PDA

View Full Version : 505 Fifth Avenue - by Kohn Pedersen Fox



Pages : [1] 2

Edward
December 26th, 2001, 10:50 PM
"One of the first buildings to come out of the ground in Manhattan is likely to be a boutique office building at 505 Fifth Avenue, at the northeast corner of Fifth and 42nd street, said Mary Ann Tighe, vice chairman of Insignia/ESG, the brokerage and services company. "That site can be cleared fast — there's nobody in those buildings," she said of the site, partly occupied by a one-story former bazaar-like shopping complex.

The building would be of modest size by New York standards, with 275,000 square feet in a slender building rising 25 or 26 stories. Kurt Eichler, executive vice president of the developer, LCOR, which is based in suburban Philadelphia, said he expected to sign a principal tenant before commencing construction. "

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/images/505fifth_sign.jpg

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/images/505fifth_west_25dec.jpg

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/images/505fifth_east_25dec.jpg

Kris
January 17th, 2004, 10:05 AM
It's kind of lame though better than the crap that was on that site :? . Here's the link:

www.nyu.edu/clubs/realestate/documents/RESA.pdf

The LCOR project was much better.

It's a shame that -- for the most part-- great architecture is a thing of the past. Developers now build cheap boxes that maximize their profits.

TLOZ Link5
January 17th, 2004, 01:30 PM
::hums We're Off to See the Wizard::

Gulcrapek
January 17th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Eh. It's boring.

JMC
January 17th, 2004, 04:10 PM
My buddy used to work in one of those buildings, slated for demo. That was 3 years ago...his firm was evicted, then. It's amazing to me how long it takes to close deals.

Those bulidings were vacant, this whole time.

billyblancoNYC
January 18th, 2004, 02:23 AM
Well, if it looks like the rendering and the skin is illuminated nicely, it might be nice.

londonlawyer
January 18th, 2004, 02:32 AM
Well, if it looks like the rendering and the skin is illuminated nicely, it might be nice.

True, and a great improvement over what was there. It's still not as nice as the LCOR proposal though.

krulltime
January 18th, 2004, 02:37 AM
Yeah...I agree. I like this building as well...I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

at least it doesn't come with another antenna. (It looks like any new building so far comes with one) :wink:

NYguy
January 18th, 2004, 03:47 AM
Renderings from another proposal for the site...


http://www.pbase.com/image/25228652/large.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/image/25228653/original.jpg

NoyokA
January 18th, 2004, 11:13 AM
Oh well. That's the design I was rooting for.

Kris
January 18th, 2004, 02:53 PM
An insipid filler instead of a potential local landmark.

emmeka junior
January 18th, 2004, 06:34 PM
I like both of them but whichever they build it will look good. Bryant park area is really gonna take off soon with new stuff.

TLOZ Link5
January 18th, 2004, 07:02 PM
An insipid filler instead of a potential local landmark.

I agree. The rejected design plays off of 500 Fifth very well.

NYguy
March 31st, 2004, 09:50 AM
NY Post...

GRAND PLANS AT GRAND CENTRAL

March 31, 2004 -- WEARING work boots and jeans, Dr. Axel Stawski celebrated the first pouring of concrete at 505 Fifth Ave. last Friday by tossing in a handful of change, including Roman coins and a Sacagawea dollar.

Paul Katz of Kohn Pederson Fox designed the concrete and glass 26-story tower in an inspiration from the sparse, International-style favored by the German-born developer who heads the Kipp/Stawski Group.

The approximately 300,000 square-foot office building now rising on the northeast corner of 42nd Street includes an open book-like protrusion on the Fifth Avenue side so that future corporate honchos can watch the ongoing parade of pedestrians up and down the avenue.

A team led by Paul Glickman of Cushman & Wakefield has been hired as the agents for the office floors that should be ready for possession in late 2005. The 20,000 square feet of retail space will be handled by Robert K. Futterman & Associates.

"There are many unique architectural details that are highly attractive to financial firms and boutique office tenants," said Glickman. These tenants tend to now rent in the Plaza District.

"Until now, they have not had this kind of product available to them in the Grand Central District."

There are many unseen structural safety features along with various setbacks, terraces and a clear glass canopy leading to an atrium lobby on the East 42nd Street side of the corner building.

A cut-out on the 43rd Street corner can also become a private entrance for either an office or retail tenant.

Stawski told us he is in discussions with minimalist artist James Turrell to light the lobby, perhaps the canopy, and the lightbox on the structure's skyline.

For the last 15 years the corner has been an eyesore as it slipped through several owners with grand plans but no financing. The Greek-owned 1 E. 42nd St. was long a target for more square footage. That building was finally sold and Stawski garnered 10,000 square feet of its air rights to create the 26th sun-drenched floor on his new project.

http://www.pbase.com/image/27474478/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/27474478/large.jpg

Just Rich
March 31st, 2004, 10:37 AM
The angle of the west face is interesting but it will minimize the views from inside the building of Bryant Park and the Library (or the space above the Library). I would have thought that in such a tight space as Midtown you would want to maximize those views. Instead it kind of forces you to look north-west.

londonlawyer
March 31st, 2004, 03:05 PM
I really like it! I like how the west facade has two converging angles, and the glass looks beautiful. I don't know if anyone remebers the horrible crap that was on the corner. It was a serious eye sore. This excellent building is a massive improvement.

Gulcrapek
March 31st, 2004, 05:57 PM
That's a relief, I thought the blander thing was getting built. This is sort of a compromise between that and the original KPF proposal, and the similarity with that original proposal is undeniable.

londonlawyer
March 31st, 2004, 07:26 PM
That's a relief, I thought the blander thing was getting built. This is sort of a compromise between that and the original KPF proposal, and the similarity with that original proposal is undeniable.

I agree. KPF also designed this building. The glass is just like the one on the original proposal, and the shape has a lot of facets. One that's not clear in the photos is the huge facet on the 42nd Street side of the tower. It looks excellent!

Gulcrapek
March 31st, 2004, 07:44 PM
And something I forgot to note before: the open cantilever is interesting.

londonlawyer
April 1st, 2004, 12:11 PM
And something I forgot to note before: the open cantilever is interesting.

Do you mean the facade on the 5th Ave. side or are you referring to the open space on the corner of 5th and 42nd. That is cool!

krulltime
April 1st, 2004, 01:15 PM
Great design!

but I think that it should have been more taller...especially since it is in that amazing corner.

Kris
April 23rd, 2004, 01:01 PM
April 21, 2004

REGIONAL MARKET

Offices Rising Across From Library's Lions

By EDWIN McDOWELL

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/04/21/business/21REAL.library.jpg
Kohn Pedersen Fox is the architect for 505 Fifth Avenue, which is at the corner of 42nd Street.

Construction of a 27-story glass and concrete building has begun at the northeast corner of 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue - on a lot vacant for more than a decade that once held the mansion in which Edith Wharton made her society debut in 1879.

The building, whose address will be 505 Fifth Avenue, is being developed on three building lots by Kipp-Stawski, the development and property investment company. It will have about 275,000 square feet of space, mainly offices.

By acquiring unused development rights from adjacent properties for about $2.5 million, Dr. Axel Stawski, a partner in Kipp-Stawski, said the company was able to add a floor, the 27th, to the building.

Kipp-Stawski is not the first developer to have its eyes on those lots, which are two blocks from Grand Central Terminal and diagonally across Fifth Avenue from the main branch of the New York Public Library. "We looked at that site for quite a few years," Dr. Stawski said, "but for various reasons it was inappropriate because we were involved with other construction projects."

Eventually they bought the land from an entity controlled by Lehman Brothers for about $43 million, he said. The entire project is expected to have a cost of about $140 million.

In an unusual strategy in today's market, the building is a speculative venture; unlike most developers, who will not build until they have signed up tenants, Kipp-Stawski has started construction without having signed leases from tenants.

"We build first and then we look for tenants," said Dr. Stawski, who was born in Germany, came to the United States in 1971 and earned a Ph.D. in international law from New York University in 1978. "We hope the quality of our buildings will attract the tenants."

Dr. Stawski drew a distinction between this approach and that of developers of properties like the one the Durst Organization plans to build a block west, at 42nd Street and the Avenue of the Americas. It will be a 2.1-million-square-foot building with the Bank of America as the anchor tenant.

"Buildings that are preleased require a fairly large tenant, and those tenants characteristically plan several years ahead," Dr. Stawski said. "We don't accept such tenants, nor will we, because large tenants tend to move out in a down market, and that's not a risk we're willing to take."

Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates has designed 505 Fifth Avenue, and the contractor is Pavarini McGovern. "What's really special about this site in New York," said Paul Katz, the Kohn Pedersen Fox principal in charge of the project, "is that most smaller buildings tend to be enclosed by the neighboring blocks. But this building opens out and has a wonderful vista over one of the most important intersections, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, and one of the greatest buildings, the New York Public Library."

The lot has been vacant since the 1990 demolition of the six-story former mansion of Levi P. Morton, who had been both governor of New York and vice president of the United States from 1889 to 1893.

In the 1980's, the Touko America Company, a subsidiary of the Touko Haus development company of Tokyo, planned to build an office tower on the site. But when the real estate market collapsed in the early 1990's and Japan underwent a recession, Touko lost the properties and its $41 million investment.

Paul N. Glickman, the executive vice president of Cushman & Wakefield, the agent for the building, said that the lot had subsequently traded hands many times.

The building is expected to be ready for tenants to start their interior work in late 2005 or early 2006. There will be about 20,000 square feet of retail space in the building's ground floor, first floor and basement, said Robert K. Futterman, chief executive of the concern that bears his name, who represents the retail portion of the building.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

krulltime
April 23rd, 2004, 02:58 PM
:D Good news!

Edward
June 28th, 2004, 12:22 AM
Construction of a 27-story glass and concrete building has begun at the northeast corner of 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue - on a lot vacant for more than a decade that once held the mansion in which Edith Wharton made her society debut in 1879. 26 June 2004.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/images/505fifth_26june04.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/)

Eugenius
June 29th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Man, that's one huge crane.

Jasonik
June 29th, 2004, 07:42 PM
Man, that's one huge crane.
http://www.serve.com/class65/abbey/giant.jpg

(http://www.serve.com/class65/abbey/nd-giant.htm)http://www.tadano.co.jp/ihq/lineup2/imageindex/images/atfimageready_01.jpg (http://www.tadano.co.jp/indexe.htm)
Hummer Schmummer!

Zoe
July 7th, 2004, 03:17 PM
I went by the site today and saw them pouring the concrete foundation.
http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6789/07-07-04_1136.jpg

BrooklynRider
September 23rd, 2004, 05:48 PM
Just wondering if this building is out of the ground yet?

londonlawyer
September 23rd, 2004, 06:25 PM
It's several floors above the ground, and one can already see the amazing curves and facets that this building will have. It appeared from the rendering that it would have some interesting facets on the west and south facades, and they're visible on that part of the structure which has risen thus far.

If you're in Midtown, I recommend walking by this building. It's going to be a great addition to the area. You can also walk by the site of the new 45 story condo that will down the street at 34th and 5th!

I'm excited about this great little building!

Derek2k3
September 23rd, 2004, 07:16 PM
That's a relief, I thought the blander thing was getting built. This is sort of a compromise between that and the original KPF proposal, and the similarity with that original proposal is undeniable.

It is actually that same bland design just in a pretty rendering and skewed.

NoyokA
September 23rd, 2004, 07:24 PM
Yeah. I'm not too impressed with the design...

londonlawyer
September 23rd, 2004, 07:29 PM
For a 25 story building, I think that it's a nice design. It's not a box, and it appears to have really nice glass. Also, it replaces what was a truly blighted corner. Remember that horrible bazaar/ flea market that was on this site?

Zoe
October 7th, 2004, 03:49 PM
Construction moving along 10/7/04
http://img88.exs.cx/img88/4118/10-07-04_0846.jpg

Gulcrapek
October 7th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Thanks. Still weird to see a concrete office building.

JMGarcia
October 7th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Thanks. Still weird to see a concrete office building.

Welcome to most of the rest of the world. :)

yepole
December 6th, 2004, 08:52 PM
December 6, 2004
A little rainy, but green glass is noticeable anyway:
http://pictures.unwiredny.com/Catalog/Constr_505Fifth/01819.jpg

NoyokA
December 6th, 2004, 09:13 PM
It looks like the glass on 7WTC only green.

Gulcrapek
December 6th, 2004, 10:35 PM
And continuous.

RedFerrari360f1
December 6th, 2004, 11:35 PM
It almost has that aura of a film layer of algae.

TLOZ Link5
December 7th, 2004, 12:42 AM
Construction of a 27-story glass and concrete building has begun at the northeast corner of 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue - on a lot vacant for more than a decade that once held the mansion in which Edith Wharton made her society debut in 1879.

Didn't Edith Wharton consider New York a backwater compared to London or Paris?

Kolbster
January 4th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Didn't Edith Wharton consider New York a backwater compared to London or Paris?


--> yup

Edward
January 7th, 2005, 12:31 AM
Construction progress. 12 December 2004.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/505fifth.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/)

Gulcrapek
January 11th, 2005, 07:25 PM
2 weeks ago on a crappy day, camera didn't like the light

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/532/1305055th3s.jpg

Facade, blurry

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/532/130505glasss.jpg

NewYorkYankee
January 11th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Thanks for the pics gul.

kliq6
January 13th, 2005, 11:04 AM
Any Leasing Activity on this one?

billyblancoNYC
January 13th, 2005, 02:02 PM
I think it will be fine b/c all there is now is talk of now big blocks of office space. The timing seems right for the developer to seem like a genius, with this being a totally spec building.

Deimos
January 25th, 2005, 12:57 PM
There was an add for the building in today's post.... advertising fall 2005 availabilities, and the website for the building:

http://www.505fifth.com/

NoyokA
February 2nd, 2005, 04:13 PM
New rendering, its a super large image so copy and paste the url.

http://specialsections.nypost.com/news/nypost/commercialre/20050120/img/a_1_p41.jpg

NewYorkYankee
February 2nd, 2005, 08:28 PM
I like it. :)

Derek2k3
February 2nd, 2005, 09:24 PM
There was an add for the building in today's post.... advertising fall 2005 availabilities, and the website for the building:

http://www.505fifth.com/

The site is up and running now. Renderings by Advanced Media Design and KPF.
Also, check out this article from Architectural Record.

Slender, Robust, and Very Tall
Cast-in-place reinforced concrete rises to the occasion.
By Sara Hart

http://archrecord.construction.com/innovation/2_Features/0411TallBuildings.asp#

Gulcrapek
February 2nd, 2005, 09:45 PM
The base looks exactly like the render.

krulltime
February 3rd, 2005, 02:42 PM
They should have added residential to the whole design. It would had been taller. Especially on that site with a view of the park and the library, those units will have been sold like pancakes.

billyblancoNYC
February 3rd, 2005, 05:54 PM
They should have added residential to the whole design. It would had been taller. Especially on that site with a view of the park and the library, those units will have been sold like pancakes.

True. Were they restricted by zoning and couldn't get/didn't want air rights?

Derek2k3
February 19th, 2005, 03:39 PM
From Transfer
"nyc's chronicler of good bass & bad architecture"

http://www.usemenow.com/web-log/archives/2005/02/5th_42nd_st_los.html

Its a 27-story, 275,000 square ft. internationalist glass box, immediately accross the street from Shreve, Lamb and Harmon's regally terraced 500 5th Ave, and perpendicular to Carrere and Hastings Beaux Art's landmark NY Public Library. Its 42nd St. AND 5th Ave. Suffice to say, a hugely important site.

IT WAS GOING to be a landmark Steven Holl structure. The model was shown off during MOMA's Tall Buildings exhibit this past summer, and still appears on Holl's site. It WOULD have included a public garden on the roof and a permanent installation by artist James Turrell. But instead Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates got the contract. Wipe the tears and peruse the photos, as another lost opportunity takes shape. Its better than what existed on the site previously, but hardly what it could have been.


Here are some of the other unbuilt designs.

1. Lot-ek
Interesting design using shipping containers. There a project using the containers going up in NoHo and a temporary one being constructed on a pier.

http://www.lot-ek.com/permanent.htm
Container Mall, 5th Ave. and 42nd St, New York

Nine levels of containers are stacked to make an improvised typology for the mall. The project takes advantage of the inherent intelligence of standardized shipping containers to configure vertical malls that could be erected in left over empty lots throughout the city. Each container module serves as an indoor booth in the fashion of an urban market. The location shown is a sliver of street front real-estate on 5th Avenue at 42nd Street. In this scheme, the containers are placed in an undulating manner, animating the façade. A system of catwalks, stairs, and elevators is wedged between the container stack and the wall of the adjacent building to make up the circulation and a series of outdoor public spaces. Containers are taken out at different locations, allowing the exchange of air, light, and street views.

2. Previous design by KPF with the developers LCOR. Rendering by Archimation.

3. Steven Holl

http://www.stevenholl.com/PT310_1CR.htm

5th Avenue and 42nd Street Tower
New York, New York

Program Offices, Restaurant,
Retail, Cafe
client Fifth at 42nd LLC
size 401,330 sf
status Schematic Design Phase

Design architect: Steven Holl, Solange Fabião
Project architect: Simone Giostra
Project team: Ziad Jamaleddine, Irene Vogt

Across from the New York Public Library on the corner of 5th Avenue and 42nd Street an urban corner tower is proposed. In Manhattan, this is a mythical corner. The city of "continuous profane time," of rushing workers, warps the curtain wall base. The "sacred time" within the New York Public Library across the street can be viewed from two terraces carved into the 600-foot curtain wall. The core of the building is split following the concrete sheer walls up through the tower, like an open book facing the library. From the open space around the library the subtle curves inspire awe. This unique Manhattan corner puts public space on the tower's roof terrace in celebration of the view over midtown's only large green space, Bryant Park.

4 ? If the adjacent buildings were enveloped into the site.

5 NJBA Architects

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2005, 10:09 AM
They should have added residential to the whole design. It would had been taller. Especially on that site with a view of the park and the library, those units will have been sold like pancakes.

It's probably not zoned to be taller.

I just saw that BB had the same comment.

NoyokA
February 20th, 2005, 10:21 AM
SOM also had a design for a tower here too, it was a larger version for LCOR, it was actually my favorite, followed by Holl, and the original KPF design.

The to-be-built design is my least favorite, it is as bad if not worse than the CIBC Building, that blank glass wall facing 42nd Street is disheartening.

Kris
February 23rd, 2005, 10:00 PM
http://www.usemenow.com/web-log/archives/2005/02/5th_42nd_st_los.html

NYatKNIGHT
February 28th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Multi-faceted:

http://www.pbase.com/image/40279744.jpg



Green glass:

http://www.pbase.com/image/40279745.jpg

NewYorkYankee
February 28th, 2005, 01:58 PM
I like it, thanks for the pics NYatKNIGHT

NoyokA
February 28th, 2005, 01:59 PM
I don't know if I'd call it multi-faceted, its rather dull IMO.

Wrightfan
February 28th, 2005, 02:11 PM
in its look. Of course that is because it is the same developer.
565 was designed by Norman Jaffe in 1990-92.

BrooklynRider
February 28th, 2005, 03:28 PM
Fifth Avenue in general is dull. I think it's a nice addition. Especially when consider that there are some things built that are downright offensive.

Gulcrapek
March 3rd, 2005, 10:13 PM
Alternate view of the poMo version

http://www.howardrenderings.com/image-archives/15343/pic1.jpg

Howard Renderings

krulltime
April 24th, 2005, 08:49 PM
Any Leasing Activity on this one?


Lender advances on Fifth Ave. office
CIT Group eyes space in new tower; Cornell finds it's better to rent


Published on April 25, 2005

In another promising sign for Manhattan's office-leasing market, commercial lender CIT Group is jockeying to grab space in one of the city's few office buildings constructed without any committed tenants at the outset.

CIT executives are negotiating a deal to rent up to 200,000 square feet at 505 Fifth Ave., at East 42nd Street. CB Richard Ellis is representing CIT, and Cushman & Wakefield Inc. is representing building owner Kipp-Stawski Management Group. Asking rents at the building average $83 a square foot.

Sources say that CIT executives had considered a move downtown to 7 World Trade Center, but that Chief Executive Jeffrey Peek preferred to stay in midtown.

CIT, which is renting 200,000 square feet at 1211 Sixth Ave. through 2008, declined to provide details about a prospective lease.

"As a matter of business practice, we periodically evaluate our needs for office space as it relates to our business requirements," says a CIT spokesman.

Brokers for the 28-story, 275,000-square-foot-tower are negotiating offers from financial firms of all sizes that like the building's proximity to Grand Central Terminal.

--Christine Haughney


COPYRIGHT 2005 CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC.

Zoe
May 5th, 2005, 07:10 PM
http://img165.echo.cx/img165/4976/05050516017dv.jpg

kliq6
May 16th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Heard that CIT and a few Hedge funds are looking at this building, also occupancy is expected end of August.

This and Hearst add over 1 million sf of space to the market and our GREAT projects

londonlawyer
May 16th, 2005, 10:40 PM
I love this building. Its facade has so many folds and facets for such a tiny space. It's like a vagina in that it has so many wonderful folds and curves in such a tiny space! I love looking at it!! To me, it's the Vagina Building. I wish that I could spend 24 hours a day in it!!!

By the way, do you guys remember how horrible and disgusting this site was for years? Now it is occupied by this jewel!!

NoyokA
May 16th, 2005, 10:44 PM
I love this building. Its facade has so many folds and facets for such a tiny space. It's like a vagina in that it has so many wonderful folds and curves in such a tiny space! I love looking at it!! To me, it's the Vagina Building. I wish that I could spend 24 hours a day in it!!!

By the way, do you guys remember how horrible and disgusting this site was for years? Now it is occupied by this jewel!!

LMAO! That's candid. But common dude, there could be little kids reading the forum.

londonlawyer
May 16th, 2005, 10:54 PM
LMAO! That's candid. But common dude, there could be little kids reading the forum.

Kids read this forum? No one seems younger than teenagers.

If kids are reading this, then sorry young men.

That was my honest impression when I looked at the facade today though!

By the way, Stern, what's LMAO?

NoyokA
May 16th, 2005, 11:00 PM
Kids read this forum? No one seems younger than teenagers.

If kids are reading this, then sorry young men.

That was my honest impression when I looked at the facade today though!

By the way, Stern, what's LMAO?

I'm sure kids read this forum, I know the internet isn't family friendly, but there should be places where kids can find refuge and read their interests.

LMAO= Laugh My Ass Off.

londonlawyer
May 16th, 2005, 11:45 PM
I'm sure kids read this forum, I know the internet isn't family friendly, but there should be places where kids can find refuge and read their interests.

LMAO= Laugh My Ass Off.

You must admit that it was a funny comment!

Kolbster
May 21st, 2005, 11:04 PM
I love this building. Its facade has so many folds and facets for such a tiny space. It's like a vagina in that it has so many wonderful folds and curves in such a tiny space! I love looking at it!! To me, it's the Vagina Building. I wish that I could spend 24 hours a day in it!!!

By the way, do you guys remember how horrible and disgusting this site was for years? Now it is occupied by this jewel!!

Jesus Christ
I mean it's a nice building, but a vagina? I hope it doesn't smell fishy when you get up close

pianoman11686
May 22nd, 2005, 12:05 AM
I gotta say, although it's a nice building, I don't think it's right for this corner. I mean, 42nd and 5th is such an important intersection in Manhattan, and I don't get the feeling that this building has enough of a presence as it stands. It doesn't necessarily have to be a lot taller, just grander. Oh well, better than what was there before.

pianoman11686
May 22nd, 2005, 11:46 PM
If you read my entire post, I said yes, it's a nice building, and yes, it's better than what was there before. It's also a very prominent intersection in Midtown. I would have preferred to see something more dramatic and majestic. You can barely make out the building if you're walking down Fifth avenue in the upper 40's.

Derek2k3
May 23rd, 2005, 12:43 AM
More like this...

5th Avenue and 42nd Street Tower
Steven Holl Architects'
http://www.stevenholl.com

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731620.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731617.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731611.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731615.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731616.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731613/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731619/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/43731621.jpg

pianoman11686
May 23rd, 2005, 12:00 PM
Yes.

NoyokA
May 23rd, 2005, 12:55 PM
That would've looked great nearby the BOFA Tower.

londonlawyer
May 23rd, 2005, 01:11 PM
The rendering that you guys are posting would have been great, but I still like the building that was constructed. It could have been worse. Consider a 22 story version of the Bryant Park Tower or the lame building that was built a few years ago at 42nd and 3rd. This is a nice little building and greatly improves a truly neglected site. 42nd Street (and Madision in the 40's) have made ENORMOUS rebounds. Hopefully, 5th Ave. in the 40's, which has many dilapidated structures and cheap stores, will do the same...

kliq6
May 24th, 2005, 04:24 PM
article in the post today about some leasing activity

kliq6
June 9th, 2005, 03:46 PM
Well the buildings has a tenant and its the CIT Group, which is taking all 300,000 sf of this building and will move in early 2006. See attached article

http://globest.com/news/302_302/newyork/135063-1.html

antinimby
June 9th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Cool. :)
The link mentioned that CIT will be making this their world headquarters, where are they headquartered now?
Add another prominent (Fortune 500?) co. based in NY :D .

londonlawyer
June 9th, 2005, 04:16 PM
They're already based in NY at 1251 Sixth Ave.

kliq6
June 9th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Corporate HQ's is currently 1 CIT Drive in Livingston, NJ as per Fortune 500 listing this year, there NYC office was there second biggest

kliq6
June 9th, 2005, 05:00 PM
CIT Establishes New York City As Its Global Headquarters
Wednesday June 8, 8:00 am ET

New Location at 505 Fifth Avenue
Commitment to Corporate Center in New Jersey Remains Strong


NEW YORK, June 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT - News), a leading provider of commercial and consumer finance solutions, today announced that New York City will become its Global Headquarters with executive offices in a state-of-the-art building currently under construction at 505 Fifth Avenue. The Company's Livingston, New Jersey campus which will be renamed 'CIT Corporate Center' will continue as its principal base for corporate services and the Specialty Finance management team. CIT expects to move into 505 Fifth Avenue, to be named the 'CIT Building,' in the first quarter of 2006.

CIT's presence in New York reflects the Company's commitment to providing exceptional service and support to its growing mid-market client base, as well as global companies, Wall Street firms and the private equity sector. The building at 505 Fifth Avenue will serve as the main, client-facing offices for senior management, led by Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Peek.

"We are pleased to mark yet another important day in CIT's history. Our more prominent presence in and commitment to New York City complements our position as a true global leader in commercial and consumer finance," said Jeffrey Peek, Chairman and CEO. "In addition to the business activities at our headquarters site, we look forward to contributing to New York's vibrant community by supporting numerous arts and educational programs, as we continue to do in New Jersey."

Today's announcement is the culmination of a series of recent internal initiatives undertaken by CIT to enhance operating efficiency and strengthen its customer focus. Over the past several months, the Company has realigned many of its businesses to more seamlessly deliver the full range of its product and service offerings to clients. As part of CIT's ongoing focus on organic growth and sales, the leaner corporate structure resulting from the establishment of the Global Headquarters and Corporate Center will facilitate new business generation and strategic marketing activities.

More than 300 employees, over half of the 550 employees currently located at CIT's offices at 1211 Sixth Avenue, are expected to move into 505 Fifth Avenue. The Company will continue to evaluate the optimal mix and location for business operations in both New York and New Jersey.

CB Richard Ellis' Mary Ann Tighe, CEO of the New York Tri-State Region, and Gregory A. Tosko, Executive Vice President, represented CIT in the transaction. CBRE is the world's leading commercial real estate services firm.

Cushman & Wakefield's Paul Glickman, Executive Vice President, Matthew Astrachan, Executive Director, and Shawna Menifee, Director, represented the building's developer/owner, Axel Stawski of Fifth @ 42nd LLC in the transaction.

Designed by renowned architects Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, 505 Fifth Avenue is a 300,000-square-foot modern glass and concrete office tower situated at one of New York City's most vital crossroads in Midtown Manhattan. The building's many first-class amenities include concierge service and advanced security and telecommunications systems.

CIT will celebrate its milestone announcement by participating in several upcoming cultural events including Lincoln Center Out-of-Doors and the New York City Opera For All! In addition, as part of CIT's longstanding commitment to the New Jersey community, the Company has awarded a four-year capital pledge to the New Jersey Performing Arts Center and entered into a corporate sponsorship with the Liberty Science Center.

About CIT:

CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT - News), a leading commercial and consumer finance company, provides clients with financing and leasing products and advisory services. Founded in 1908, CIT has nearly $60 billion in assets under management and possesses the financial resources, industry expertise and product knowledge to serve the needs of clients across approximately 30 industries. CIT, a Fortune 500 company, holds leading positions in vendor financing, factoring, equipment and transportation financing, Small Business Administration loans, and asset-based lending. CIT, with its principal offices in New York, New York, and Livingston, New Jersey, has approximately 6,000 employees in locations throughout North America, Europe, Latin and South America, and the Pacific Rim. For more information, visit http://www.cit.com.

antinimby
June 9th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Hurray! Let the reverse corporate exodus begin.
Somehow, a large financial firm based in a green suburban campus don't seem right.

kliq6
June 9th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Well i hope the move some of there NJ employees besides the executives to this new office

macreator
June 9th, 2005, 07:25 PM
This is great news for New York City. Chalk up another Fortune 500 company to NYC's list of HQs :)

This is very important as a sign of good faith in the future of NYC by a leading firm like CIT.

NewYorkYankee
June 9th, 2005, 11:17 PM
The last page shows a large,green building. Am I correct in thinking this building is currently planned for another lot near the ESB? I thought there was a thread on it? Also, this buidling that CIT is moving their headquarters into is the so called "Vagina Building" by LondonLawyer? :)

pianoman11686
June 9th, 2005, 11:21 PM
If the green building you're talking about is the Steven Holl tower, then no, that project is dead. It was competing with what is now the CIT Building at 5th and 42nd, and I don't think it's been reconsidered for anywhere else in Manhattan. I think the tower you're thinking of is an SOM-designed one a few blocks away from the ESB, but I'm not sure if it has its own thread. You should probably check into Manhattan Residential Development. And yes, the CIT Building is londonlawyer's famous Vagina Building.

chris
June 11th, 2005, 07:47 AM
...I still like the building that was constructed... This is a nice little building and greatly improves a truly neglected site...

I had not been by that site since early in the construction. Man is that a beautiful building. One of my favorite new towers.

Gulcrapek
June 11th, 2005, 12:48 PM
Nice. I like when addresses get names. Even though "CIT Building" is kinda blah.

antinimby
June 11th, 2005, 01:55 PM
What would you name it, CIT Tower, CIT Centre or something more fancy?
To me, a building that size and that underwhelming in design shouldn't be called anything other than what it is, just another building. If we didn't follow construction in the city, it wouldn't even get our attention. Do I sound resentful?

macreator
June 11th, 2005, 02:30 PM
Personally I like the sound of CIT Center although typically I associate the term "Center" with a bit of a larger project like the TimeWarner Center.

kliq6
June 16th, 2005, 12:25 PM
Im hearing they may take all the sf and move some NJ jobs here, a good boast for sure

Derek2k3
July 1st, 2005, 09:40 PM
Two photos posted on SkyscraperCity

http://orange-revolution.com/NYnew/hmary1.jpg
Pan_Stanislav

http://img234.echo.cx/img234/1774/nyci248hp.jpg
7 World Trade

Johnnyboy
July 2nd, 2005, 11:14 AM
thats a nice building

londonlawyer
July 2nd, 2005, 06:47 PM
I had not been by that site since early in the construction. Man is that a beautiful building. One of my favorite new towers.\

I agree. It's a great little building!

sfenn1117
August 20th, 2005, 10:22 PM
My pictures aren't high quality like the ones above, but this one is almost done, it looks so sharp in person, this little tower really turned out great. What an improvement, and it attracted a huge company!

http://tinypic.com/avmyro.jpg

Still can't get a good read on the base b/c of scaffolding.......
http://tinypic.com/avmz5g.jpg

macreator
August 20th, 2005, 11:26 PM
I am happy though that we've got a new Fortune 500 company though --- The CIT Group (formerly of New Jersey -- always happy to snag a New Jersey company)!

Glad to have a fully filled tower even before being completed.

lofter1
August 21st, 2005, 01:40 AM
It doesnt stand out much.
If you stand on the SW corner of 42nd & 5th Avenue, in front of the NYPL, and look across at this little gem it has a huge presence -- and in all the right ways.

kliq6
August 22nd, 2005, 11:53 AM
Most important part is this developer got a firm to relocate operation and jobs from Jersey, Bravo to the doctor

RJW
August 22nd, 2005, 05:20 PM
Does anyone else dislike the way this building is oddly aligned to its neighbor?

ablarc
August 22nd, 2005, 08:27 PM
That could be what makes it interesting.

BrooklynRider
August 22nd, 2005, 09:38 PM
I think it is a nice design in a perfect location.

RJW
August 22nd, 2005, 10:15 PM
That could be what makes it interesting.

Could be or is? Last time I was by, it was early in its construction and even then it did not look as though the alignment was right. At the time, I just figured it was to be resolved in ways the frame could not reveal. Looking now at the pictures posted recently by sfenn1117 and Derek2k3, there appears to have been no resolution. Specifically, I am talking about the way it abuts the building just north of it on Fifth Ave. If you look at sfenn1117 and Derek2k3's pictures, you can see the join from both north and south vantage. The odd alignment exposes its neighbor's sidewall. A minor detail I admit as the building is a huge improvement over the tent selling holiday tchokes that once occupied the corner.

ablarc
August 22nd, 2005, 10:53 PM
I see what you mean; exposing a sidewall is rarely a good idea. Will they put a nice surface on it?

lofter1
August 23rd, 2005, 12:45 AM
...exposing a sidewall is rarely a good idea.
But found all over Manhattan. Wouldn't the sidewall be the property of the neighbor (and thereby the architect of new building would have no grounds for touching anything on the neighboring building)?

Fabrizio
August 23rd, 2005, 05:21 AM
The exposed plain brick side-wall on the next building is cool.... very Venetian ... but you can bet they´ll cover it up... probably a little too ratty for most tastes. To keep that Rialto feel, especially on this strech of 5th wouldn´t it have been nicer to have the base with a limestone front? Or at least more detailing? Anyway, the building looks good from those photos.

pianoman11686
August 23rd, 2005, 09:47 PM
I walked by this building again today, and stopped to take some more pictures. I must say, it's really starting to grow on me. After cleaning off the construction dust, the glass looks spectacular. The only thing that bothers me a little is the alignment with the building north of it, as many people have mentioned.

Fabrizio: I know limestone is common on 5th, but I think keeping the base in glass is the better choice. It will give the building a more open appearance and increase interaction with the street. I view the building more as a "new 42nd Street building" than a 5th avenue. With Bank of America going up one block west, sporting an all-glass entrance, I think it will seem even more appropriate.

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827%3B44ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp3%3Enu%3D3259%3E846%3E28%3A%3E WSNRCG%3D3232%3B4%3A736337nu0mrj

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827%3B47ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827248ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A5982724%3Aot1lsi

Fabrizio
August 24th, 2005, 04:19 AM
Pianoman: yes, I think you are right.

I like that the base almost reads as it´s own little building. It´s elegant. The glass is nice too..... sober, transparent, no mirrored coating and it lays flat. It´s ultra classy....looks great with it´s neighbors.

BrooklynRider
August 24th, 2005, 11:03 AM
Look at the reflections of the sky. Beautiful!

NoyokA
August 24th, 2005, 12:10 PM
This building puts me to sleep.

NewYorkYankee
August 24th, 2005, 01:00 PM
I really like it, looks great! Although, it wouldve been nicer aligned with the building north of it.

Fabrizio
August 24th, 2005, 01:16 PM
Stern: "This building puts me to sleep".

Could you explain what a building needs to keep you awake?

NoyokA
August 24th, 2005, 06:10 PM
Stern: "This building puts me to sleep".

Could you explain what a building needs to keep you awake?

That a building from the new millennium doesn't look like a distant and forgettable early 1980's throwback.

RJW
August 24th, 2005, 07:00 PM
That a building from the new millennium doesn't look like a distant and forgettable early 1980's throwback.

Trying to think of an early 1980's building that looks like this one; an example would be helpful, for curiosity’s sake.

BrooklynRider
August 24th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Seems more like a cross between Lever and LVMH buildings.

RJW
August 24th, 2005, 07:14 PM
The exposed plain brick side-wall on the next building is cool.... very Venetian ... but you can bet they´ll cover it up... probably a little too ratty for most tastes. To keep that Rialto feel, especially on this strech of 5th wouldn´t it have been nicer to have the base with a limestone front? Or at least more detailing? Anyway, the building looks good from those photos.

Looking at the pictures recently posted by pianoman11686, the odd alignment continues to irk the hell out of me. Venetian sentiments aside, exposing a neighboring building's sidewall is often unavoidable and is perfectly fine, in this case, starting at the building’s setback but the way it just ignores its environment at the base is very bad architectural propriety.

Fabrizio
August 25th, 2005, 05:08 AM
Hallmarks of early 80´s office building design:

Post-modern "classical" touches; black glass; mirrored glass; chrome detailing; pink granite (ubiquitous); grey granite....

See none of that here.

NoyokA
August 25th, 2005, 11:20 AM
Hallmarks of early 80´s office building design:

Post-modern "classical" touches; black glass; mirrored glass; chrome detailing; pink granite (ubiquitous); grey granite....

See none of that here.

Not exclusively. I can think of three very similar buildings in midtown Manhattan alone, each nameless, each lifeless yet showy, and each completely forgettable and somewhat disregardful of its surroundings. The brethren are the Manhattan Tower, The Metropolitan Tower, and the quirky building across from Metropolitan Tower. Additionally 505 Fifth Avenue has a large flat and lifeless wall facing 42nd and where all the energy is, it is invasive to the city. Lastly there was a myriad of exciting and excellent designs for this site and I am forced to put up with this early and quite bad 1980’s throwback.

Fabrizio
August 25th, 2005, 01:24 PM
I see the spirit along the lines of the International Style rather than the 80´s. The Metroplitan Tower, especially, has the 80´s black reflective glass and awful chrome details (at the base) I mentioned, but one thing we agree on is this:

"...a large flat and lifeless wall facing 42nd and where all the energy is, it is invasive to the city."

That glass front does bother me a bit, but we´ll see.....510 5th has a glass front on 5th, but it´s completely transparent and works beautifully.... we´ll see how this goes.

macreator
August 25th, 2005, 11:26 PM
Looking at the pictures recently posted by pianoman11686, the odd alignment continues to irk the hell out of me. Venetian sentiments aside, exposing a neighboring building's sidewall is often unavoidable and is perfectly fine, in this case, starting at the building’s setback but the way it just ignores its environment at the base is very bad architectural propriety.



I can't stand it either. Is it possible that the developer will put reflective glass over the sides of the neighboring buildings? That could create an interesting effect making the building seem bigger.

londonlawyer
August 25th, 2005, 11:38 PM
I really like this building, but at the very least, those who don't like it must admit that it is a DRAMATIC improvement over the horrible eyesore that was there previously. I hope that developers raze some of the truly disgusting run-down sites that remain on 5th in the 40's. I find it amazing that there are so many dilapidated 4 story buildings housing electronics and souvenier shops on some of the most expensive real estate in the world. I assume that developers are buying the individual buildings on those blocks bit by bit to try to amass sufficiently large building blocks. Could you imagine how spectacular new hotel/condominiums with ground floor retail would be on those sites? They would sell out immediately and would enhance the avenue. The St. Regis, Shangri-La, Taj Mahal or some other great hotel could build there, and in fact, each project could include 15 floors of high-end boutique office space that would be snapped up in a hurry due to the proximity to Grand Central. This will happen eventually, just as the revelopment of 42nd Street from 3rd to Times Square occurred and as the redevelopment of Madison in the 40's occurred. Anyway, 505th is part of that gradual re-development.

Fabrizio
August 26th, 2005, 05:34 AM
"....Shangri-La, Taj Mahal or some other great hotel ....."

What hotels are these?

ablarc
August 26th, 2005, 09:02 AM
I really like this building, but at the very least, those who don't like it must admit that it is a DRAMATIC improvement over the horrible eyesore that was there previously...I assume that developers are buying the individual buildings on those blocks bit by bit to try to amass sufficiently large building blocks.
Agreed, though I think that even better than amassing large building blocks would be to build on existing sites unassembled, as the present building does. More variety, better scale. Just don't limit building height, so you get a nice, fairly slender little skyscraper like the present one.

londonlawyer
August 26th, 2005, 11:16 AM
"....Shangri-La, Taj Mahal or some other great hotel ....."

What hotels are these?

Shangri-La is a very upscale Asian hotel company. Its first hotel outside of Asia will be in the new London Bridge Tower in London. Taj-Mahal is a very upscale hotel group based in India. They recently became the managers of The Pierre. I am sure that both of them would love to have a NY presence.

Fabrizio
August 26th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Londonlawyer: Ablarc does have a point. Remember that the 5th avenue we know today.... the 5th-avenue-grand-shopping-street-of-legend... was/is largely made of relatively small foot-print buildings.... or buildings that are relatively low rise (and of course there are plenty of exceptions). Most of the world´s premier elegant shopping streets (NYC, LA, Paris, London, Rome, Milan....) are composed this way.... of small boutiquey buildings. The scale is rather intimate.... the buildings are jewel-like. Think of "classic" 5th ave: Bergdorfs, Tiffany, Bonwits (before the Trump Tower) the St Regis, The Gotham Hotel, The University Club, Cartier, The buildings of Rockefeller Center that front 5th, Saks, the Swiss Center Building and so on. I think if we want to keep 5th avenue "5th Avenue" with a distinct identity, the avenue might be better served by restoring what we have left and encouraging new construction that is small and contextual.... (or as Ablarc suggests: not limiting height but at least encouraging towers that are slim by keeping the small foot-prints... rather than amassing large building blocks).

ablarc
August 26th, 2005, 06:18 PM
...encouraging towers that are slim by keeping the small foot-prints... rather than amassing large building blocks).
That's right, it's the buildings with the big sprawling footprints that are out of scale. Can't imagine why the NIMBYs think it's height; must be that their grade school teachers told them wrong.

londonlawyer
August 26th, 2005, 06:21 PM
I agree with you guys. Nice, new small buildings would be fine (especially if they were classical looking (e.g., limestone and brick with mansard roofs)). However, something needs to replace the crap that's there.

ablarc
August 26th, 2005, 06:24 PM
I agree with you, londonlawyer. You are really the crap-meister; the city ought to hire you to ferret out all the shitty little buildings and take them by eminent domain.:)

londonlawyer
August 26th, 2005, 06:29 PM
It's true. There are so many areas in NYC that have the potential to be utterly beautiful if limited sites with crap were demolished. Fifth in the 40's is a prime example, as is 6th in the Teens and 20's.

I fully support the Supreme Court's ruling re: eminent domain in the Kelo case.

BrooklynRider
August 26th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Holy Jeez! Do you tell kids that there is no Santa Claus and stomp on doll heads too?

I think Jacob Marley might be paying Mr. Londonlawyer a visit soon....

mahwahhhaahaaaa

Fabrizio
August 26th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Because I have a shitty memory of 5th below Saks... I wish Londonlawyer would post a few photos of those crappy buildings so I might know what he´s talking about. BTW: I remember that a lot of the buildings over on Madison above 59th were total crap in the 1970´s ...until the Euro design houses started to take interest and began restoring them. Same with Columbus. Full of crap until the restuarants and boutiques came in and polished things off. Just because a building hosts a crappy electronics store, and needs repair doesn´t mean the building is crap.... lots of new buildings are crap too.

Ciao...gotta go...

londonlawyer
August 27th, 2005, 12:50 AM
I don't dispute that old buildings could be restored to their original appearance and be magnificent again.

pianoman11686
August 27th, 2005, 01:09 AM
And I certainly wouldn't dispute that you are, as ablarc noted, the "crap-meister."

It's a funny thing (crap). There's so much of it out there (I'm talking just in Manhattan), and we think that it'll be continually torn down and replaced with something fresher, newer. But then once we spruce up one neighborhood, another more recently built one will have already decomposed into fecal matter. It's the eternal life-cycle of the city.

londonlawyer
August 27th, 2005, 02:22 AM
And I certainly wouldn't dispute that you are, as ablarc noted, the "crap-meister."

It's a funny thing (crap). There's so much of it out there (I'm talking just in Manhattan), and we think that it'll be continually torn down and replaced with something fresher, newer. But then once we spruce up one neighborhood, another more recently built one will have already decomposed into fecal matter. It's the eternal life-cycle of the city.

I don't think that the fecal cycle will continue. Because NY has been THE CITY for so long, it has so many magnificent old buildings that form the core of awesome neighborhoods. Sadly, NY, like every other US city, went through a period of decline, and some properties became miserably neglected. When the pockets of feces are rooted out, the areas look beautiful again. Consider 6th Avenue in the 20's. The old buildings that line it are utterly magnificent. Nonetheless, there are some blocks amidst them that have dilapidated structures which house crappy shops. Once that sh..t is extricated, 6th will be beautiful.

As I had mentioned, in my opinion, most of NY is magnificent, and we just need to address the pockets of crap. One could wear a beautiful Brooks Brothers suit, but if one is wearing sneakers, the person would look moronic. Acquiring the Brooks Brothers suit is the hard part. Changing a small item like sneakers is easily done and restores the look. NY has a magnificent core of spectacular buildings (i.e., the Brooks Brothers suit), and we simply need to change our sneakers.

Fabrizio
August 27th, 2005, 06:04 AM
Take off your banal middle-American Brooks Brothers suit and slip on an Armani... try to see things with a bit more of an urban (rather than suburban) slant.
I think a lot of the crap you are talking about are those narrow 3,4,5 story tenement style walk up buildings... many with fire escapes on the front.... buildings that, on first view, are "historically insignificant".... but can be renovated into something charming. I love them. They keep an intimate scale and preserve the views of the magnificent buildings you are talking about. They keep a neighborhood´s character (especially on 6th in the 20´s). Tearing them down because, at present, they are an "eyesore" is uncreative and without culture. I´d rather have their funkiness than another brick apartment high-rise with balconies sticking out (buildings that care NOTHING about what neighborhood they are in).... or a reflective glass monster. Certainly if they were to be replaced with great architecture I´d be all for it, but we know the reality...

lofter1
August 27th, 2005, 09:51 AM
http://www.505fifth.com/home/
The renderings on their site show that the much-discussed exposed brick wall on the 5th Ave. building to the north has been given a re-cladding of some sort. Let's hope that they follow through on that.

RJW
August 27th, 2005, 11:17 AM
The renderings on their site show that the much-discussed exposed brick wall on the 5th Ave. building to the north has been given a re-cladding of some sort. Let's hope that they follow through on that.

Cool. Could just be white paint but it does make a difference.

londonlawyer
August 27th, 2005, 11:40 AM
Take off your banal middle-American Brooks Brothers suit and slip on an Armani... try to see things with a bit more of an urban (rather than suburban) slant.
I think a lot of the crap you are talking about are those narrow 3,4,5 story tenement style walk up buildings... many with fire escapes on the front.... buildings that, on first view, are "historically insignificant".... but can be renovated into something charming. I love them. They keep an intimate scale and preserve the views of the magnificent buildings you are talking about. They keep a neighborhood´s character (especially on 6th in the 20´s). Tearing them down because, at present, they are an "eyesore" is uncreative and without culture. I´d rather have their funkiness than another brick apartment high-rise with balconies sticking out (buildings that care NOTHING about what neighborhood they are in).... or a reflective glass monster. Certainly if they were to be replaced with great architecture I´d be all for it, but we know the reality...

I see things with an urban slant. I'm from the second biggest city in the world (i.e., here).

The crap that I'm talking about are buildings whose ornamentation has been stripped off and that house crappy stores. Many times, moreover, the original facades have been covered with aluminum or other crap. As I've said, I support renovation rather than razing them. However, the practical reality is that the cost of the real estate under them is so high that a new owner could not buy them, renovate them and make money on that investment from a 3 story building. Something larger -- that can generate more cash -- is essential in order to make a profit. The current owners are often families that are not in the real estate business and simply inherited the buildings. They keep the buildings in shit condition and simply collect the rents that are generated.

PS: I hate Armani. Brooks Brothers is not banal middle American; it's a traditional style that appeals to Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc. sort of like Pink, Hackett, Burberry,Charles Thyrwitt, etc.

PPS: In response to anticipated comments from non-New Yorkers about the second largest city point, NY's metro area is surpassed only by Tokyo in population.

ablarc
August 27th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Cool. Could just be white paint but it does make a difference.
Ivy might be nice.

Fabrizio
August 27th, 2005, 01:04 PM
"However, the practical reality is that the cost of the real estate under them is so high that a new owner could not buy them, renovate them and make money on that investment from a 3 story building."

Wondering: Why are there small well maintained buildings all over Manhattan? Buildings that are bought, sold, renovated, restored.... and certainly in areas (the Village, Little Italy, Nolita, etc. and etc.) where the cost of the real estate is high or at least getting higher? Isn´t it a question of zoning?

londonlawyer
August 27th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Because most of the buildings never suffered neglect and remain in their beautiful original state. Moreover, many of those buildings have tenants that pay enormous rents. However, the pockets that I refer to suffered when the city when through its period of decline and the owners don't invest a dime in them.

lofter1
August 27th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Just curious: If an owner pays his taxes and covers all the costs of a building while meeting the legal responsibilities regarding whatever code / zoning requirements there might be on that building, but somehow does not make the building attractive enough or sign on tenants who are up-scale enough is the answer to force that owner out via eminent domain so the area can be made "nicer"?

ablarc
August 27th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Just curious: If an owner pays his taxes and covers all the costs of a building while meeting the legal responsibilities regarding whatever code / zoning requirements there might be on that building, but somehow does not make the building attractive enough or sign on tenants who are up-scale enough is the answer to force that owner out via eminent domain so the area can be made "nicer"?
That's the question the Supreme Court appears to have answered in the affirmative. They probably answered it wrong, but there sure are many shades of grey surrounding that question. Personally I think that even in the case of Ratner/Gehry's Brooklyn project, every effort should be made to do it without eminent domain, even if there are a few holdouts. These might introduce an element of quirky charm, like the notch in the Macy's building in Queens. Surely Gehry couldn't object to that on aesthetic grounds, as his bizarre and idiosyncratic designs are already as far as it's possible to get from functionalism.

lofter1
August 27th, 2005, 05:39 PM
That's the question the Supreme Court appears to have answered in the affirmative.
Is this the answer to the so-called "crap" on 5th Avenue?

ablarc
August 27th, 2005, 07:30 PM
Is this the answer to the so-called "crap" on 5th Avenue?
Probably not, imo.

RJW
August 27th, 2005, 11:06 PM
That's the question the Supreme Court appears to have answered in the affirmative. They probably answered it wrong, but there sure are many shades of grey surrounding that question. Personally I think that even in the case of Ratner/Gehry's Brooklyn project, every effort should be made to do it without eminent domain, even if there are a few holdouts. These might introduce an element of quirky charm, like the notch in the Macy's building in Queens. Surely Gehry couldn't object to that on aesthetic grounds, as his bizarre and idiosyncratic designs are already as far as it's possible to get from functionalism.

The problem is there will always be a holdout - more than likely backed by whatever interest group of the week is out with an axe to grind. This is where eminent domain comes to the rescue. It's not necessarily just a row house here or there sort of thing; it can also be one guy in a condo building in which every other owner has sold and that sits dead center to the most crucial aspect of the development.

sfenn1117
August 27th, 2005, 11:20 PM
A suprise that pianomans photos ended up on SSC, wait no its not.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=97359&page=1&pp=20

he's lucky he didnt use mine! seriously its such bs. What an annoying poster talb is, thats why I rarely browse over there. I like towersnyc's pics, he updates often, but I wouldnt dare post them over here, its called respect.

lofter1
August 28th, 2005, 01:25 AM
The problem is there will always be a holdout... This is where eminent domain comes to the rescue...it can also be one guy in a condo building in which every other owner has sold and that sits dead center to the most crucial aspect of the development.
I note that the example of a condo owner is used, so presumably the reference is to a residential owner. I always thought that in the good old USA that the market determined value. And if the owner of a property is not offered a price that makes it worth that person giving up their home (and just maybe that person really loves living in the home they have bought and paid for) then that person didn't have to sell.

This whole issue of using eminent domain to make an area "nicer" turns the right of individual ownership on its head. And anyone would be hard pressed to claim that 5th Avenue in the 40's is moribund, depressed or "slum"-like and in need of urban renewal.

RJW
August 28th, 2005, 01:49 AM
I note that the example of a condo owner is used, so presumably the reference is to a residential owner. I always thought that in the good old USA that the market determined value. And if the owner of a property is not offered a price that makes it worth that person giving up their home (and just maybe that person really loves living in the home they have bought and paid for) then that person didn't have to sell.

This whole issue of using eminent domain to make an area "nicer" turns the right of individual ownership on its head. And anyone would be hard pressed to claim that 5th Avenue in the 40's is moribund, depressed or "slum"-like and in need of urban renewal.

I was referring to albarc's comments as regards "the case of Ratner/Gehry's Brooklyn project" and not "5th Avenue in the 40's." The problem is that sometimes no amount of money within the bounds necessary to maintain the developer's motivational profit will move the holdout (a Harry Truman sitting on Mount St. Helens kind of character). I do not mean to endorse eminent domain as a standard practice but do believe there are scenarios under which such an option does serve the greater good. The Supreme Court's recent widening of the threshold notwithstanding; it is, of course, an extremely difficult thing to define morally (personal property rights being one the most core of American beliefs).

macreator
August 28th, 2005, 02:27 AM
While we can all look at the issue of eminent domain as from an outsider's prospective, let's take a walk in the shoes of a resident or owner of a building about to be condemned for Ratner's, or any other developer for that matter, project......

....imagine if you lived in a building that has been "condemned"......

.....Imagine living in a building that you thought was perfect, this was your house that you had bought out right and made your home. Then imagine some developer comes along and offers you some cash but you say no, then the government comes around and tells you that you will be paid a "fair" market value (which is crap) and your house will be destroyed so that developer can build some condos which you will never be able to afford. Meanwhile even if you planned on buying a condo, you now needed to use that cash to find temporary housing.

How would that make you feel? It would make me feel pretty crappy.

I think eminent domain can be used for items contributing to the welfare of the general public like a railroad, a highway or even a park or school but I must admit I think condos is really pushing it. If a developer can not get a certain property, then they better figure out how to build around the property because my property is not your property. Ratner has no more of a right to a private citizen's property than I have.

Plus, from an architectural standpoint, making the architect think outside of the box and figure out how to work around an impediment should prove interesting and create the character that New York buildings have in comparison to the office park crap of Houston.

What would the corner of 3rd avenue and 55th street be without the gigantic office tower put into perspective with the diminutive PJ Clarke's building on the corner half-mocking the great office tower's size with its inability to snatch up the site's last remaining parcel.

Great bar by the way and a bar that might not be there if eminent domain had been used to give that developer the right to "renew" that block with an even larger office building to serve the good of his pockets.

ZippyTheChimp
August 28th, 2005, 07:50 AM
^
Well stated.

RJW
August 28th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Then imagine some developer comes along and offers you some cash but you say no, then the government comes around and tells you that you will be paid a "fair" market value (which is crap) and your house will be destroyed so that developer can build some condos which you will never be able to afford. Meanwhile even if you planned on buying a condo, you now needed to use that cash to find temporary housing.

How would that make you feel? It would make me feel pretty crappy.

It is a sad story indeed but in the Atlantic Yards case we are talking about so much more than "some condos." In a perfect world, I would prefer the invocation of eminent domain to require the developer to pay a mandatory two to three times market value.


I think eminent domain can be used for items contributing to the welfare of the general public like a railroad, a highway or even a park or school but I must admit I think condos is really pushing it. If a developer can not get a certain property, then they better figure out how to build around the property because my property is not your property. Ratner has no more of a right to a private citizen's property than I have.

How would it make you feel to to be pushed out for a "railroad, a highway or even a park or school?" In those cases, are you not also going to... "feel pretty crappy?" There were plenty of people unhappy about Robert Moses in his day; people who took vehement issue with the belief that a highway contributes to the "welfare of the general public."


Plus, from an architectural standpoint, making the architect think outside of the box and figure out how to work around an impediment should prove interesting and create the character that New York buildings have in comparison to the office park crap of Houston.

You can't build a stadium around a building that sits dead center court. A work around is not always desirable or even possible.

lofter1
August 28th, 2005, 03:42 PM
You can't build a stadium around a building that sits dead center court. A work around is not always desirable or even possible.
Don't believe that the actual arena is to be built on an area where there are currently any residential units.

RJW
August 28th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Yes there are - as I understand it - it will sit on upon one of the two newer condo conversions - dont remember name but looked at buying an apartment there when it opened - wish i had - ratner has paid those willing to sell very well - could have doubled my money.

ZippyTheChimp
August 28th, 2005, 05:04 PM
In a perfect world, I would prefer the invocation of eminent domain to require the developer to pay a mandatory two to three times market value.

How would it make you feel to to be pushed out for a "railroad, a highway or even a park or school?" In those cases, are you not also going to... "feel pretty crappy?"How a person feels about being displaced or how much they are compensated is not relevant to the concept of Eminent Domain. The fair compensation is already addressed in the 5th Amendment, on which Eminent Domain law is based:

[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent Domain has been used since the country was founded, and not just for publicly owned projects. Property was taken for railroad expansion; the government position was that these private railroads were public transport that served the public good.

The 20th century equivalent were highways, but these were publicly owned. No matter what some people thought about some of Robert Moses' projects, he was following the letter of the law. You could argue that what resulted from the Cross Manhattan Expw debate was that the public good was not proved.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that Eminent Domain could be used by the government to conduct urban renewal in areas that were seen as blighted. This ruling opened the door to the widespread use of property seizures for private development, and a blurring of the concept of public good.

Blight does not mean dirty, or architecturally inferior; it describes an area that no longer functions as a normal part of the city. Besides, municipalities have the means (zoning rules) to compel property owners to adhere to standards.

The Supreme Court decision was 5-4.
The Courts difference of opinion on the case was stark. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens stated: "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue." On the dissenting side, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor countered: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random..." The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

ablarc
August 28th, 2005, 06:08 PM
Nice exposition, Zippy.

Conclusion?

BrooklynRider
August 28th, 2005, 06:32 PM
Apparently, the obvious needs to be spelled out.

ablarc
August 28th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Not smart enough to draw conclusions.

ZippyTheChimp
August 28th, 2005, 07:36 PM
Conclusion?
As I understand the Supreme Court decision, the ruling does not mean that it is unconstitutional to ban the use of Eminent Domain for private development, but that it is not a violation of the 5th amendment to allow the practice. Local governments are free to enact laws either curtailing or expanding private property seizure.

Maybe split decisions are good in that they force us to take a closer look at neglected issues. Court justices are well read; I'm sure the 50s Court members were aware of Corbusier, and the growing dissatisfaction with traditional American cities. The ruling 50 years ago has been diluted to the point where it is unfair, not only to property owners, but to developers who find themselves embroiled in legal battles with vague principles. I believe there will be a bill introduced in Albany that addresses this issue.

Accepting that Eminent Domain has been historically used in private development, the Ratner-Gehry project in Brooklyn presents, I think, both sides of the issue.

I'm not stating that I necessarily agree with this, but the State can make a credible case that the railyards are a blight to the neighborhood, and property seizure is necessary in the immediate are to complete that part of the project. However, for the rest of the project, property seizure should not be allowed.

Complaints in this thread about the crappy low-rise structures and shoddy storefronts along the avenues are true enough, but that is not an Eminent Domain issue. The city is not enforcing regulations. What about all those "awnings" that are nothing more than extended signs? And you don't usually get a nice Renzo Piano tower when this crap is replaced. What you usually get is a fecal tower.

lofter1
August 28th, 2005, 09:51 PM
And you don't usually get a nice Renzo Piano tower when this crap is replaced. What you usually get is a fecal tower.
I'm a fan of Piano, but not familiar with fecal. Any links showing his work?

ablarc
August 28th, 2005, 10:21 PM
I'm a fan of Piano, but not familiar with fecal. Any links showing his work?
You need to ask londonlawyer about fecal.

londonlawyer
August 29th, 2005, 12:49 AM
Fecal = "costas condylis"

That might be giving coasty too much credit. Therefore, I'll revise the equation:

"costas condylis" = "fecal matter" + corn +nuts!

BrooklynRider
August 29th, 2005, 11:25 AM
...I'm not stating that I necessarily agree with this, but the State can make a credible case that the railyards are a blight to the neighborhood, and property seizure is necessary in the immediate are to complete that part of the project. However, for the rest of the project, property seizure should not be allowed...

Then, it would appear that the State would being engaged in "favoritism". Why would Atlantic Yards be considered blighted, but not West Side Yards, Sunnyside Yards or Coney Island Yards? It seems they might want to consider the size of the ball before they get it rolling.

ZippyTheChimp
August 29th, 2005, 11:57 AM
They could use the case at these other places, although if you are considering the railyards alone, the issue of Eminent Domain is meaningless. It is already government property.

My point was that there is, in my opinion, no merit at all in a case for seizure of property that does not directly relate to the arena.

As relates to the subtopic of this thread, i think this city needs clearly defined design standards, not just for its signature buildings, but the background stuff.

ablarc
August 29th, 2005, 12:03 PM
As relates to the subtopic of this thread, i think this city needs clearly defined design standards, not just for its signature buildings, but the background stuff.
Example, please.

ZippyTheChimp
August 29th, 2005, 12:31 PM
No exposed floorplate ends on brick veneer buildings.

Fabrizio
August 29th, 2005, 12:43 PM
"exposed floorplate ends"

That would be a wonderful start....but man it´s almost too late... NYC has been crapped up to it´s ears in those ugly residential buildings with the exposed floorplate ends. One even craps up 5th avenue down there across from the Flatiron. The crap buildings it replaced were crappy but had poetry.... romance.... a balconied brick building with exposed floorplate ends is just ...crushingly ugly.

ablarc
August 29th, 2005, 12:46 PM
No exposed floorplate ends on brick veneer buildings.
I can see why you might want to mandate that for reasons of energy conservation, but as a designer I would be pissed if that regulation were motivated by aesthetic considerations.

Fabrizio
August 29th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Tough. Be pissed.

ablarc
August 29th, 2005, 12:55 PM
^ Harsh.

Fabrizio
August 29th, 2005, 01:14 PM
".... I would be pissed if that regulation were motivated by aesthetic considerations".

Are exposed floorplate ends an aesthetic choice or just a cheap, money saving building trick?

And what on earth is wrong with regulating aesthetics? Wanna see a "pissed off" architect or "pissed off" developer? Go into their neigborhood and clad the house next door in one of those fiberglass brickface jobs.

ablarc
August 29th, 2005, 01:47 PM
Are exposed floorplate ends an aesthetic choice or just a cheap, money saving building trick?
In my case every decision has an aesthetic component. Sometimes I want the building to be striped for reasons that I understand during the design process and others understand after the building's up.


And what on earth is wrong with regulating aesthetics?
Nothing, if the regulations make sense. The one Zippy proposes isn't one of them, imo.

In that, it joins almost any other regulation anyone's likely to come up with these days, when discussions of architectural aesthetics are mostly babble (and sometimes drivel). Whatever coherent theories once existed have been swept away, and the resultant relativism holds no answers. Simply put: there's no one around today that I'd trust to make aesthetic pronouncements to limit design freedom.

Even such concepts as F.A.R. are a little suspect in my book. I would, however, be willing to submit to a panel of my superiors (not peers), provided they were reacting to what I had designed rather than enforcing a set of pre-existing statements. At the highest level, a top-flight architects' judgment can often be trusted in advance of a building's actual construction, whereas with regulators, bureaucrats, the mediocre and the public, it's potluck; sometimes they're right, and just as often they're not.

It's not a good deal for anyone to sacrifice design freedom to nourish the humdrum opinions of today's mainstream. Just look at how absurdly wrong NIMBYs get things much of the time. The occasions when they're right shouldn't blind us to the fact that mostly they're not. We need a much more effective mechanism for design review.

ZippyTheChimp
August 29th, 2005, 04:32 PM
In my case every decision has an aesthetic component. Sometimes I want the building to be striped for reasons that I understand during the design process and others understand after the building's upYour creativity would not be restricted at all. You would still be permitted to emphasize the floors, but you would be required to cover the raw concrete ends.

I would also not permit stone veneer to be mitered at the corners, unless the joint is tight. But it hardly ever is; instead a half inch of compound smeared in - looks like crap. This was done at the perimeter wall at Perry West. I gave Mr Meier a kind cropping. :)
http://img288.imageshack.us/img288/7716/perrywst303ez.th.jpg (http://img288.imageshack.us/my.php?image=perrywst303ez.jpg)

Fabrizio
August 29th, 2005, 05:10 PM
I noticed the horrible workmanship on these buildings in Ablarcs Jane Jacobs thread.... but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.... they were, I think, still under construction.

The ground floor in that photo looks so cheap and flimsy...it´s going to look a mess in a few years.

Enlarge the photo. Now look at the wall on the extreme left. Look how it doesn´t quite meet the pavement. There is a space underneath of it...ouch!... and so on.

Funny, I swear to you, this complex looks a lot like the 60´s apartment buildings outside of the historic center of my town. In fact that photo could be a corner outside of any central to northern Italian city (maybe the entrance to a medical suite). Not such a bad thing at all..... but believe me you´d find much better workmanship.

ablarc
August 29th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Your creativity would not be restricted at all. You would still be permitted to emphasize the floors, but you would be required to cover the raw concrete ends.
Fair enough. That makes sense if you don't have a formwork sub with the skills displayed at Boston's Christian Science Center. But what if you do?

What you're talking about is regulation of detailing for aesthetic purposes. Don't know how I feel about that proposal because I haven't really thought about it. Most aesthetic regulation turns out to have a counterproductive side. Not all; Haussmann's regs worked pretty well.

In general, though, I find that regulation often goes awry, and even thwarts the spirit of its intent by getting too specific in the letter of the law. The life safety code is full of examples of that; some say, for example, that perhaps three hundred lives in the WTC might have been saved if the required elevator safety equipment hadn't worked so well.

Truth is, folks aren't smart enough to foresee all potential circumstances that might crop up, so I'd favor something like the approach that's being toyed with in California. There, instead of stating everything in non-negotiable and numerical absolutes, a balanced assessment of a building's overall safety is attempted. This takes judgment, rather than mindless adherence to unbendable formulas, which often produces absurdities and, yes, even hazards.


I would also not permit stone veneer to be mitered at the corners, unless the joint is tight. But it hardly ever is; instead a half inch of compound smeared in - looks like crap.
I wouldn't miter a stone veneer corner either, but I'm not sure I'd want some regulation telling me I couldn't. What if I were an anal-retentive perfectionist who knew how to ride the contractor's workmen?

ZippyTheChimp
August 29th, 2005, 07:31 PM
What if I were an anal-retentive perfectionist who knew how to ride the contractor's workmen?
Hmmm. One of my kids picked up this term some years ago. An effective anti-discipline tool.

I am not advocating a design aesthetic, merely build-quality.

The appearance of 10 Liberty irks me. It has location, upscale rent, Liberty bond financing - and look at the result. The brickwork looks like a fake Christmas fireplace.
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/2231/10liberty010ro.th.jpg (http://img79.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10liberty010ro.jpg)

I have little hope for something better at William St, right across from 20 Exchange.

ablarc
August 29th, 2005, 07:41 PM
That's a pretty potent illustration of bad workmanship, Zippy; I think you're right to be offended. Stuff like that bugs me too.

Truth is, though, that the issue is aesthetic; workmanship like that won't threaten anyone's safety until substantial deterioration has taken place a hundred years from now; by that time the building will be gone or rebuilt.

londonlawyer
August 29th, 2005, 07:42 PM
10 Liberty is still MUCH better than 2 Gold Street. That building looks retarded. It would not have been as bad if they used red brick and regular glass instead of yellow brock with green glass that looks like crap!

ZippyTheChimp
August 29th, 2005, 08:16 PM
You have retained your title as Crapmeister. The only thing good about 2 Gold is that from certain aspects, it blocks 60 Wall.

Ablarc: I understand what you are saying. I just wanted it to be clear that I am not advocating any particular style for a building, or limiting design freedom.

Kris
October 17th, 2005, 03:02 PM
http://www.cornershots.com/images/streakyfives.jpg

http://www.cornershots.com/archives/000657.html

kz1000ps
October 17th, 2005, 06:38 PM
GREAT photo. I just saw this building for the first time in person this weekend and, besides almost walking by it without noticing, I found it to be really dull. It looked so lightweight and dynamic in the renderings, but the dark green glass seemed to be sucking in all light and reflecting none back, leaving it looking like something of an architectural black hole in a spot where it certainly should shine (or at least scream some kind of nonsense). And I saw this on The Day The Sun Came Back, making things even more disappointing. Perhaps I was at the wrong angle with the wrong lighting, but it seems it'll only look good under silvery-grey skies as seen in posts 99 or 102. Or at nighttime, as Kris' photo shows. Ohhhh well....it's better than what was there before, but.

Here's what I was looking at (56k'ers, don't bother)
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7861/dscf00012fr.th.jpg (http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf00012fr.jpg)

Fabrizio
October 17th, 2005, 06:55 PM
"....or at least scream some kind of nonsense".

No. This is 5th avenue ....we want discretion.

kz1000ps
October 18th, 2005, 04:10 AM
No. This is 5th avenue ....we want discretion.

Right. I made that comment more for contrast purposes than anything, and I'm definitely not a fan of brash buildings (the Blue condo specifically pops to mind) in any location. But I'm just disappointed with what we now have, although discreet this building certainly pulls off. Whatever, in two years we won't even notice it with the hulk going up at the other end of Bryant Park.

vc10
October 21st, 2005, 03:34 PM
It's better than what was there before (just about anything would have been better) but it's too bad that there's not a whole-block building on that corner, given its prominence.

ablarc
October 21st, 2005, 03:47 PM
You could just as easily be grateful that there's no whole-block building. It's good that Fifth Avenue's scale remains somewhat daintier than it would be if such blockbusters prevailed.

Generally, I'm not against height but I am against sprawling footprints. These promote coarseness of scale and a certain accompanying tedium; you have to walk too far before things change.

vc10
October 21st, 2005, 04:54 PM
A crappy whole-block building is disappointing (like the new CIBC building at the corner of Madison and 42nd---while an improvement on what was there before, it totally recapitulates the mediocrity of the other buildings in the Madison 40s). But half-block buildings always come with problems---like where 505 meets the building to the north it just looks ugly.


You could just as easily be grateful that there's no whole-block building. It's good that Fifth Avenue's scale remains somewhat daintier than it would be if such blockbusters prevailed.

Generally, I'm not against height but I am against sprawling footprints. These promote coarseness of scale and a certain accompanying tedium; you have to walk too far before things change.

Fabrizio
October 21st, 2005, 06:18 PM
I disagree. It's beautiful.

Small foot-print buildings of noble materials in varied classical styles, set among slim skyscrapers was the 5th avenue formula. Small boutiques, jewell-like office buildings, small churches .... even Rockefeller Center attempted to preseve the formula.

Knocking them down for big foot-print block-long buildings would make 5th a different place. Remember "5th Avenue" is almost a brand name.... and the brand should be protected and nurtured.

About the exposed wall next to 505: it's totally chic. The sophisticed choice would be to let it alone. Ablarc suggested ivy...probably in jest ...but it would be fab.

I'd chose wisteria though.

ablarc
October 21st, 2005, 08:53 PM
Ablarc suggested ivy...probably in jest ...
I never jest.

lofter1
October 21st, 2005, 09:22 PM
They tried to make ivy grow on a wall of the building that went up south of the Fisk Building -- across 8th Ave. from the Hearst Tower (the block between 56th / 57th and 8th / B'way).

There is a small plaza on the SW corner of that block and an exposed wall at the north end. It gets direct sun, so maybe that just baked the the ivy -- or all the cigarette butts killed it.

Either way the wall is now a bare pinkish stucco -- ecch.

Derek2k3
October 23rd, 2005, 10:40 AM
http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51141673.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51141661.jpg

More exciting shot by Cornershot:
http://www.cornershots.com/archives/000657.html

ablarc
October 23rd, 2005, 10:56 AM
That exposed brick wall sure needs covering.

Mirror spandrel glass?

Stucco? A vertical sign or billboard? Or vines? It does face south.

Even metal panels.

Something.

What a prominent corner on an elegant avenue; should this be tolerated here?

Fabrizio
October 23rd, 2005, 12:15 PM
Oh my. I have to agree. Seen in the above photos it´s not a nice uniform expanse of old brick....as was my impression.

Limestone?

lofter1
October 23rd, 2005, 12:19 PM
I assume the expanse of yellow above the first set-back is to be finished out with something, eh?

vc10
October 23rd, 2005, 02:01 PM
Precedents aren't good. Remember how cr*ppy the corner was before? And that was tolerated for years and years---maybe even decades.

It's one of the benefits of a full-block building---you don't get this nonsense.



What a prominent corner on an elegant avenue; should this be tolerated here?

ablarc
October 23rd, 2005, 02:19 PM
Sure enough, better than before. In Boston they say, "better than a parking lot." Do we need to operate at that level and accept it?

And do we really need to occupy a whole block --with its attendant scale issues-- in order to correct a problem that could be fixed by a guy with a trowel?

Fabrizio
October 23rd, 2005, 04:10 PM
"It's one of the benefits of a full-block building---you don't get this nonsense".

Please.

No one who loves and understands NY, no one with a sense of history and culture would want to see the small historic buildings on this block of 5th avenue torn down en masse. The building that was at that corner was actually out of place and deserved to be replaced with something like this. I´m thankful that NY has preserved much of it´s history....as a result, the city has class and is infinitely more beautiful than a Dallas, Houston or Atlanta.

ablarc
October 23rd, 2005, 04:19 PM
"...as a result, the city has class and is infinitely more beautiful than a Dallas, Houston or Atlanta.
And also more usable.

londonlawyer
October 24th, 2005, 11:49 AM
"It's one of the benefits of a full-block building---you don't get this nonsense".

Please.

No one who loves and understands NY, no one with a sense of history and culture would want to see the small historic buildings on this block of 5th avenue torn down en masse. The building that was at that corner was actually out of place and deserved to be replaced with something like this. I´m thankful that NY has preserved much of it´s history....as a result, the city has class and is infinitely more beautiful than a Dallas, Houston or Atlanta.

I agree. The two little buildings north of 505 Fifth are beautiful and tearing them down would have been a crime. The same holds true with the adjacent building on 42nd Street that was owned by the Greek government and is now the Taiwanese cultural office. There was speculation at one point that it would be acquired, demolished and the site would have been incorporated into 505 5th. Fortunately, that did not occur, and the Taiwanese restored the building magnificently.

PS: NY has far more old buildings than the cities that you mentioned, but it is also a much older city. Remember, NY has been a city since the 1620's.

Derek2k3
October 31st, 2005, 10:25 PM
http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51607616.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51607226.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51607155.jpg
10-30-05

Edward
December 6th, 2005, 10:25 PM
505 Fifth Avenue (http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/) - the view from Top of the Rock - observation deck in Rockefeller Center (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/../guide/observation/top_of_the_rock.htm). 29 October 2005.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/images/505fifth_observation.jpg

antinimby
December 7th, 2005, 12:39 AM
What's up with that blank wall? Must have ran out of glass.

NoyokA
December 7th, 2005, 01:22 AM
I actually like the articulation of the blank wall, I prefer it over the banal front of the building.

kliq6
December 7th, 2005, 10:19 AM
No matter what its better then what was there and is almost fully leased

londonlawyer
December 7th, 2005, 10:43 AM
I love this building. It seems like there are real limits as to what can be achieved with such a small tower, and yet, this building achieves a lot. It has so many angles and nice glass. While LVMH is the masterpiece for small buildings and is in a league of its own, this one is quite good in my opinion.

PS: Did anyone see the following article in the Post? The sale of air rights from the magnificant Scribner Building could lead to redevelopment of some of the sh..it that infests 5th Ave. in the 40's.

FIFTH AVE. PAIR TO FETCH $80M

By LOIS WEISS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UP IN AIR: 597 Fifth Ave. (above) has been put on the market by Benetton.
Photo: N.Y. Post: Luiz C. Ribeiro
Email Archives
Print Reprint



December 7, 2005 -- Between The Bricks


THE former Scribner's bookstore building is on the market.

The seller, clothier Benetton, previously moved to 601 Fifth Ave., which it is keeping.

But it is also selling the 12,000-square-foot 3 E. 48th St., which has P.J. Moran's and Alvin Flusser as retail tenants.

The Scribner's Building at 597 Fifth Ave. is now inhabited by facial fluffer Sephora, on a 2-year-old lease that continues for another eight years.

Offices and showrooms take up the floors above the landmarked retail space.

Between the two buildings is another 50,000 feet of air rights, which according to landmark rules, can be transferred to other places, including across Fifth Ave.

The Landmarks Commission previously gave the building the right to punch holes — like doorways — between the adjacent buildings in the event someone wants to combine the spaces.

The package is expected to sell for around $80 million, largely based on the retail lease.

"There will be someone who can make use of all the value components, and that person will be our buyer," said Nat Rockett of Jones Lang LaSalle who is marketing the property along with co-worker Mark Marasciullo.

In another deal, Rockett and Tom Beneville of JLL closed the sale of the 17-story former REBNY building at 12 E. 41st St.

A pension fund sold it to the Berkeley College School for $34.3 million in late October.



*

Dennis Riese just bought back the T.G.I.Friday's building at 1552 Broadway — one of his family's previously owned pieces — for $48 million, or about $3,200 a foot.

In 1999, during a massive restructuring, Northstar had bought the 46th St. property along with 729 Seventh Ave., and then leased them back to the family company, National Restaurant Management, developed by the late Murray Riese.

Dennis, now chairman of the Riese Organization and Murray's son, also bought back the retail condo at 729 7th Ave. last June.



*

The El-Ad Group, owner of the Plaza Hotel, is moving on uptown from the Flatiron District.

It signed a 10-year sublease for 20,547 feet at 575 Madison Ave. comprising the 22nd and 23rd floors.

The company, led by Miki Naftali, will move from 225 Fifth Ave., which it is converting to residential condos.

Cushman & Wakefield brokers Mark Mandell and Yoav Oelsner represented El-Ad in its search and lease negotiations with the sublandlord, Katten Muchin Rosenman.

Murray Hill Properties' Bruce Goodman represented Katten Muchin Rosenman.

kliq6
December 7th, 2005, 11:01 AM
50,000 sf wont lead to much believe me

LeCom
December 7th, 2005, 11:24 PM
This building blows.

antinimby
December 20th, 2005, 07:42 AM
GLASSY BUILDING CLASSES UP NABE

By STEVE CUOZZO
http://www.nypost.com/realestate/comm/59117.htm

December 20, 2005 -- ALL it takes is one good new project to turn a swath of cityscape around.
Ever since Axel Stawski's glass-wrapped office building went up at 505 Fifth Ave., the blocks adjoining the once-miserable northeast corner of Fifth and 42nd Street have taken off.

The corner, long home to a tacky flea market and an empty lot, blighted the area for decades. The Stawski project overlooking Bryant Park is not the only reason for new activity nearby, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

The most visible evidence of change for the better is the arrival of the new Taipei Economic and Cultural Office next door at 1 E. 42nd St., where the long-empty and formerly filthy 11-story building has been spiffily cleaned up.

And the investment sale market nearby is going wild, with a quartet of solid addresses on the avenue's east side between 42nd and 45th streets about to change hands.

Sources say insatiable developer/investor Joseph Moinian has signed a $260 million contract to buy three prewar office buildings with plenty of store frontage — Nos. 509, 535 and 545 Fifth — from institutional owners Emmes and Apollo.

The so-called Zeus portfolio totals more than 595,000 square feet of office and retail space, with the lion's share of office space — 319,000 feet — at 535 Fifth.

Nos. 535 and 545 comprise a rare full blockfront on the avenue. The buildings are 90 percent leased following $42 million in capital improvements over the past nine years.

The deal was brokered by Cushman & Wakefield's Richard Baxter, who declined comment.

Meanwhile, publicly traded SL Green appears on the brink of buying 521 Fifth, the 1929-vintage tower between 43rd and 44th streets, from RFR Holdings. Sources said a sale contract has been signed for an unspecified amount.

If the deal goes through, it would be a blast from the past for SL Green, which in recent years has been increasingly focused on modern, Class-A properties rather than the older Class-B ones in which company founder Stephen L. Green specialized.

RFR's brokers, CB Richard Ellis's Darcy Stacom and Bill Shanahan, did not return calls. Reps for SL Green and RFR declined comment.

antinimby
December 20th, 2005, 08:46 AM
The most visible evidence of change for the better is the arrival of the new Taipei Economic and Cultural Office next door at 1 E. 42nd St., where the long-empty and formerly filthy 11-story building has been spiffily cleaned up. Sooo true. Check out the before and after (pay particular attention to the building behind 505).

Before . . .

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/505fifth/images/505fifth_east_25dec.jpg


. . . and now after

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51141661.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
December 20th, 2005, 09:18 AM
This building blows.
Not quite, but almost.


ALL it takes is one good new project to turn a swath of cityscape around.
Is the upgrade of surrounding property due to the architecture, or the prospect of tenants/customers?

Another prime opportunity site wasted.

kliq6
December 20th, 2005, 11:09 AM
CIT Group, a fortune 500 firm relocating from 1 CIT Place in Livingston, New Jersey is the prime tenant. This right here helps the area

macreator
December 20th, 2005, 11:51 AM
Wow! Those people from Taipei really know how to clean up a building.

I am dissapointed with 505 Fifth though. Even though it is such a small site, we have seen soo much better go up on even smaller plots of land.

The way 505 lets its neighboring building's wall go exposed, and how 505's glass always seems to look kind of dark and dull is really abysmal. Someone needed to hire a better glass supplier or something.

But, on the other hand, we did finally "finish" this corner of Midtown and the fact that the building has attracted a Fortune 500 firm to buck the trend and move to NYC is diffinately a plus in the building's favor.

BrooklynRider
December 20th, 2005, 12:11 PM
Right. We all need to remember the tent bazaar that was previously there.

vc10
December 20th, 2005, 05:08 PM
This corner was one of the first things I noticed about Manhattan when I first visited (as an adult) in the 80s. I couldn't believe there was a corner that was simultaneously this ugly and this prominent. It's seemed very very wrong.

However, I agree that the new building is a disappointment. It somehow seems cramped. Yeah, it's way, way better than the eyesore that was there before, but it's still a disappointment.


Right. We all need to remember the tent bazaar that was previously there.

antinimby
December 21st, 2005, 03:35 AM
...and how 505's glass always seems to look kind of dark and dull is really abysmal. Someone needed to hire a better glass supplier or something.Totally agree. So much better if they used clearer glass that looked more like this:http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=37&d=1107393640

Deimos
March 22nd, 2006, 06:18 PM
The building is almost done... CIT's logo is now above the doors at the main entrance, and every office has furniture in it. There were boxes by the window which made it look like people were filling the offices for business.

antinimby
March 22nd, 2006, 11:10 PM
Have they taken the scaffolding down yet? Is the retail space still unoccupied?

LeCom
March 22nd, 2006, 11:59 PM
Not quite, but almost.
Location location location. Cute building, prime location for a mega corporate-ass highrise. Hence building blows.

jeffpark
March 23rd, 2006, 12:58 AM
which floors did CIT take,?
has the Dr leased the upper floors?

jeffpark
March 23rd, 2006, 01:40 AM
whats about the crap building on the southeast corner of Madison and 42nd Street that Abramson Borothers ownes THEY SOULD TAKE DOWN THIS SHIT

50 E. 42nd St.
New York, NY </B>http://www.mrofficespace.com/ob/pix//mh/md0371.jpg

czsz
March 23rd, 2006, 01:46 AM
Are you serious? What a classic ensemble!

Fabrizio
March 23rd, 2006, 04:01 AM
LOL. That photo is shows the New York of legend.... seeing that assemblage is like coming across Brigadoon.... it´s the city we fell in love with. Whoever touches even a brick should go before a firing squad.

Deimos
March 23rd, 2006, 07:44 AM
Have they taken the scaffolding down yet? Is the retail space still unoccupied?
The scaffolding is mostly down, there's a section by the main entrance still up that is supporting the cantilevered awning while it's being built. The retail area doesn't look like it's ready to open, but that's impossible to tell really, as the windows have been made white.

Edward
March 23rd, 2006, 09:20 AM
LOL. That photo is shows the New York of legend....
50 East 42nd Street... is a ballet dancer of a structure, its setback tower lithe and trim (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3419).

jeffpark
March 23rd, 2006, 09:58 AM
if he would put a new building at the corner 04 42nd and madison (50 e 42nd) and for that matter take down the wole block from 41st to 42nd including the Lincoln Building AND MAKE A 3 MILLION S/F MAYBE EVEN LARGER DEVELOPMENT for like office and hotel like the time w/c
you would be able to get at least $30 more a s/f in rent

londonlawyer
March 23rd, 2006, 10:28 AM
whats about the crap building on the southeast corner of Madison and 42nd Street that Abramson Borothers ownes THEY SOULD TAKE DOWN THIS SHIT

50 E. 42nd St.
New York, NY </B>http://www.mrofficespace.com/ob/pix//mh/md0371.jpg

This building is magnificent.

This building (579 Fifth) is crap. Fortunately, Stawski owns it and will presumably tear it down if and when he acquires the piece of mierda just north of it.
http://listings.kipp-stawski.com/ob/pix/mh/md0541.jpg

czsz
March 23rd, 2006, 12:54 PM
I don't know, London, I like the streamlined, nouvelle jet-age immediate postwar elan of that building. Would be nice if the bottom portion of the facade was more integrated with the design, but nonetheless most of the structure "wraps" the corner very neatly and modishly. Tres Fifth.

ZippyTheChimp
March 23rd, 2006, 01:28 PM
if he would put a new building at the corner 04 42nd and madison (50 e 42nd) and for that matter take down the wole block from 41st to 42nd including the Lincoln Building AND MAKE A 3 MILLION S/F MAYBE EVEN LARGER DEVELOPMENT for like office and hotel like the time w/c
you would be able to get at least $30 more a s/f in rentDoes everything come down to rent-potential?

I think you would turn all of Manhattan into rentable crap.

czsz
March 23rd, 2006, 02:06 PM
I know someone who seriously proposes to sell off Central Park given its net worth and tax revenue generation potential.

jeffpark
March 23rd, 2006, 02:28 PM
but you have to agree that the retail at 50 E 42nd Street is crap,


whats about RFR site at 516 518 and 520 fifth

vc10
March 24th, 2006, 02:43 PM
With you there... Wish the entire block was razed (or at least everything visible in this picture). Nasty.



This building (579 Fifth) is crap. Fortunately, Stawski owns it and will presumably tear it down if and when he acquires the piece of mierda just north of it.
http://listings.kipp-stawski.com/ob/pix/mh/md0541.jpg

londonlawyer
March 24th, 2006, 08:53 PM
The northernmost building in that photo is actually quite nice, and the little one just south of it is decent. The two southernmost ones are the most disgusting though.

Fabrizio
March 24th, 2006, 08:55 PM
I love 1950´s swank ...but that corner building is just plain ugly, as is that grey thing attached to it.

I´m with Londonlawyer on this one: "Off with their heads!".

(The other 2 buildings at the extreme left are 5th Avenue beauties though.)

londonlawyer
March 24th, 2006, 09:18 PM
I agree with you, Fabrizio. Some 1950's buildings are magnificent. Many of the white brick buildings have such incredible shapes. They're like cubist sculptures in the way their tops twist in various ways. They're interesting examples of "the future" from the 1950's perspective. The two buildings on this block are crap though.

LeCom
March 24th, 2006, 10:22 PM
whats about the crap building on the southeast corner of Madison and 42nd Street that Abramson Borothers ownes THEY SOULD TAKE DOWN THIS SHIT

50 E. 42nd St.
New York, NY </B>http://www.mrofficespace.com/ob/pix//mh/md0371.jpg
It's a fine building, where else are you gonna find a pre Art Deco tower with an actual podium?

antinimby
May 3rd, 2006, 01:54 AM
MYSTERY IN MIDTOWN 5TH FINALE

By Steve Cuozzo

May 2, 2006 -- WHEN CIT Chairman/CEO Jeffrey Peek officially opened the financial firm's new headquarters at 505 Fifth Ave. last week, it capped a decade-long saga to reclaim the once-wretched northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street for modern commercial use.
CIT is the anchor tenant in Kipp-Stawski's gleaming new, 28-story, 300,000 square-foot office tower. To mark the opening, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled an installation by light-and-space artist James Turrell that bathes the lobby in alternating shades of blue, green and red - one of Midtown's coolest new entrances.

Although the office floors are fully leased, mystery clouds the project's 24,750 square feet of prime retail space on one of the city's most heavily trafficked corners, diagonally across from Bryant Park - a puzzle that recalls the site's previous history of revolving-door owners and leasing teams.

Retail sources say Swedish sportswear chain H&M, which is fast expanding in Manhattan, has been in talks with developer Axel Stawski for the past year for the three-level space. H&M, represented by a CB Richard Ellis team led by Jedd Nero, has been negotiating with Stawski through his retail leasing agent, Robert K. Futterman.

So we were surprised to see Cushman & Wakefield's Brad Mendelson listed as the agent for the space on the Mrofficespace.com data base. (Unusually for a prime, vacant store location, there's no leasing agent sign in the window.)

In fact, a Cushman insider said the company had in fact been given the leasing assignment - while a Futterman source said that if that was true, it was news to them.

Does the confusion mean the H&M deal is dead? Is Stawski hedging his bets?

Everybody at Stawski, Cushman, CBRE and Futterman ducked when we called. Just get things settled, guys, so we can finally bury the ghost of the old vacant lot and flea market for good.

http://www.nypost.com/realestate/comm/67818.htm

Citytect
May 3rd, 2006, 03:23 AM
...Swedish sportswear chain H&M...

Sportswear? When did H&M become a sportswear store?

lofter1
May 3rd, 2006, 10:50 AM
What else should we call it -- pop-wear? Or tissue-wear (completely disposable after one use)?

kliq6
May 3rd, 2006, 12:26 PM
a completly filled spec building, music to my ears and maybe a clue to a guy like Milstein that is only building a moderate sized office tower, Build it and they will come, leave it and grass grows in midtown

Citytect
May 3rd, 2006, 09:59 PM
What else should we call it -- pop-wear? Or tissue-wear (completely disposable after one use)?

General "clothing store" or "apparel", maybe. They have little sportswear in their stores. "Sportswear chain" makes it sound like they specialize in athletic apparel.

Just struck me as an inappropriate description. I guess it's just me though.

RS085
May 3rd, 2006, 10:25 PM
a completly filled spec building, music to my ears and maybe a clue to a guy like Milstein that is only building a moderate sized office tower, Build it and they will come, leave it and grass grows in midtown

sounds familiar. i think you know it.

lofter1
May 4th, 2006, 02:20 AM
General "clothing store" or "apparel", maybe. They have little sportswear in their stores. "Sportswear chain" makes it sound like they specialize in athletic apparel.
In the trade sportswear = casual ware.

athletic wear = athletic wear

Citytect
May 4th, 2006, 04:50 PM
^Google "sportswear" and see what you get... Athletic clothing.

Fabrizio
May 4th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Greenie....Lofter is correct. "Sportswear" is the American fashion industry term for casual wear. It is day wear with an emphasis on separates.

Here&#180;s Ann Taylor..... one of the US&#180;s oldest "sportswear" companies.... note how they describe themselves:

http://www.anntaylor.com/Templates/Content/site_help_stores.tem
---------------

MidtownGuy
May 4th, 2006, 05:15 PM
Walked past yesterday and peered into the lobby- it looks VERY nice with the LED installation.

Citytect
May 4th, 2006, 05:30 PM
I wasn't saying Lofter was incorrect. I know sportswear can mean casual (ie "sports coat"). The Post isn't a fashion trade publication and H&M doesn't describe themselves as sportswear. Most people think athletic when they hear sportswear these days. I just think its an unfitting description for H&M. The sportswear = casual correlation seems to have faded over the years with older companies retaining the sportswear description and newer and mostly youth oriented companies like H&M identifying more with a casual apparel description. Off topic.

jeffpark
May 13th, 2006, 11:38 PM
in this past week's -CRAIN'S NEW YORK- C&W
has an ad for the office at (the dr) "505 FIFTH AVENUE" like around 5 floors left i thought that the office space was 100 percent leased?

antinimby
May 14th, 2006, 02:00 AM
in this past week's -CRAIN'S NEW YORK- C&W
has an ad for the office at (the dr) "505 FIFTH AVENUE" like around 5 floors left i thought that the office space was 100 percent leased?Apparently not.
These are the numbers I found but I should warn you that they are a good 4 or 5 months old and not the latest.

CIT: 11 floors, 130,000 sf
American Capital Strategies: 4 floors, 37,000 sf

Derek2k3
May 14th, 2006, 10:51 AM
http://static.flickr.com/46/140255122_3b781bef0f.jpg
April 26, 2006
binkley27's photostream (http://flickr.com/photos/binkley27/140255122/)