Brooklyn: City Tech Tower by Renzo Piano

[Derek2k3]

Check out the 2 renderings of Piano's new Brooklyn tower on the Arte-Factory's website. Don't like that yellow, it reminds me of the Epic. I counted 65-70 floors with some taller academic floors at the base. With the spire it looks to reach about 1,000'. If all gets built, this would be our 18th 1,000'+ tower.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/2057038352_72acd906ff_o.jpg
Arte-Factory (http://www.arte-factory.com/)

[ablarc]

'One complication exists for the conversion of the Municipal Building’s first two floors. It could alter the building’s character, Lisa Kersavage of the Municipal Art Society (MAS) told the Eagle. The MAS is working to create a “Borough Hall Skyscraper District” that would protect with city landmark status 28 buildings in the area, including the Municipal Building.' --Brooklyn Eagle

Uh-oh, hope this doesn't derail the process.

[TREPYE]

That tower looks very OK. And the yellow definitely does not look that great. Cant he implement something more structural like he did with the NYTimes Tower.

BTW he sure likes those little mast thingys on top of his towers.

[ablarc]

How do you like that reflection of the ESB in the rendering?

[TREPYE]

Yeah...it almost fooled me into going totally ga-ga for this tower. :rolleyes:;)

[ablarc]

Borrowed glory.

[alonzo-ny]

If all gets built, this would be our 18th 1,000'+ tower.



??

[sfenn1117]

Whoa Derek great find. I'm not crazy about the yellow too, I think a basic red, like the staircases on the Times Building, would be really bold and make a statement.

Still, I would take that building in a heartbeat. It's the peak the Brooklyn's skyline desperately needs. Expecting tons of opposition on this....

[alonzo-ny]

Are those rods i see on the low rise portion?

[Derek2k3]

^Looks like it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2235/2057038344_e4872660ef_o.jpg
Arte-Factory

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

Sfenn, yea red was exactly what I was thinking.
O and I'm the one who wished you Happy Thanksgiving yesterday.

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

It's a very optimistic list Alonzo...

Freedom Tower 1,776'
200 Greenwich Street 1,354'
MSG Site Tower I 1,300'
Penn East Site +1,250'
Empire State Building 1,250'
Pennsylvania Hotel Tower ~1,250'
Bank of America Tower 1,200'
175 Greenwich Street 1,155'
80 South Street Tower 1,123'
MSG Site Tower II 1,100'
Chrysler Building 1,042'
53 West 53rd ~1,042'
New York Times Building 1,042'
NYC Technical College Tower ~1,000'
The GiraSole +1,000'
Sherwood Equities Tower +1,000'

At least two towers from the Westside Railyards (?)

[alonzo-ny]

This would be great for Brooklyn!

[investordude]

I wonder - it seems to me a 1000 foot residential building in Brooklyn would be hard to build - we don't even have a 1000 foot residential building in Manhattan? Is it mixed use or something at least?

[ablarc]

The renderer doesn't know what traffic looks like in the U.S.

[MidtownGuy]

{yawn} It's an ugly bore.
Good call on the ESB reflection, ablarc. Guess those are the kind of tricks they have to resort to nowadays with hacks like Piano. When I look at his buildings, they say to me , "I'm almost nice."

[BrooklynRider]

Are those rods i see on the low rise portion?

Please don't let that be a parking garage.

Also, regarding opposition, who could make a valid argument against it? The are no parks or residences in the area affected at all by the height. The building currently on the spot is abysmal. I'm assuming that this this is another Ratner development and he's going to try to ride the coat tails of the NYT Tower to get this one through approvals process.

I like it. Yet, I still loathe Bruce Ratner.

This building should be a no-brainer for approval.

Last comment: looks like the "Brooklyn Flatiron" by Ismael Levya has finally broken ground. Hooray!

[antinimby]

If the NY Times tower and the Epic mated, this is probably what the child would look like.

I just think Renzo is just going back to the NYT tower design well one too many times.

Don't like that yellow, it reminds me of the Epic.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/2057038352_72acd906ff_o.jpg
Arte-Factory (http://www.arte-factory.com/)

By the way, according to my math, I only got a height of around 875* ft. for this tower.

5 bottom office floor heights: ( 5 x 15 = 75)
70 upper residential floor heights: ( 70 x 10 = 700)
mast: assuming* 100 ft.

75 + 700 + 100 = 875 ft.

[sfenn1117]

It's also very similar to his proposed tower in Boston:

http://i6.tinypic.com/86gkys0.jpg

[Derek2k3]

I
By the way, according to my math, I only got a height of around 875* ft. for this tower.

5 bottom office floor heights: ( 5 x 15 = 75)
70 upper residential floor heights: ( 70 x 10 = 700)
mast: assuming* 100 ft.

75 + 700 + 100 = 875 ft.

Given the architect choice I doubt every res. floor will be 10'. I see the roof height about the same as TWT, 72 stories 861 feet. The striped MT building in the background is 500'.

[alonzo-ny]

Need more view points to really judge this one.

[Stern]

I hate Piano. This is his third abysmal project for New York. Yellow? I'd almost rather have rods...

[antinimby]

Given the architect choice I doubt every res. floor will be 10'. I see the roof height about the same as TWT, 72 stories 861 feet. The striped MT building in the background is 500'.I just love to calculate everything out myself. :)

Okay, so taking everything you said into account, here's my revised calculations using 12 ft for residential floors (by the way, I recounted the number of floors and came up with 70, not 75).

commercial floors: (5 x 15 = 75)
residential floors: (65 x 12 = 780)
mast: assuming 100 ft.

Total height: 75 + 780 + 100 = 955 ft.

Again, the height of the mast is the wild card because the 100 ft. number I just picked arbitrarily and we might be off.

[ablarc]

^ Mast isn't really part of the building's height.

[BrooklynLove]

i'm having trouble placing the location of that proposed piano tower - where specifically is it supposed to go?

[ablarc]

^ Whazzamata? ESB reflection doesn't give you all the clue you need? :p

[Derek2k3]

I posted a few shots here.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=122951&postcount=235

[antinimby]

I don't really care for that plaza next to it. I'd rather have a continuous streetwall.

^ Mast isn't really part of the building's height.It doesn't really matter to me but since people generally include it in the height, I just go along with it. ;)

[ablarc]

Misleading when you compare buildings with masts versus buildings without. Apples and oranges.

If you compare silhouettes of the Sears Tower and Petronas you'll see it's foolish to say the latter is taller. Sophistry.

[investordude]

I mean, other than a rendering, is there any evidence this is a serious proposal right now?

[Derek2k3]

The plans are already finalized and have already been approved by CUNY and the state. They've started drilling test holes and it's due to be completed in 3 years.

[BrooklynLove]

so basically where that theater thing now sits next to westinghouse HS. cool. and definitely a crafty little move including that esb reflection in the rendering. once all is said and done with this downtown bk skyscraper boom, there are going to be quite a few buildings in manhattan reflecting bk. bout time.

by the way, i noticed today that lots of demo has already gone down on the catsimatidis parcels on myrtle, running east off fbx - nice to see w/n 1 week of fences going up. now avalon needs to follow suit - get to reckin, kids!

[TREPYE]

It's also very similar to his proposed tower in Boston:

http://i6.tinypic.com/86gkys0.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/2057038352_72acd906ff_o.jpg

The Boston proposal was better. More structural detail and a better skyline presence :-/

[investordude]

Although its on ArteFactory, the Renzo Piano website itself doesn't list this building. I'm inclined to think that means something is still in flux on the building that will really be built, although I guess it could just mean they haven't updated their website in a while.

[Derek2k3]

Means nothing. I doubt the design and construction drawings are even finished. They haven't demo'd the building currently on the site either, so I'm guessing we'll get a press release once all that is done.

[investordude]

DEVELOPER RATNER TO BUILD BROOKLYN'S TALLEST BUILDING

By RICH CALDER

November 27, 2007 -- Say hello to "Mr. Brooklyn."

Despite having to shave nearly 100 feet off his planned Atlantic Yards tower dubbed "Miss Brooklyn," mega-developer Bruce Ratner could still wind up with the borough's tallest building.

Preliminary renderings of another Ratner building - the proposed "City Tech Tower" on Downtown Brooklyn's Jay Street feature a design by renowned Italian architect Renzo Piano showing a massive structure - which some online estimates yesterday put at 1,000 feet tall.

One image supplied by France-based Artefactory of the little-known plan even shows the reflection of the Empire State Building on City Tech Tower's glass-and-steel façade.

While the developer's Forest City Ratner Companies declined to comment on the specifics, a spokesman said estimates of the height "were way off base."

Sources familiar with the project say they expect it to top off at around 700 feet - which would still far exce
ed the 512-foot Williamsburg Savings Bank tower in Fort Greene as the borough's tallest building.

A year ago, Ratner agreed to trim the height of "Miss Brooklyn" from 620 feet to 511 feet to guarantee political support for the massive $4 billion NBA arena/residential/commercial space complex in Prospect Heights.

City Tech Tower, which is not part of Atlantic Yards, would hold 600 market-rate apartments, office space for New York City Technical College and retail space, city documents show. The tower would also serve as the new front entrance for Ratner's MetroTech office complex. Construction is expected to be complete in 2011.

A 2004 rezoning for Downtown Brooklyn allowed for unlimited height restrictions along a 20-block stretch of its commercial core, and as the Post previously reported, at least one other mixed-use project, called "City Point" is also expected to tower over the Williamsburg Savings Bank site.

City Point would bring 900 apartments and 600,000 square feet of retail to the former Albee Square Mall site. Several sources said they expected City Point to edge out Ratner's project as the tallest tower but said that could change when final plans are submitted.

Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt said the developer "is very excited about the project's potential but we are in the beginning phases and can't discuss specifics." He said the renderings were preliminary and not authorized to be released.

Joseph Chan, who heads the city's Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, said he is "excited" that Piano is the latest critically acclaimed architect to sign on to contribute to downtown Brooklyn's new skyline – joining a list that includes Frank Gehry, who is designing Atlantic Yards.

In Downtown Brooklyn, some shoppers had mixed reactions about the planned tower.

Joseph Amadano, a 43-year-old banker, said the project would be a big boost to City Tech while helping alleviate the Big Apple's housing shortage.

"I'm sure a lot of professionals working in MetroTech will be vying to move here," he said.

But Lisa Gerringer, a 28-year-old actress, said she believes this project is all about Ratner looking to get back some of the cash he lost by agreeing to lower the height of "Miss Brooklyn."
"It's like this is his new ‘Mr. Brooklyn,' and I'm sorry but I have a real problem with just how high a lot of these buildings in the downtown are being allowed to go," she added.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11272007/news/regionalnews/developer_ratner_to_build_brooklyns_tall_451333.ht m

Hooray! I stand corrected on any skepticism.

[Derek2k3]

Guess I was too optimistic with the 1,000' estimate.

http://mcbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2007/10/digging-for-gold-at-city-techs-klitgord.html

Digging for Gold at City Tech's Klitgord Auditorium

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

City Tech's Klitgord Auditorium building at Jay and Tillary Streets in Downtown Brooklyn is scheduled to be replaced with a huge new building (or buildings) containing six hundred units of housing -- developed by Forest City Ratner -- as well as 300,000 square feet for academic-office use.

Though details have been hard to come by, the plan is proceeding apace: over the last week the Jersey Boring and Drilling Co. conducted test borings around the auditorium as part of the subsurface investigation of the site.

The building will be designed by architect Renzo Piano. It could be nearly as big as Miss Brooklyn.


http://bp1.blogger.com/_GTU_nOCsE-s/Rx6pO2mSKFI/AAAAAAAABTE/KHkrOo8z3ms/s400/IMG_5444_city_tech.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com/_GTU_nOCsE-s/Rx6onWmSKEI/AAAAAAAABS8/nBDs4pRU6Q4/s320/IMG_5442_city_tech_boring.jpg
Photos by MK Metz




From the City Tech website...

http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/aboutus/newsevents/book/book.shtml

The authors go on to note that City Tech is situated in what today is “the exciting, resurgent center of Downtown Brooklyn, rapidly acquiring a skyline that will rival Manhattan, London or Tokyo. City Tech will soon be the home to what is sure to be the architectural landmark of Brooklyn. Standing at the corner of Tillary and Jay Streets, directly across from the Namm Building, will be the most original piece of architecture since the Brooklyn Bridge, a masterpiece conceived by the celebrated architect Renzo Piano.”

As The City University of New York’s first public-private construction partnership, the new City Tech building will provide more than a quarter of a million square feet of state-of-the-art classrooms and labs, academic offices, a sprawling entertainment center and top-flight athletic and recreational facilities. In addition, a major makeover now in progress is transforming the College’s Voorhees Building, the center for its engineering technology programs “from a drab representation of the Industrial Era into a sleek icon of the Information Age. The new face of the building,” the authors note, “will make it clear to everyone who sees it that it is a place where you can create the future and can learn the technological skills necessary to thrive in it.”




Another blurb...
http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/aboutus/foundation/archive/donation/donation.shtml

Gift from Amalgamated Bank

A recent gift from Amalgamated Bank, America’s union bank, fits nicely with New York City College of Technology’s ongoing efforts to enhance the working environment for faculty and staff as it also upgrades Voorhees Hall, refurbished Namm Hall and moves toward finalization of plans to construct what is sure to be the architectural landmark of Downtown Brooklyn. Standing at the corner of Tillary and Jay Streets, directly across from the Namm Building, will be the most original piece of architecture since the Brooklyn Bridge, a masterpiece conceived by the celebrated architect Renzo Piano.





http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/aboutus/middlestates/self_study_report.pdf

The College is now fiscally sound, with an adequate reserve. An aggressive program of repairs and updating of the physical plant is well underway. A public-private partnership plan with Forest City Ratner to develop a new academic facility on the site of Klitgord Auditorium has been approved by CUNY and the State. When completed in approximately three years, this building, designed by architect Renzo Piano, will provide dedicated teaching and lab space for many of the science and health services departments, as well as a state-of-the-art theater. A number of other improvements, scheduled or underway, while causing some disruption and space constraints, promise significant changes.

[antinimby]

But Lisa Gerringer, a 28-year-old actress, said she believes this project is all about Ratner looking to get back some of the cash he lost by agreeing to lower the height of "Miss Brooklyn."
"It's like this is his new ‘Mr. Brooklyn,' and I'm sorry but I have a real problem with just how high a lot of these buildings in the downtown are being allowed to go," she added.And what exactly is the problem, Missy?

[antinimby]

Guess I was too optimistic with the 1,000' estimate.Hehe. You realize that you sent off shockwaves across the blog world today? :p

[pianoman11686]

^^Well, at least she has no real influence. Letitia James, on the other hand...

Proposed 1,000 foot skyscraper would be Brooklyn's tallest structure

BY JOTHAM SEDERSTROM
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Here's a building that's high on Brooklyn.

Developer Bruce Ratner has plans to build a skyscraper downtown that could eclipse the Williamsburgh Savings Bank, making it Brooklyn's tallest structure.

The City Tech Tower by Italian architect Renzo Piano would rise up to 1,000 feet tall, by some estimates, on Jay St. and include a mix of residential, commercial and office space for New York City College of Technology.

Artist's renderings for the tower, which is separate from Ratner's controversial Atlantic Yards project, may not reflect the developer's current vision for the building, sources said.

But even a modified version would likely be taller than the bank, they said.

"This model is an old model," said Forest City Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt, who said a height for the building has not been decided. "It's an early rendering and not a reflection of what we're considering today."

Downtown Brooklyn Partnership President Joe Chan praised the plan to build in the area, but insisted the renderings, which were leaked to the Internet, were nearly a year old and would likely change.

"The combination of Renzo Piano, one of the world's most celebrated architects, and Forest City Ratner is extraordinarily exciting for us," said Chan. "It promises not only to be a dynamic addition to the skyline, but also a project that will further enhance downtown Brooklyn."

Piano designed The New York Times' new building in Manhattan.

However, City Councilwoman Letitia James (Working Families Party-Brooklyn) reiterated her position that no new construction should be higher than the Williamsburgh Savings building.

jsederstrom@nydailynews.com

Copyright 2007 The New York Daily News. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/28/2007-11-28_proposed_1000_foot_skyscraper_would_be_b-1.html)

[BrooklynRider]

It will interesting to hear her argument against this tower's height beyond the "it shouldn't be higher that the Williamsburg Bank Building."

Considering that blow-hard and borough-embarrassment Marty Markowitz made the same comment back in the Atlantic Yards developmet, I look forward to his usual assinine spin as well.

[ASchwarz]

Considering the Williamsburg Bank Building is soon to be to be the 8th tallest building in Brooklyn, are they going to continue to make this absurd statement?

Why not pick the 17th tallest or the 23rd tallest for your BS design review?

Thankfully, most of downtown Brooklyn has no height limits, and these blowhards can't restrict these as-of-right developments.

[JMGarcia]

Piano remains one of my favorite architects. His designs are always very crisp, subtle and sophisticated and I've always applauded his use of color.

Having said that the yellow in this building could be fantastic if its the right yellow and pretty horrid if its not. I won't judge on this sort of rendering where none of the colors are real.

[BrooklynLove]

why would it be a bad thing if one of these new towers in downtown was to be the tallest in nyc, or the tallest in the US? put an observation deck on there, it's a walk from the bk bridge, and wham - instant tourist destination, and instant toursit revenues.

[Dynamicdezzy]

Because "towers breed more towers". That was a direct quote from a Nimby from some article.....

[BrooklynLove]

sheesh, that answer is on par with "because i say so."

[Optimus Prime]

They really have nothing else to rest their argument on. Maybe one day the nimbys will figure out that fat buildings block more light than tall ones, but that day is not today.

[Skylimitone]

GO BROOKLYN! The building resembles NY Times Tower though.

[investordude]

I think one thing that's happening with the savings bank is the developer is politically connected, so they are trying to make his building special. But I think given that they aren't really trying to block tall developments that are as of right (yet, at least) this might be mainly a case of "no such thing as bad publicity" marketing for both buildings.

That's the logical explanation. The illogical explanation is Letitia James seems categorically hostile to all development at times, for reasons that aren't immediately clear to me because her constituents seem to want development more strongly than most of the rest of Brooklyn. My sense is they enjoy kvetching about the neighborhood changing more than they really want to block it from happening - Ms. James will learn that the hard way if she really tries to block a development project.

[ablarc]

However, City Councilwoman Letitia James (Working Families Party-Brooklyn) reiterated her position that no new construction should be higher than the Williamsburgh Savings building.
Another idiot.

[londonlawyer]

Is this building on Flatbush Ave.?

[Optimus Prime]

Jay Street, a few blocks west of Flatbush.

[londonlawyer]

Jay Street, a few blocks west of Flatbush.

Thanks.

[LeCom]

Nothing spectacular, but Renzo Piano usually comes correct on facade treatments and the height is amazing. Hope this one gets the go-ahead.

[GVNY]

While I don't agree with Mrs. James, can someone provide a concrete response to her criticisms of height (such as that it is bad, and should not be taller than the WSB), as opposed to labeling her an idiot, or a fool?

This would be much more helpful to discussion, and for me in particular.

[investordude]

1) New York City is defined in part by tall buildings and this is an exciting opportunity to expand the skyline and reposition Brooklyn as an alternative Manhattan rather than the inferior cousin - we need to build tall to do that

2) You need relatively tall buildings to redefine the skyline here because downtown Brooklyn is inland and shorter buildings won't look that good from likely viewing points

3) Economically, higher views will sell better

4) downtown Brooklyn is ideally situated for this - there's good transportation links and its underutilized

5) The voters approved the downtown Brooklyn rezoning and a "bait and switch" would be unfair to people who made investment choices and have been planning at this point. Shorter fatter buildings will blot out the sun and cast worse shadows.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but just philosophically she seems averse to change and improvements in an area that could use some major investment.

[ablarc]

^ What he said.

Plus the whole aversion to height thing is kneejerk conventionality to bond with a large (and sometimes imagined) constituency of folks who feel duty-bound to regard tall buildings as the devil's work.

It's factually untrue, for instance, that tall, slender buildings block more views or cast more onerous shadows than short, fat ones. What view does the seventy story building block, anyway, that the forty story building doesn't --except the ones from the non-existent eighty-story building? Because the shorter building has to be fatter it blocks more views and light at the levels where there actually are windows.

Since there are few good reasons to oppose tall buildings, these conformists babble nonsense instead, and that's what makes them idiots. You could say an idiot is someone who gets emotionally worked-up in support of a manifestly fallacious argument.

While I don't agree with Mrs. James, can someone provide a concrete response to her criticisms of height (such as that it is bad, and should not be taller than the WSB), as opposed to labeling her an idiot, or a fool?

This would be much more helpful to discussion, and for me in particular.

[BrooklynLove]

my 2 cents on the politicians - many times these positions are about politics, not logic - basically take the position that pleases your constituents/supporters (i.e. the voices in your ear and the faces in your face most of the time) regardless of its merits, so query whether l. james even thinks she being logical ...

technical question - how come this thread is showing up differently on the board - no status info as to latest post?

[BrooklynLove]

technical question - how come this thread is showing up differently on the board - no status info as to latest post?

scratch that question - i see now that the full thread with status info is in the nyc board, not the brooklyn board - I LIKE THAT!

[BrooklynRider]

Most of Leticia James objections to height of buildings have been directly correlated by her to the context of a neighborhood. She objected to Atlantic Yards because it abuts the low-rise neighborhoods of Prospect Heights and Fort Greene.

In this case, she is dead wrong. The Downtown Brooklyn rezoning is along the Flatbush Avenue Extension north of Atlantic Avenue. This building is in the heart of the "new" Downtown Brooklyn - mainly characterized by Ratner's more horrific creations (aka Metrotech.) This building sits at along another main thoroughfare (Tillary Street), which is used by traffic to get to and from the BQE and Brooklyn Bridge.

James' arguments at their core are to preserve the character of "neighborhoods." In this case, anyone looking at the location and existing building on the lot would be hard-pressed to find compelling reasons why it should not be demolished and improved upon. The site is not situated in a residential neighborhood and the few apartments closest to it, on the opposite side of Tillary have no argument about quality of life. They live along the Brooklyn Bridge on and off ramps, which hardly passes for peaceful and unique.

Overall, I think this is James paying back any constituency in this specific area that might have supported her in her fight against Atlantic Yards. It is just an incomprehensible argument.

This is the exactly right location for a building of this height.

[MidtownGuy]

I totally agree.
That woman has a knee-jerk problem with tall, productive, appropriate-for-downtown buildings and that makes me have a problem with her. Yes, there are idiots and she is one of them.
I just wish Piano could have squeeeeezed out a little bit of creativity in the massing or something of this design. I love the idea of using color, but it has to be done right. The yellow up the side with that window pattern, ugghh...it could turn out nice but more likely will be debatably unpleasant. Why not go for gorgeous? This is an expensive 'brand name' architect, surly he could do better. Again with the spikey mast on top...don't get me started. One-trick-pony, anyone?

When the whole design hinges on that yellow bifurcated expression up the side instead of giving us a more compelling massing, I'm not enthusiastic.
Brooklyn is blowin' up and it deserves better. Renzo Piano is one of my least favorite architects.

All that yellow and he still made me yawn.

[alonzo-ny]

An architect has a mast on two of his buildings and he is a one trick pony now? Then what is ghery using exactly the same building over and over?

[Stern]

The entire building is a rehash of the NYTIMES tower, unfortunately Piano didn’t rehash Aurora Place (although the façade is incredibly dull), or the London Bridge Tower (although much like BOFA the form isn’t very memorable).

The spire, although I have no problem with spires per-say is a rehash, must he place one on every flat-roofed tower he designs? There are the rods, instead of gray, yellow. The base columns are also the same, only yellow here. Even the Seagram-esque layout of podium and general height to width ratio of the tower is the same. I don’t mind the glass sides, sure they’re boring and have no culmination, but whatever, and perhaps it’s the glass NYTIMES would’ve had if it weren’t for the rods. I even kind of like the massing, how there are two skinny towers connected interminably by sky bridges.

It’s the flat yellow face that is visually nauseating. First off, Yellow? Second, I’ve seen the same application on too many cheap buildings, the flat tapering of a solid wall into glass, sometimes it’s the result of a core ending, here I have no idea, but it looks incredibly unsophisticated, awkward, goofy-looking, and perhaps even Kaufman-esque? It would look a thousand times better if it had some design tie-in, for instance if the tower setback in accordance, but as of right-now it looks like some childish drawing of a skyscraper on the side of an actual skyscraper. Perhaps even worse than the yellow side of rods is the yellow atrium of rods, I was told over and over again in the NYTIMES thread that the rods served a function for blocking out the sunlight, which I agree was the case for the southern exposure, but otherwise acted as an impendent to light, air, and views, I couldn’t get my head around it being an expression of function following form. I wonder if anyone will try and convince me the logic of this building. Floor to ceiling glass on the outward exposures, and for the courtyard, wall facing a wall, where there is little to no view, light, and air, a wall or rods? Come on now, how is it not the otherway around? I’ve come to the conclusion that Piano is a hack.

Modernism can be done brilliantly well today with today's technology and materials, all one needs to do is look to further than Richard Meier.

[BrooklynRider]

I don't know. I kind of hope that Downtown Brooklyn can grow up into a more quirky city. I don't really mind the yellow as the two blocks to the east are low-rise and not going anywhere soon. That side will be visible for a long long time and will be the view people see from the BQE.

I think this is going to be unlike Manhattan or even Jersey City development (if developed as planned), because Downtown Brooklyn is a plateau of 400' and 500' buildings. This will look incredibly tall next to the existing buildings.

[ablarc]

^ About time.

[pianoman11686]

While I don't agree with Mrs. James, can someone provide a concrete response to her criticisms of height (such as that it is bad, and should not be taller than the WSB), as opposed to labeling her an idiot, or a fool?

This would be much more helpful to discussion, and for me in particular.

In addition to the specifics that people have named, I'll add two broader ideas:

1) In an age when we're trying to undo the damage of sprawl, ever denser developments in urban cores are the most environmentally-friendly way to go.

2) Anyone that proclaims "no future buildings can exceed a past building's height" is simply against human civilization per se. Skyscrapers are a sign of progress - economic and social. To think that we should limit ourselves to something that was accomplished generations ago is not only insulting to people today who'd be willing to do it; it's insulting to those who built the WSB tower. They too must have surpassed the height of the then-tallest building, and probably by a substantial amount.

It's anti-Brooklyn, anti-America, and anti-human. I'll stick to thinking of Ms. James as a fool, and an idiot.

[MidtownGuy]

An architect has a mast on two of his buildings and he is a one trick pony now?

Not "a mast" but the SAME mast. Same style, shape, placement on a flat roof, etc. Yes, 'one trick pony' seems right in this regard. There are infinite ways to top a building, why use the same martini toothpick again and again? It just seems lazy, not very creative.
I didn't know the yellow is composed of rods. Yikes. Not that again.

[investordude]

Before we get too worked up about the specifics of the rendering, let's remember the NYDN article seems to indicate the rendering is out of date. It was probably just a half baked rip off of the Times Tower, as we are all commenting. But it also sounds like we're critiquing a rendering of something that won't be built. Quite possibly, the actual building will be more original.

[NYguy]

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/47/30_47mrbrooklyn.html

Mr. Brooklyn

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/assets/photos/30/47/30_47_mrbrooklynplan_z.jpg

Bruce Ratner is reportedly planning the city’s tallest residential tower, a 1,000-foot spire at the corner of Jay and Tillary streets. He claims this rendering is old, but won’t reveal his current plan. It is unclear why Ratner was chosen over a rival developer.


By Adam F. Hutton
December 1, 2007

Bruce Ratner is planning to build the city’s tallest residential tower — a whopping 1,000-foot skyscraper that would dwarf the 512-foot Williamsburgh Savings Bank building, Brooklyn’s tallest.

But as with Ratner’s Atlantic Yards mega-development, the secret, closed-door deal is already casting a shadow.

“No comment,” Ratner told a Brooklyn Paper reporter who approached him at the annual Metrotech Christmas tree lighting ceremony on Wednesday night, hours after renderings of the Renzo Piano–designed 1,000-foot-tall edifice at the corner of Jay and Tillary streets were splashed all over the city’s tabloids.

Earlier in the day, a Ratner spokesman said by e-mail that the drawing “was quite old and not indicative of current plans.” But the spokesman refused to say what the current plans are.

Secrecy is nothing new for Ratner. As at Atlantic Yards, Ratner is partnering with a public agency — in this case, City University of New York — in a process that will not undergo the city’s rigorous land-use review process. Current zoning allows Ratner to build as high as he wants — but neither his company nor CUNY officials would say how high that is.

Here are some details about the closed-door public-private partnership:

• The complex — on Jay Street between Tillary Street and Tech Place — would consist of a new, 11- to 14-story City Tech laboratory and classroom building, and an adjacent underground auditorium and gym. It is not known how much Ratner would be paid for this work.

• As part of the package, Ratner would control the corner lot at Jay and Tillary streets — currently home to City Tech’s antiquated Klitgord Auditorium.

• CUNY picked Ratner’s company over rival developer Tishman Speyer in 2005. Details of each company’s bids have not been released to the public despite repeated requests. As a result, it is unclear how much the chosen developer stands to benefit from this public-private partnership.

The Ratner spokesman’s renunciation of the rendering shrouds the project in additional secrecy. The New York Post reported that the building would rise anywhere from 700 to 1,000 feet and include 600 market-rate apartments, retail space on the ground floor and office space for CUNY.

This project represents Ratner’s second attempt to build the tallest building in Brooklyn. His Frank Gehry–designed “Miss Brooklyn” tower was originally slated to be well over 600 feet, but its height was trimmed to 511 feet just before the Atlantic Yards project was approved by the state.

The new “Mr. Brooklyn” tower does not show up in the glitzy presentation of the future of Downtown Brooklyn released last month by the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership.

But Partnership president Joe Chan said he is “excited” by the building, whatever its height may be.

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/assets/photos/30/47/30_47_skyscraperchart_z.jpg

Reaching for the Sky: Here’s how Bruce Ratner’s proposed City Tech tower (which practically begs to be called “Mr. Brooklyn” because of the developer’s Frank Gehry–designed “Miss Brooklyn” tower at Atlantic Yards) would stack up against other New York City Icons. Even at 700 feet, Mr. Brooklyn would be the tallest building on Long Island.

____________________________

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/47/30_47editorial.html

Another backroom deal

December 1, 2007


At first blush, we have no reason to object to Bruce Ratner’s apparent plan to build the city’s tallest residential tower — a 1,000-foot-tall, glass-walled skyscraper at the corner of Tillary and Jay streets.

Thanks to a 2004 upzoning of Downtown Brooklyn, the sky is literally the limit for such Manhattan-style buildings — and unlike Ratner’s completely out-of-scale skyscraper park at Atlantic Yards in the low-rise Prospect Heights neighborhood, we have always said that Downtown is the place for high-rise growth (with proper planning, of course).

And Ratner’s design for his tower — which was splashed all over the city’s tabloids this week — was crafted by Renzo Piano, the same bona-fide starchitect whose recently built New York Times tower near Times Square is earning praise.

So why are we already concerned about Ratner’s latest project? Let us count the ways:

• For two years, Ratner and his government partners — in this case, the City University of New York, which owns the land on which Ratner would be hired to build a new classroom building and then construct his own skyscraper — have flatly refused to reveal the nature of their deal.

• CUNY will not even give out its initial “request for proposals,” a key document that reveals what the university sought from developers — and what it was willing to pay the winning bidder — at the City Tech site. Such RFPs are public documents — indeed, making them public is exactly how developers and other stakeholders can submit competitive bids. Keeping RFPs secret makes a mockery of the bidding process.

• CUNY won’t say how many bids it received last year or how it came to select Ratner as the winning bidder. And the university won’t let the public know what is in Ratner’s bid that made his better than others — an inexcusable lack of transparency from a public institution that prevents the public itself from knowing if officials are acting in its best interests.

• Ratner’s people aren’t talking, either — more secrecy from a developer who has made his living by partnering with public entities on projects, like Atlantic Yards and Metrotech, that are approved outside the normal and rigorous city land-use review process.

All developers make promises, and some of them fall short some of the time. But Ratner has fallen short most of the time, and has been paid handsomely for each insult. From the government-subsidized sterility of his fortress-like Metrotech (with its unused retail spaces and poor job-creation numbers), to the government bailout at Ratner’s pathetic Atlantic Center Mall, to the ever-rising taxpayer subsidy that underwrites his shell game at Atlantic Yards, there has been no accountability. Government keeps on partnering with Ratner — not only on the projects, but on the clandestine planning process, too.

There are already many cheerleaders for Ratner’s City Tech tower. But until public officials answer reasonable questions about this backroom deal, and show us that the public, and not only Bruce Ratner, will benefit generously from this project, we will remain skeptical.

[ablarc]

Bruce Ratner is planning to build ... a whopping 1,000-foot skyscraper that would dwarf the 512-foot Williamsburgh Savings Bank building, Brooklyn’s tallest.
After more than half a century, it's about time something did!

[tommykvt]

Here are a few pictures of what those yellow rods might look like on this building. These are pictures from a Piano building in Berlin (part of the Potsdamer Platz redevelopment that is attempting to piece East and West Berlin back together). The building is clad almost entirely in a bold yellow ceramic tile very similar to what appears in these renderings. Where there are windows the tile is replaced by ceramic rods. The effect is actually quite nice with the ceramic rods giving the facade a very nice depth (like NYT).

I'm not saying that this is what will happen on this building, just giving an example of what the same architect has done in the past.

[czsz]

The NYT building was meant to be Piano's improvement on his efforts at Potsdamer Platz, so his treatment of the rods should be a bit more refined, here.

[MidtownGuy]

Yes, those rods are horrible, NYT's are much better.
The yellow ceramic tiles in the pics are gorgeous, however. Now that, I could live with easily.
Anyway, they're saying it's an old rendering so whatever.

[antinimby]

GVNY, in addition to what others have said already, I'd just like to add one more: image.

Don't underestimate how powerful a message an impressive skyline sends out. Imagine how less of an image we would have of say, Chicago, if it had Indianopolis' skyline or if Manhattan looked more like Hartford or Seattle looking like Tacoma instead.

What would someone's impression of Brooklyn be if they saw a dense and tall skyline versus one that shared the same appearance as Wilmington Delaware?

Image is very important.

[BrooklynLove]

if we ended up with exactly what we see in the rendering i'd be thrilled b/c this would represent a huge step forward for downtown brooklyn in moving toward the modern commercial urban center that it deserves to be. in my opinion there is no reason other than fear of change that downtown brooklyn should not have commerical highrise development on par with any major US downtown. the core of downtown bk is really no less sensible for this type of development than is the financial district of manhattan.

i realize that the building is currently slated to be resi and academic space, but it would still accomplish the goal of breaking the metal inertia that is fueling all of this resistance to height in downtown bk.

build this NOW.

[DarrylStrawberry]

This area needs street level retail badly. I wonder if there will be any provision in Ratner's plans for it.

[antinimby]

Parents fear Brooklyn tower plan would hike health risk



BY RACHEL MONAHAN
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Monday, December 3rd 2007 (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2007/12/03/2007-12-03_parents_fear_brooklyn_tower_plan_would_h.html), 4:00 AM

Neighbors of the tallest building proposed for Brooklyn are already worried.

These Brooklynites distressed by the downsides of development are students, parents and staff of the George Westinghouse Career and Technical Education High School in downtown Brooklyn.

"I know things must change, but I don't want them to change at the expense of my child's health," said parent Jessica Welch, whose ninth-grader daughter, Evadnie Lewis, 14, suffers from allergies and had asthma as a young girl.

Renderings of the City Tech Tower - a New York City College of Technology project to be built by Nets Arena developer Forest City Ratner - were published last week.

It is expected to be higher than the Williamsburgh Savings Bank tower, now the borough's tallest building.

Westinghouse parents, students and staff listed the full gamut of woes associated with construction including dust, noise and vibrations, worrying particularly about air quality.

The school is located near the busy intersection of Flatbush Ave. and Tillary St., so it already has air pollution problems, they said.

"Parents are up in arms," said PTA President Jerome Lykes, noting that his daughter Shaeeta, 17, suffers from asthma.

"She doesn't need any more dust going into her lungs."

The school's only outdoor space, used mainly as a parking lot for teachers, may also be handed over to City Tech, said members of the school community.

"DOE is really ready to give it up for their benefit and our detriment," said one staff member.

Department of Education spokeswoman Margie Feinberg said in an e-mail that the project hasn't been "finalized."

"We will work with CUNY to help minimize the disruption that can be caused by construction," she said.

Officials from City Tech and Forest City Ratner declined to comment.

Westinghouse parent Israel Rosario Jr. said his daughter, Dinesha Rosa, 21, attended the school while a Polytechnic University dorm was constructed nearby.

"Kids were being prepared for the Regents. The construction noise wouldn't let them concentrate," he said, fearing his son, ninth-grader Israel Ricardo Rosario, 14, will face the same problem.

"We don't want all that noise," said senior Andy Brutus, 17.

Parents asked for the air conditioners and filters to counteract the noise and pollution. They also asked for monitoring of the air quality.

But they all preferred that the project not go forward.

"Our school is going to be looking like a little old hut. Next, we're afraid they'll scrap the school," said Patricia Joseph, mother of ninth-grader Kadeen, 14.

© Copyright 2007 NYDailyNews.com

[Derek2k3]

Why papers so compelled to publish all these Nimby arguments and label it as news? I regret finding a rendering. No wonder most projects stay under wraps until construction is under way.

[Stern]

Yes, they are going to scrap the school. God, these nimby's are irritatingly dumb.

[lofter1]

You Compare: City Tech 'Old Model' to City Tech 'Today Model' (http://mcbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2007/12/you-compare-city-tech-old-model-to-city.html)

mcbrooklyn
December 3, 2007

http://bp3.blogger.com/_GTU_nOCsE-s/R1NaBjc435I/AAAAAAAABcg/bie6fDSjr0A/s400/city_tech_piano_building.jpg (http://bp3.blogger.com/_GTU_nOCsE-s/R1NaBjc435I/AAAAAAAABcg/K9iL9_1tl2U/s1600-R/city_tech_piano_building.jpg)........http://bp0.blogger.com/_GTU_nOCsE-s/R1NZHzc434I/AAAAAAAABcY/VCh5EMRU7rA/s400/city_tech_piano_building_update.bmp (http://bp0.blogger.com/_GTU_nOCsE-s/R1NZHzc434I/AAAAAAAABcY/D2WmT1Mi8eg/s1600-R/city_tech_piano_building_update.bmp)

After all of the excitement about the new City Tech/Ratner tower at the corner of Tillary and Jay Streets -- possibly the tallest building(s) in Brooklyn to date -- the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/28/2007-11-28_proposed_1000_foot_skyscraper_would_be_b-1.html) reported that Forest City Ratner spokesperson Loren Riegelhaupt claims that the breathtaking rendering being displayed on blogs and in newspapers (seen on upper left) is stale. "This model is an old model," said Riegelhaupt, who said a height for the building has not been decided. "It's an early rendering and not a reflection of what we're considering today."

Compare the rendering to the draft shown today on the City Tech Web site (http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/) (right). The configuration, adjusting for angle, is remarkably similar, though the final height is hard to fathom.

City Tech's site confirms (http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/aboutus/newsevents/landmark.shtml): "City Tech will soon be the home to what is sure to be the architectural landmark of Brooklyn. Standing at the corner of Tillary and Jay Streets, directly across from the Namm Building will soon be the most original piece of architecture since the Brooklyn Bridge, a masterpiece conceived by the celebrated architect Renzo Piano."

[Stern]

This looks more promising. No stupid spire/rods.

[BrooklynRider]

It looks more lame to me.

[lofter1]

The two pictures are showing opposite ends / differing perspectives of the plan, yes?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Not a big fan of either, and the new rendering is crude...but I agree with BR.

[NewYorkDoc]

This looks anything but more promising, but this is just a sketch.

[alonzo-ny]

Still cant judge at this point.

[BrooklynRider]

Well, I judged the first one, so I'll take that liberty with the second. I don't know the right way to express my reaction to it other than saying, "It looks dumbed down."

[Stroika]

Sanitized, sterilized, scrubbed down ... I actually liked the first design. With the bold yellow stripe cutting through the black it had an edge to it. This one is like the NYT building meets the Bloomberg tower. And it assumes we're all just a bit dumber.

[MidtownGuy]

will soon be the most original piece of architecture since the Brooklyn Bridge,

Someone with a keyboard is smoking the crack pipe again. What? Original?
The first rendering was nothing special but this one is even more forgettable.

what is sure to be the architectural landmark of Brooklyn

:rolleyes: more bull.

[LeCom]

Someone with a keyboard is smoking the crack pipe again. What? Original?
The first rendering was nothing special but this one is even more forgettable.
I don't think being high would make this tower look original (though would probably make it look better). Shameless marketing and ego trips make people say crazier things than crack does.

[meesalikeu]

i like renzo's first rendering even tho its a lazy ripoff...whoops...i mean creative reimagining...of his nytimes tower.

anyhoo it's better than the newer version.

[antinimby]

So much for all that short-lived excitement...


Ratner kills Mr. Brooklyn


By Gersh Kuntzman
The Brooklyn Paper
March 1, 2008 (http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/9/31_09_ratner_kills_mr_brooklyn.html)

Developer Bruce Ratner has pulled out of a deal with City Tech that could have net him hundreds of millions of dollars and allowed him to build the city’s tallest residential tower, the so-called Mr. Brooklyn, The Brooklyn Paper has learned.

“It was a mutual decision,” said a key executive at the City University of New York, which would have paid Ratner $300 million to build a new dorm and lab for City Tech and given him a prime plot at the corner of Tillary and Jay streets where he reportedly hoped to build the 100-story, Renzo Piano-designed building.

“Both sides agreed that the costs had escalated and the numbers showed that we should not go down that road,” added the executive, who did not wish to be identified.

Costs had indeed escalated. In 2005, CUNY agreed to pay Ratner $86 million to build the 11- to 14-story classroom-dormitory and also to hand over the lucrative development site where City Tech’s Klitgord Auditorium now sits.
Then in December, CUNY raised Ratner’s fee to $307 million with no explanation.

“Ratner’s ‘Mr. Brooklyn’ deal gets sweeter,” The Brooklyn Paper headline read.

Still, it’s likely that Ratner willingly got out of the deal in light of the nation’s ongoing credit crunch (see story below) and his own shaky finances, said Councilman David Yassky.

“He may be overextended right now,” said Yassky (D– Brooklyn Heights). “Look, a lot of developers are re-evaluting their numbers and feel that residential buildings don’t work right now,” he said.

Yassky called Ratner’s withdrawal “good news” for Brooklyn.

“A residential building at that corner was an awkward fit,” said Yassky. “A lot of planners see that site as ideal for a significant office building.”

Forest City Ratner did not return two messages from The Brooklyn Paper.

The CUNY official said the dorm and lab would still be built — but no longer as a public-private partnership.

“We’ll build it in partnership with the state Dormitory Authority,” the executive said.

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

[BrooklynLove]

bummer

[Skylimitone]

Hopefully we'll still get City Point

[Stern]

Given the design this isn't much of a loss. The height was nice though.

[ASchwarz]

Not a big deal. The design was ok, but the site will still be developed by another developer.

Remember that the City Tech part is on a separate site, so the lot where the Piano building would have gone will still be sold and developed. The councilperson mentions that he would prefer an office tower over the Piano residential plans, and I don't disagree.

[BrooklynLove]

Hopefully we'll still get City Point

if citypoint bails i'm going on hiatus for 5 years.

[ASchwarz]

Don't worry, you'll get something here too, it will just be delayed and it probably won't be Piano.

[bklynite]

was it zoning that gave so much FAR or was it a deal for air rights from other city tech properties? wondering chances of someone else building that high.

[Stern]

...where he reportedly hoped to build the 100-story, Renzo Piano-designed building.

The Brooklyn Paper is such a joke.

[Optimus Prime]

was it zoning that gave so much FAR or was it a deal for air rights from other city tech properties? wondering chances of someone else building that high.

I believe this site is within the unlimited height special district that was created in 2004, but I could be mistaken.