Sometimes NIMBY's are people who are about to loose thier views. So they do what they can to sue a developer.

BPC

December 10th, 2005, 02:15 AM

NYguy

December 10th, 2005, 09:28 AM

Plan for Con Ed sites south of the United Nations criticized

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1134070864_solow1b.gif

At least we have a better view of the planned largest tower, even if it isn't final....

PHLguy

December 10th, 2005, 02:41 PM

Aaaw man, Such a cool development :(

TLOZ Link5

December 10th, 2005, 03:07 PM

The only thing I would like to see saved is the red-brick power plant. It an elegant example of turn of the century industrial architecture. In an island filled with glass boxes, it is a stately reminder of our industrial past. It can be converted to profitable use, like the old buildings in DUMBO.

Too late now; when I was in a cab going down the FDR last night, I saw that half of the western wall had already been torn down.

Fabrizio

December 10th, 2005, 04:17 PM

PHLGuy and Antinimby´s dialogue (up above), is so without a sense of history and culture that I can only be embarassed for them.

H-man

December 10th, 2005, 08:38 PM

what happened to destroy this plan?

antinimby

December 10th, 2005, 11:13 PM

PHLGuy and Antinimby´s dialogue (up above), is so without a sense of history and culture that I can only be embarassed for them.Please enlighten us and tell us the history and culture that we are so ignorant of.

lofter1

December 11th, 2005, 10:49 AM

What’s old may be made new on the East River

Preservationists hope city will fight to save East River’s industrial past

by Amy Zimmer
metro new york
Dec. 8, 2005

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Whats_old_may_be_made_new_on_the_East_River/295.html

http://www.metro.us/metroimages/384.jpg
The former Con Ed plant on First Avenue is
slated to be demolished to make way for condos.
(Photo: Municipal Art Society)

MIDTOWN — Much of the city’s industrial past stands as rusting hulks of abandoned factories along the East River. Preservationists hope to keep it that way — after a face lift.

Developers are looking to tear down the vestigial power plants, smoke stacks and even a sugar factory to add condos to the city’s burgeoning waterfront.

On London’s Thames River, the Tate Modern contemporary art museum is housed in a converted power plant and it attracts four million visitors annually. Edward Rubin, an East Side resident, thinks a similar idea would be perfect for the former Con Edison facility on First Avenue, between 39th and 40th streets.

But Alan Solow, the developer who bought the land from Con Ed for more than $600 million, has other ideas: high-rises designed by well-known architects Richard Meier and David Childs as well as a park and ice rink. Solow already has demolition permits, but Rubin drafted a letter yesterday to urge the developer to reconsider.

“I realize that condo values and smoke stacks don’t rise hand-in-hand,” Rubin said, “but this building is a cathedral. You can’t replicate its brickwork.” The area doesn’t need more tall buildings, he said, nor a park. “We need more indoor, year-round activities here.”

Rubin understood the psychological barriers that some people have to preserving these industrial buildings. “Tudor City was built with tiny windows facing the East River because that’s where the meatpacking factories were. But this is not [that same] East River anymore.”

Rubin wants the city to protect buildings that tell the story of the city’s industrial past. “You can’t leave it up to developers; they’re just trying to maximize their own profit.”

Some preservationists worry, however, that the city has abdicated that responsibility, especially in the case of a recent battle in Williamsburg for 184 Kent Avenue. Though the Landmarks Preservation Commission awarded landmark status to this Cass Gilbert-designed warehouse, the City Council overturned the designation.

“These buildings need our attention,” said Frank Sanchis, senior vice president at the Municipal Art Society. “They’re not shiny buildings; they’re usually not in great neighborhoods and not in great shape. People don’t take care of them and stick all sorts of things on them because they don’t think of them as great architecture. But without preserving them, we lose the history of these neighborhoods and how they evolved.”

Sanchis acknowledged that the configuration of these buildings make them challenging for re-use, as other cities have shown, it can be done, he said.

“There is evidence over time that aggregate landmarks increase the value of property,” said Ward Dennis, who founded the Waterfront Preservation Alliance of Greenpoint and Williamsburg. “It is more expensive to do renovations on landmark buildings, but people aren’t walking away from SoHo or TriBeCa.”

© 2005 Metro.

Fabrizio

December 11th, 2005, 01:12 PM

"On London’s Thames River, the Tate Modern contemporary art museum is housed in a converted power plant and it attracts four million visitors annually"

Exactly. Please read:

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/UK/England/London/TateModern.html

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/building/default.htm

NoyokA

December 11th, 2005, 01:46 PM

If its not to late the developers should save this building and inturn build taller buildings, with this concession the NIMBY's wouldn't have as much of a say.

BPC

December 11th, 2005, 03:58 PM

Exactly. A similar deal was reached in BPC, whereby the Little League Ballfields were saved in exchange for increasing the air rights in surrounding properties. The result was that the neighborhood got to keep the ballfields and landed the Goldman Sachs HQ. A similar deal needs to be worked out here. The problem is that the community does not care about the beautiful old brick plant; they want to preserve their river views. It was the Landmarks Commission that really dropped the ball here.

PHLguy

December 11th, 2005, 06:11 PM

Why on earth would anyone want to keep an abandonned industrial plant in the middle of manhattan?? It's an eyesore and it just lowers the rents around it because no one wants to live next to it! Move the industry out to the Jersey turnpike or near the swamplands where it belongs with the rest of the plants.

The NIMBY'sm on this site is far more absurd and stupid than most others. If someone wanted to build this on the upper east side I could understand why some people would oppose, but if you don't like skyscraper developments, move the freak outta midtown manhattan!!

BPC

December 11th, 2005, 06:26 PM

Becuase the plant is not an eyesore; it is beautiful. Not sure if you live in the City, but I pass the building every day on the way to work, and it is really an elegant building. As for being a NIMBY, this is not my "backyard" unless all of Manhattan is my backyard. I live Downtown. But you are the one arguing for change; I am the one arguing for stasis (in one very small respect), so it would seem to me that your "this is Manhattan, love it or leave it" argument would apply to you and not to me.

antinimby

December 11th, 2005, 06:29 PM

If its not to late the developers should save this building and inturn build taller buildings, with this concession the NIMBY's wouldn't have as much of a say.From the earlier reports, these NIMBY's are not interested in saving the plant. What they ARE against is any building higher than the UN Secretariat. If it was up to them, there shouldn't be any buildings at all (tall, short or otherwise) except for the ones they occupy, of course.

BPC, no you are NOT a NIMBY for wanting to save the plant. But realize that the community does not share your opinion. Your desire is not the same as theirs. Let me repeat, their problem with this development is not losing the plant but with buildings higher than 500 ft.

From article in post # 470:

Edward Rubin, the chairman of the land-use committee, noted, however, that a 12 FAR was based on the project’s "demapped" streets and that if the streets were "remapped" the actual FAR was about 13.5. He noted that several large residential towers just to the south had FARs of about 10.5 and many in the audience indicated in their comments that they felt the present plan was too dense.
Mr. Rubin said that Donald Trump’s Trump World Tower on First Avenue at 47th Street "dealt a serious blow" to the community by not respecting the 505-feet height of the Secretariat Building at the United Nations and was "out of scale and color." One member of the audience, which included many neighborhood residents, said that in comparison with the Solow scheme the Trump World Tower was "very elegant," a notion, she added, she thought she "never could say."

antinimby

December 11th, 2005, 07:47 PM

From that article excerpt above, you can see that the NIMBY's themselves probably realized how absurd their argument was (against height and color) so they decided to align with the preservationists' argument for saving the plant.

This exposes the NIMBY's for what they are: using any and all arguments and tactics, be it legitimate or not, to stop developments in their backyards.
BTW, it should be noted that Mr. Rubin, the chairman of the Land Use Committee is an Eastside resident. Bias opinion / conflict of interest?

Edward Rubin, an East Side resident, thinks a similar idea would be perfect for the former Con Edison facility on First Avenue, between 39th and 40th streets.

But Alan Solow, the developer who bought the land from Con Ed for more than $600 million, has other ideas: high-rises designed by well-known architects Richard Meier and David Childs as well as a park and ice rink. Solow already has demolition permits, but Rubin drafted a letter yesterday to urge the developer to reconsider.

“I realize that condo values and smoke stacks don’t rise hand-in-hand,” Rubin said, “but this building is a cathedral. You can’t replicate its brickwork.” The area doesn’t need more tall buildings, he said, nor a park. “We need more indoor, year-round activities here.”

Rubin understood the psychological barriers that some people have to preserving these industrial buildings. “Tudor City was built with tiny windows facing the East River because that’s where the meatpacking factories were. But this is not [that same] East River anymore.”

Rubin wants the city to protect buildings that tell the story of the city’s industrial past. “You can’t leave it up to developers; they’re just trying to maximize their own profit.”

ablarc

December 11th, 2005, 08:11 PM

It was the Landmarks Commission that really dropped the ball here.
Getting to be a habit with that crew of fumblers.

ablarc

December 11th, 2005, 08:17 PM

This exposes the NIMBY's for what they are: using any and all arguments and tactics, be it legitimate or not, to stop developments in their backyards.
For a person to be a NIMBY he needs to live or work near the premises in question; he's personally impacted by proximity, and so he has ulterior motives however ardently he may play the role of preservationist.

Instead of attaching extra weight to such people's opinions, it would make at least equal sense to disregard or discount them.

expose05

December 11th, 2005, 08:22 PM

is that the irt powerhouse- are they going to tear it down. thats a historic building . :confused:

ablarc

December 11th, 2005, 08:40 PM

is that the irt powerhouse- are they going to tear it down. thats a historic building . :confused:
Tell that to the Landmarks Commission.

Wolves guarding sheep?

antinimby

December 11th, 2005, 08:54 PM

For a person to be a NIMBY he needs to live or work near the premises in question; he's personally impacted by proximity, and so he has ulterior motives however ardently he may play the role of preservationist.

Instead of attaching extra weight to such people's opinions, it would make at least equal sense to disregard or discount them.Thank you. I also like to add that besides being impacted by proximity, a NIMBY is very much different than a preservationist due to their hidden intentions or agendas.

As you've mentioned before, the preservationists aren't necessarily against development and certainly don't care about the height or size of it, but just interestd in seeing objects of significant age or artistic value and importance preserved. Nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, the NIMBY's intentions are much more selfish and not as noble as they would like you to believe. Their motives are based mainly on fear, some of which may be understandable, but most are absurdly unfounded. Fear of gentrification, fear of congestion, fear of losing their views, fear of outsiders moving in, fear of traffic, fear of losing sunlight/air, etc. I can go on but you get the idea.

expose05

December 12th, 2005, 12:04 AM

Someone please tell me that this isn't happening. Why isn't the landmarks commision doing anything. They made a big scence over 2 columbus circle and this building was built in 1904!!!!!:confused: Im mad and sad. Is there any chance this building can survive? Oh im praying to god a miracle happens. someone please answer my question:( :( :( :mad: :(

ZippyTheChimp

December 12th, 2005, 12:24 AM

THe IRT powerhouse is on the West Side, between 58th and 59th Sts. It is still in use.

BPC

December 12th, 2005, 01:55 AM

This building was built in 1905 and, in my view, is equally historic.

Fabrizio

December 12th, 2005, 03:43 AM

"On the other hand, the NIMBY's intentions are much more selfish and not as noble as they would like you to believe. Their motives are based mainly on fear, some of which may be understandable, but most are absurdly unfounded. Fear of gentrification, fear of congestion, fear of losing their views, fear of outsiders moving in, fear of traffic, fear of losing sunlight/air, etc. I can go on but you get the idea."

Everyone is a NIMBY. Everyone. Let´s see a show of hands of those who would do nothing if they felt that their quaility of life were to be serverly altered by nearby development.

BTW: The saving of the Village, Soho...etc..the landmarking of whole swaths of the city... the tight controls on Manhattans wealthiest , most desirable areas ....were/are due to NIMBYs...people who LIVE in those areas. You can put your "preservationist" spin on things but you can´t hide the facts.

antinimby

December 12th, 2005, 06:13 AM

Everyone is a NIMBY. Everyone. Let´s see a show of hands of those who would do nothing if they felt that their quaility of life were to be serverly altered by nearby development.Exactly the kind of fear propaganda the NIMBY's would like everyone to fall for. That is BTW, how they convince and recruit boatloads of otherwise neutral community residents into organizing and fighting for the NIMBY's own selfserving causes.

Notice how "quality of life" and "serverly altered" are conveniently brought up, suggesting that somehow developments will always inextricably lead to a degradation in one's quality of life. If buildings go up, your life will change severely they say. For the better? Of course not, it'll only get worse because why then should anyone protest if it's for the better?

Hell, if you put it that way, then I'll raise my hand, too. But, my friend, I won't fall for it that easily.

Shall we use an example? Let's not go too far from this site and use the Trump World Tower, a relatively recent development just a few blocks north of here as an example. If one were to believe the NIMBY's at the time and also by using your logic, people's lives in the area would suffer. Has that happened? Is Walter Cronkite suffering terribly right now? How about the Time Warner Center? Are all these neighborhoods going to hell?

BTW: The saving of the Village, Soho...etc..the landmarking of whole swaths of the city... the tight controls on Manhattans wealthiest , most desirable areas ....were/are due to NIMBYs...people who LIVE in those areas. You can put your "preservationist" spin on things but you can´t hide the facts.Funny you should claim that I'm trying to hide any facts. The facts were all clearly laid out in that post you quoted from. Let me repeat what I said. NIMBY's would like everyone to believe what they're doing is for the good of the community. And when it's convenient, hide behind the veil of "saving" the neighborhood and align themselves with--dare I say--preservationists, people truly and solely interested in saving important objects. Truth is, the only thing the NIMBY's are interested in saving is their property values, views, exclusiveness, etc.