50 West Street by Helmut Jahn

[Derek2k3]

That 50 West Street could be a skyline defining tower.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/281989155_a902cef90a_b.jpg
Steve Cab (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55984134@N00/)

Imagine what this area will look like in 6 years with the WTC.

[londonlawyer]

I hope that the Greenwich Street South project is built and that the horrible parking garage on West Street is razed.

[krulltime]

I hate that garage. I am glad something big is coming soon.

[londonlawyer]

I hate that garage. I am glad something big is coming soon.

I agree with you, but this project, to my knowledge, won't affect the garage.

The Greenwich Street South project would not only result in the garage's demolition, but it would create park space over wasted space that looks desolate.

[lofter1]

If 50 West is that squarish brown thing with the mostly-blank south-facing wall (red sign attached at top) in the center of the photo above ...

TEAR IT DOWN NOW.

[Derek2k3]

That's 52 West/90 Washington. Moinian converted that a few years ago. 50 West Street is a tiny 3 story building between that and the mansard roofed building....I hope that mansard building isn't coming down though. The other two parcels could be other smaller buildings behind 50 West.

[lofter1]

Drat ... so we're stuck with the big brown crud :mad:

Hopefully they will build something very TALL on the site of 50 that will completely cover the south wall of 52 -- and put it in shadow for the better part of the day ;)

ps: The one with the mansard rood has got to stay.

[Stern]

Am I correct to assume that air-rights will be transferred from the tunnel entrance?

[clubBR]

stern
what is "b-lo"?

[Stern]

stern
what is "b-lo"?

Buffalo.

[Derek2k3]

Am I correct to assume that air-rights will be transferred from the tunnel entrance?

I don't think so since technically the garage/entrance is across the street. I expect a relatively thin tower and I think the city is serious about using those rights to develop a few 40-60 story buildings anyway.

[Stern]

There's millions of square feet available from those garages, I suppose a positive of the Moses era, if you can ignore the gems that were probably destroyed, these large parcels allow for the opportunity for something great to rise here once sensibility prevails half a century later. I just don't want to see this opportunity squandered. No Monian group here, please.

[sfenn1117]

Drat ... so we're stuck with the big brown crud :mad:

Hopefully they will build something very TALL on the site of 50 that will completely cover the south wall of 52 -- and put it in shadow for the better part of the day ;)

ps: The one with the mansard rood has got to stay.

I think the small building, the one with the mansard roof, and the building behind that one will all go for a new tower. It mentions 3 buildings.

What occupies the mansard roof building currently?

And it would be great if the Greenwich South plan was realized soon. The amount of construction downtown is just staggering....imagine if that plan was acted on in the next 5 years as well.

[antinimby]

The address of the mansard roof building is 47 West St. - erected 1912, one commercial tenant.

There's a rear extension to it that is exactly as large as this building (has the same address). I'm afraid these two parcels along with, of course tiny 50 West St. may be the three buildings that the news story was referring to.

Can someone find out if it is landmarked?

[lofter1]

The one with the mansard roof is 47 West Street (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverviewServlet?boro=1&houseno=50&street=west+street&requestid=0&s=A03C41B885B461E4F46BD08866A7430E). Per DOB it is NOT Landmarked.

DOB shows a recent C/O (http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/M/100/853000/100853765-T-2.PDF), which lists Offices on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Floors with Residential on the 6th, 8th and 9th Floors (6 residential units total).


However there is an Application (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?passdocnumber=1&passjobnumber=100853765&requestid=7) from 2003 (per the Schedule A "Occupancy - Use Data" (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsScheduleAServlet?requestid=8&passjobnumber=100853765&passdocnumber=01&allbin=1078972) submitted with that Application) which shows a proposal for a total of 14 Residential units in the building:Job Description: CONVERT 5TH THROUGH 11TH FLOORS FROM OFFICES AND MANUFACTURING TO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND PHOTO- GRAPHIC STUDIO47 West Street from EMPORIS (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=47weststreet-newyorkcity-ny-usa) ...

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2006/04/451888.jpg
(c) John W. Cahill

[antinimby]

Well, I think it's landmark-worthy.

If anyone else thinks so too, you can submit a petition to LPC to have them evaluate it using this form (http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/forms/request_for_evaluation.pdf).

Remember the address of the mansard roof building is 47 West St.

[lofter1]

DOB shows only one C/O for 50 West (from 1921) (http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/M/000/003000/M000003524.PDF). It shows a frontage of 24-1/2 ' on West Street but gives no other property dimensions.

The info for 47 West at DOB shows a lot there of ~ 100' x 180'.

DOB also shows that the 3 "Buildings on Lot (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyBrowseByBBLServlet?requestid=7&allborough=1&allblock=17&alllot=7501)" included in this property have these addresses:
50 WEST STREET 107897 (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverviewServlet?bin=1078971&requestid=8)
47 WEST STREET (47 - 49) 1078972 (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverviewServlet?bin=1078972&requestid=8)
74 WASHINGTON STREET (74 - 80) 1078973 (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverviewServlet?bin=1078973&requestid=8)
Perhaps 47 will remain and the FAR will be used to build something very tall on the smaller plot at 50 ...

btw: There are no recent Applications filed for 50 West regarding anything about a New Building , Demo, etc.

[lofter1]

A 1996 article from the NY Times regarding 47 West:

New Residential Space Arrives in Lower Manhattan

PERSPECTIVES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[sfenn1117]

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

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

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

[antinimby]

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

This place is just too insane for me.

[Stern]

Two New High Rises Coming to WTC South

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

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

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

[londonlawyer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

By Skye H. McFarlane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

[GreenwichBoy]

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

[londonlawyer]

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

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

By Skye H. McFarlane

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

“We’ll meet as long as we need to meet Wednesday to answer everyone’s questions on this,” said Julie Menin, the chair of C.B. 1. “We are going to speak with a very loud voice on this.”
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/developerplansto.html

Julie Menin is such a moron. Where's her "loud voice" with respect to the psycho Chang's proposed demolition of an 18th Century structure on Greenwich Street or his demolition of the beautiful little building on Trinity or his construction of the absurd monstrosity on Maiden Lane?

[BPC]

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


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

[londonlawyer]

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

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

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

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

[sfenn1117]

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds reasonable to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scraperfannyc]

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

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

[antinimby]

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


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


07-JUN-07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 1994-2007 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

[antinimby]

It would have an illuminated top, but no garage.

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

[lofter1]

More on Jahn's 50 West project:

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

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

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

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

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

[sfenn1117]

Great find on that video, Lofter. It's 700 feet tall, and I think it looks absolutely stunning. Kudos to the developer for putting in great retail and hiring a world class architect. Now, hopefully the community sees it from our prospective and it gets built as is.

[macreator]

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

[antinimby]

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

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

[sfenn1117]

Are you sure it'll be 700 feet?

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

The man in the video says 700 feet.

[antinimby]

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

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

[pianoman11686]

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

[macreator]

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

[krulltime]

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

Jularc = Krulltime. ;)

[BrooklynRider]

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

[krulltime]

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

[lesterp4]

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

[krulltime]

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

[HudsonNYC]

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

[Stern]

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

[Stern]

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

[Stern]

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

[Derek2k3]

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

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


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

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

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

[krulltime]

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

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

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

[Stern]

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

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

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

[sfenn1117]

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

Context

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


Neighbors

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

21 West

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

The garage must go.

[pianoman11686]

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

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

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

[Scraperfannyc]

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

[TREPYE]

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

Copyright © 1994-2007 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

This development is not so bad in terms of design. But the antique that it is replacing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Cant it replace something else that nobody will miss such as a garage, one new york plaza, 55 water street or any one of those other 60's modernist garbage. Why get rid of such an elegant and distictive piece or architecture?
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_211/time.gif

[macreator]

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

[Stern]

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

Or the building directly to the north of it. It's one of my least favorite buildings in NYC. When I used to play SimCity 3000 there was a building in the game that looked exactly like it and whenever it would appear, I would always immediately destroy it. Perhaps the best thing about this project is that it will block that disgusting blank wall.

[BrooklynRider]

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

[kz1000ps]

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

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

[Derek2k3]

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

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

[Stern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[antinimby]

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

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

[sfenn1117]

No, this one is my favorite quote:

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

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

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

[Derek2k3]

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

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

[pianoman11686]

Please do. I'll join you.

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

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

[alonzo-ny]

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

[BPC]

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

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

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

[Derek2k3]

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


So if they reject this what will they gain?

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

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

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

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

[Fabrizio]

Pianoman writes:

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

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

----

Instead the article states:

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

Note the words:

"by law"

"consider"

"opinion"


---

[pianoman11686]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[alonzo-ny]

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

[ablarc]

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





I know which I prefer.

[lofter1]

Bottom line is the CBs offer opinions only ...

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[macreator]

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

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

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

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

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

[Fabrizio]

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

----

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

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

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

Screw the friggin' laptops.


---

[BPC]

Plus the fact it looks rather unkept.

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

[lofter1]

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



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

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

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

[spud]

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

[lofter1]

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

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

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

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

[spud]

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

[pianoman11686]

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

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

Modest?

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

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

Correct.

It's the law.

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

That's true, but...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

I can't make it any more simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pianoman11686]

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

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

I can't make it any more simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lofter1]

When exactly was this time:

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

[pianoman11686]

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

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

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

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

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

[kitten]

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

[kitten]

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

[londonlawyer]

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

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

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

[lofter1]

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

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

But ...

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

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

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

[BrooklynRider]

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

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

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

[londonlawyer]

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

You could turn the question around:

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

[londonlawyer]

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

You could turn the question around:

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

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

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

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

I didn't read it anywhere.

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

[londonlawyer]

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

I didn't read it anywhere.

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

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

[NewYorkDoc]

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

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

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

It's legal.

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

It's also legal.

[econ_tim]

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

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

[londonlawyer]

You're still missing the main point.

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

It's legal.

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

It's also legal.

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

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Computers? Give me a break.

Plazas? Been there, done that
.

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

[lofter1]

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

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



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

[kitten]

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

[NewYorkDoc]

It's an interesting discussion. I'm originally from Tennessee, where people can live quite comfortably on an income that would qualify for affordable housing in Manhattan. Of course jo