January 29th, 2002, 03:46 PM
Ed you got some recent pics of the Pennmark Towers, complete with the spires?
January 29th, 2002, 05:20 PM
Recent pictures of the Pennmark. At night the tips of the spires light up in beautiful purple. You can see earlier pictures on The Pennmark (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/pennmark/default.htm) page of Wired New York.
The view of Pennmark Towers (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/pennmark/default.htm) from 420 W 42nd Street (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/420w42nd/default.htm) apartment building on 20 January 2002.
The view of The Pennmark (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/pennmark/default.htm) on 26 January 2002.
February 1st, 2002, 08:00 AM
Towers as if there were more than one ? I don't get it.
February 1st, 2002, 12:19 PM
On the Wired New York page for Pennmark Towers (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/pennmark/default.htm) there is a quote from New York Times dated May 4, 2001 in which the building is called "Pennmark Towers".
The recently opened official website of the building at http://www.thepennmark.com calls it The Pennmark, however.
February 3rd, 2002, 01:01 AM
Here are fresh pictures of The Pennmark (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/pennmark/default.htm)
February 3rd, 2002, 05:56 PM
it was a good try, albeit unsuccessfull. Topping it with spires was a good idea, but the base is still boring residential and the attempt is failed IMO.
February 5th, 2002, 06:37 AM
The roof lacks homogeneity.
February 5th, 2002, 09:20 PM
The roof *looks tacky...why did they bother adding the spires if they have all that other crap up there...maybe just to make *it *500ft.
January 9th, 2007, 12:27 PM
Olivia is the name of the new owner's daughter
January 9th, 2007, 01:51 PM
Uh? What happened to the roof? The 'white fence spires' are missing!
January 9th, 2007, 03:23 PM
Chanukah ended on the 23rd. They’ve probably taken down their Christmas tree too.
January 9th, 2007, 08:14 PM
Call her what you like, she's a real FUGLY POS in my book.
Another thing that has always bugged me is the mis-applied metal panel (up-side down) on the north facade :eek: ...
January 9th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Uh? What happened to the roof? The 'white fence spires' are missing!Well, according to the link (http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/NY-New-York-The-Olivia-formerly-PennMark-565723.html) Derek provided in the Moynihan station thread, there's a very interesting and informative testimonial from a resident.
I'd bet those new Stonehenge owners of the Pennmark are really scum like the guy said and explains why they've downgraded the appearance of the building.
I'm copying and pasting it here:
Nice apartment, gym, roof. Stonehenge Sucks!!
Date posted: 12/27/2006
Years at this apartment: 2003-2006
I moved in about a year after the building opened and was the second tenant in my apartment. About two years later, Stonehenge (May they burn!) bought the building at a huge premium and immediately set about defacing their latest acquisition.
The apartment is nice. Good layout, good closets, very nice kitchen and bathroom, great view. I do hear any conversations in the hallway, but almost never from within other apartments. I've been fortunate with mostly quiet adjacent neighbors. I can understand people complaining if their neighbors are loud, but this is to be expected with modern apartment construction.
The roof is really nice, sunny with great city and river views. This is about the best gym I have seen, on the top floor with a wall of windows. The equipment is good, much better than I have seen in most other places. No complaints about the laundry, either. I never had to wait for a machine.
The location has plusses and minuses. It's central with great transportation. Paid parking is plentiful, but free street parking is a few blocks away. The neighborhood is far more commercial than residential. The nearest grocery is 7 blocks away. Not unreasonable, but far for Manhattan. Quality restaurants are also few in the surrounding blocks, but plentiful in nearby Hell's Kitchen.
Doormen Gus (evening) and Sandy (morning) are terrific, a pleasure! If Stonehenge ever fires either of them, I will propose a rent strike!
Maintenan people have always been friendly and helpful. None have ever accepted an on the spot tip for being extra helpful. I make sure to tip well at the holidays to the doormen and maintenance people. They deserve it. Even more so because they probably also have to deal with all sorts of BS from Stonehenge.
Now the really bad, and my reason for not recommending the building to prospective tenants. Stonehenge. They are aggressively obnoxious. I know someone in another building recently bought by Stonehenge with similar complaints.
The original name, Pennmark, spoke to the location. Olivia is the daughter of Stonehenge's principal. Who cares? And, they had to plaster "Olivia" obnoxiously everywhere with ugly green adhesive signs. The worst was on the windows on the roof and in the gym. I'm looking at the view. Keep your ---- daughter's name out of it!
The building is only a few years old, and was many years away from needing a major renovation. So, why are they spending huge sums to make everything uglier? TO CHASE OUT EXISTING TENANTS, SO APARTMENTS CAN BE RENTED AT HIGHER RATES TO NEW TENANTS. Typical slum-lord tactics applied to a luxury building.
It started when Stonehenge removed plentiful, expensive, nice lighting fixtures in the hallways and replaced them with disgraceful, cheap, Home-Depot-reject plastic lighting fixtures, and half as many. Bright and cheerful to dark and gloomy. Then came the ridiculous palm tree carpets. Palm trees in Manhattan? Are you kidding? Must have been surplus refused by a third-rate Miami no-tell motel. Next was painting the doors dark brown, dull medium brown wallpaper, and a mirror in a heavy black frame inexplicably hung in front of the built-in mirror at the end of the hallway, without enough light (see above) to check your appearance in either mirror. Finally, dark brown crown molding in the hallway, probably to hide the ratty edges of the amateurish wallpapering.
The upstairs lounge and gym was torn up in September and has yet to be completed four months later, with little progress shown.
The lobby has been similarly made dark and foreboding where it was once bright and cheerful. From "welcome home" to "get out." Lovely and expensive natural wood has been over-stained with unrealistic dark brown with a faux grain, with the original grain still visible underneath. Ugly, ugly, ugly! It's not even a mahogany stain. It's just sh*t brown. Might as well have smeared it with that ---- Olivia's feces. Maybe they did. The forward entrance to the mailbox room was closed and turned into a closet (for what?), so traffic now has to go to the back entrance and retrace steps. This means all foot traffic has to pass through the narrowest part of the lobby, including those going in and out of the mail room. To make it worse, a table was placed in the middle of the lobby, obstructing foot traffic. Above the table (which I admit would be a nice table somewhere else) is perhaps the ugliest chandelier I have ever seen. Cheap steel construction, with faux brown patina paint, lined with children's-jewelry-c plastic beads. The large mirrors along one wall were removed, probably to be sold along with the expensive light fixtures from the hallways. Same for the very nice and striking large oval sofa. In place of that unique and pleasant sofa are a few dark brown, high back leather armchairs that might work in a cigar lounge, but I can't imaging where else. A new floor-to-ceiling dark brown wall juts out in the forward lobby and conspires with the new seating area opposite the doorman's desk to again restrict foot traffic.
The worst (yet) is the elevators. This is the most abhorrent example of bright and cheerful to dark and ugly. The elevators used to have bright, indirect lighting with interesting natural wood, tile and aluminum accents, and a comfortable, quality rail at the back. I'll agree that the old ceiling design could have been improved, but it was a minor flaw. The new elevators are mostly covered with dark, fake wood panels under glass, with five halogen spotlights set into the ceiling and a mirror at the back wall at face-level. The mirror is useless because the lighting is such that you are either under a light and look like you're about to tell ghost stories, or between lights and in the dark. Since the panels are effectively black mirrors, and the floor is a dark carpet, the spotlights don't illuminate but are reflected to and absorbed by the floor. The new handrail and the edges of the panels have exposed, unfinished metal edges that are sure to cut some fingers and slice some bags and clothing.
When Stonehenge took over they put up some renderings of what they wanted to change in the decor. The changes were terrible, and I'm sure I was not alone in expressing my distaste for them and requesting only necessary repairs be made, not a full redecorating. The actual changes are far, far worse than those original renderings. If the renderings had been accurate, perhaps there would have been more revolt over the revolting changes.
Some have said that the new motif, if one is generous enough to call it that, is classic, warm, dark tones to evoke a past time of finer things. If that was the intention, it could not have been worse in conception or execution. The building's architecture is entirely modern. Throwing some cheap, crappy, old-style furniture into a modern lobby is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Stonehenge distributed newsletters saying it was going to do some things that sounded really great, like providing a personal trainer free of charge in the gym, and free yoga classes in a new studio on the 7th floor. No such conveniences have been provided. Every change is for the worse.
As others have mentioned, Stonehenge's rental agents are rude, obnoxious and unhelpful. Their response to any challenge is that the tenant is welcome not to renew the lease and move out. That, after all, is Stonehenge's ultimate goal in all of this.
Will any of this ranting, or any other protest do any good? No. This is all being done on purpose to chase out tenants in good standing. Stonehenge believes that Manhattan's low vacancy rate will keep their building full, no matter how ugly, no matter how expensive. Sadly, they are probably right.
I urge current tenants not to give Stonehenge the satisfaction. You have the right to sublet your apartment (NYC stabilization law, and Stonehenge can't stop you). Keep your rent stabilization and make the extra profit of market rent yourself.
As for prospective new tenants, I'll just offer this one additional warning: The moment you sign your lease is the last time Stonehenge or any of its representative will be nice to you.
I'm not planning on moving out soon, because my apartment itself is nice enough that I can rush through the public areas and enjoy my own space. If and when I do move, I'll never do business with Stonehenge again. I wish them financial ruin. They have vandalized my home. May they burn.
January 11th, 2007, 09:57 PM
I'm surprised a building this new has any stabilizd apartments.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.