Times Square Plaza - 11 Times Square (42nd St & 8th Ave)

[kliq6]

that is alot, it costs alot to build and run a hotel thats why so many being built are condo mixes and why so many hotel rooms have been converted over

[antinimby]

Oh and I forgot about the recently announced Knickerbocker hotel as well. Thanks pianoman11686.

[antinimby]

Yes kliq, that's a lot of hotels. And keep in mind that's just the Times Square area, there are other projects elsewhere in Manhattan and in the other boroughs as well.

[ZippyTheChimp]

No one said it wasn't a business, although, the economic share it contributes to a city relative to other industries may be debatable. Otherwise, places like Las Vegas and Orlando should be economic powerhouses. Las Vegas is an economic powerhouse, relative to its lack of economic diversity and the short time it was acomplished.

But that wasn't even my point. The critical list I referred to, takes into account the extremely and alarmingly tight office market.My point was that the Milstein site should be developed with either a hotel, office building, or residential. A tight office market is not going to be solved with this one site. There is nothing critical about how it is developed.

On the other hand, there are quite a few hotel developments in Times Square on the way, incuding these large notable ones: Madison Equities @ 8th and 55, 8th and 45, Extell's bet. 6th and 7th also on 45th, bet. 5th and 6th on 45th again, and on 55 bet. 5th and 6th.Proves my point. Hotels are profitable.

that is alot, it costs alot to build and run a hotel thats why so many being built are condo mixes and why so many hotel rooms have been converted overHotels, like office buildings, are developed to make a profit. Conversions, like office conversions, offer the owner a quick profit.

[antinimby]

Las Vegas is an economic powerhouse, relative to its lack of economic diversity and the short time it was acomplished.Compared to which city? I guess every large city is an economic powerhouse in its own right, but relative to which other city? A New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, etc.?

My point was that the Milstein site should be developed with either a hotel, office building, or residential. A tight office market is not going to be solved with this one site.Well of course just one site alone won't do it (again no one argued that) but in order to begin to solve it, you've always got to start with one site, then another, then another...

There is nothing critical about how it is developedActually, there is. Doesn't a residential at that corner just seem inappropriate to you?

Proves my point. Hotels are profitable.Again, no one said it wasn't. But if given a choice at this time, I'd take an office tower over a hotel.

Hotels, like office buildings, are developed to make a profit. Conversions, like office conversions, offer the owner a quick profit.Zippy, who's saying that they aren't? We need offices, hotels, condos, etc., but it's obvious that offices is more in need. How many more times do I have to say that?:rolleyes:

[Citytect]

How many more times do I have to say that?:rolleyes:

3 more times. And click your heels.

[jeffpark]

http://www.columbiasurgery.org/news/centers/img/pic_ss3.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

Compared to which city? I guess every large city is an economic powerhouse in its own right, but relative to which other city? A New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, etc.? Not relative to another city, relative to the fact that its economy is based on tourism as a primary industry.

Well of course just one site alone won't do it (again no one argued that) but in order to begin to solve it, you've always got to start with one site, then another, then another... Any office shortage should be viewed as a long-term problem, and should be solved by long-term planning. That's what should be done at the Far West Side. Since it doesn't look like anyone is going to develop the site on spec, if there is an immediate need (an anchor tenant can be found), then the site should be developed as an office building. But if someone steps forward with an alternate use, it should be developed that way.

Doesn't a residential at that corner just seem inappropriate to you?The only thing that's inappropriate on that corner is a lot growing weeds.

We need offices, hotels, condos, etc., but it's obvious that offices is more in need. How many more times do I have to say that?:rolleyes:If that is the case, the market will decide.

[antinimby]

Not relative to another city, relative to the fact that its economy is based on tourism as a primary industry.Supports my point of favoring office construction over hotels.

Any office shortage should be viewed as a long-term problem, and should be solved by long-term planning. That's what should be done at the Far West Side. Since it doesn't look like anyone is going to develop the site on spec, if there is an immediate need (an anchor tenant can be found), then the site should be developed as an office building. But if someone steps forward with an alternate use, it should be developed that way.That is a general common sense statement that can be applied to hotel development as well. In the meantime, lets get 850,000 sf of offices up at that site ASAP.

The only thing that's inappropriate on that corner is a lot growing weeds.Slightly less than having residential condos there.

If that is the case, the market will decide.It normally does and it will here as well.

[pianoman11686]

I, more than anyone, will speak out and say that New York is in dire need of office development. In fact, I can't wait for developers to start realizing the shift in demands, and start reducing the new construction of condos while increasing commercial construction. From what I remember when reading through the comprehensive plan that was formualted prior to 9/11, New York needs office space for 300,000 new workers within the next two decades. At 250 square feet per worker, that amounts to 75 million square feet of new office space. Currently, the city's not on pace to meet those requirements. Downtown will give us 10 million within 10 years or so, but the rest has to come from whatever few parcels are left in Midtown, but mostly from the far West Side and the fringes of Midtown South.

That being said, I don't think it would hurt to develop this site as a hotel. Why? Because it's one of the few remaining sites near Times Square that can accommodate a major new hotel. It is in an area that is overwhelmingly geared toward tourists. And we all know that hotel occupancies are at an all time high, and this year is projected to set new records for number of visitors. These people need a place to stay, and furthermore, they need a bigger selection so that prices level off a bit, and their tourism dollars can go to other businesses.

Some interesting info I came across on the web per the Las Vegas/New York comparison:
Number of visitors: 38.6M (Vegas) vs. 42.6M (NY)
Visitor spending: $36.8B (Vegas) ($9.7B in gaming) vs. $21.1B (NY)
Hotel rooms: 133K (Vegas) vs. 71K (NY)
Hotel occupancy: 89% (Vegas) vs. 85% (NY)
Average room rate: $103 (Vegas) vs. $237 (NY)
Total economic impact of New York City tourism in 2004: $39 billion
Total NYC jobs supported by visitor spending in 2004: 328,763
Total taxes generated by visitor spending in 2004: $5.4 billion

Extrapolate what you wish from these numbers. The bottom line is, tourism's as big an industry in New York as any other.

[krulltime]

^ Hey pianoman11686 interesting comparisons... where do you find information like that?

[jeffpark]

what's with Milstein's Battery Park City site 23/24.
do you think they will sell that also?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Supports my point of favoring office construction over hotels. That doesn't make sense. Explain how an example that tourism is an important industry supports your point.

In the meantime, lets get 850,000 sf of offices up at that site ASAP.Do you have a major tenant?

[bkmonkey]

Im confused a bit, some of those numbers seem to contradict each other. If Vegas has less overall tourism than nyc (in terms of visitors per year), and many more hotel rooms, why does it have a higher occupancy rate?

[alibrot]

Im confused a bit, some of those numbers seem to contradict each other. If Vegas has less overall tourism than nyc (in terms of visitors per year), and many more hotel rooms, why does it have a higher occupancy rate?

first thing is length of stay..i would have imagined nyc hotel stays are longer than vegas, but thats not the only form of tourism. how are visitors counted? what about people who come in from NJ or LI on the weekend to get dinner see a broadway show? are they counted? there are a lot of day trips to the city, and not as many into vegas.

a lot of hotel rooms are for business in nyc...im not sure how that is counted.

[pianoman11686]

^ Hey pianoman11686 interesting comparisons... where do you find information like that?

The NYC info is from the official site of NYC & Company, the tourism bureau of the city: http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=57

The Vegas info is from the Center for Business and Economic Research of the University of Nevada. Their sources are also government bureaus: http://cber.unlv.edu/tour.html

A quick Google search for NYC or Vegas tourism yields plenty of similar results.

Bkmonkey: I was also wondering about the numbers at first. It does seem odd that the difference is as great as it is, given that Vegas has almost twice as many hotel rooms. I'll offer a few explanations. The circumstance most likely to contribute to this is that because Las Vegas is more of a vacation destination (vacation as in going someplace just for leisure, whereas you go to New York to see landmarks, experience the culture, and actually learn something), people are more likely to stay there a longer period of time. Thus the turnover rate for hotel rooms in New York will be higher. This could be augmented by the fact that New York is much more expensive to visit, and people may not be able to afford to stay there as long. Then there are less obvious reasons that (could) explain some of the difference. For example, perhaps more tourists stay with family in New York, whereas Las Vegas affords fewer such opportunities (for obvious reasons). Another possible reason is that everyone who visits Vegas stays in the city of Vegas, whereas when they come to New York they might stay in New Jersey, Westchester, or Long Island (not technically part of the city). Also, maybe more couples/families visit New York, while Las Vegas has more singles. I don't know about all these, they're mostly conjecture. Then there's also the distinct possibility that the occupancy rates are artificially inflated. Who's to say?

Edit: sorry if some of that was repetitive. Alibrot posted his reply while I was writing mine.

[antinimby]

That doesn't make sense. Explain how an example that tourism is an important industry supports your point.Sure it does. We were debating about how much tourism contributes to a city's economic prowess, if you will. My point was that, although tourism is important (remember, I never said it wasn't), it does not provide the most "firepower."

Let's take Las Vegas again, as an example of a mainly tourism-based economy and compare it to, say, Minneapolis or Atlanta (whichever you prefer) whose economies are obviously not tourism-dependent. Which city do you think would have a higher GDP? Without even checking the current figures (I saw it somewhere not too long ago), I'm almost certain that both Minny and Atlanta will trump Las Vegas. If I remember correctly, Las Vegas might actually have a larger population to boot!

You see, I want tourists and hotels, as much as we can get actually (kinda the greedy-type myself :D) but like I pointed out, the hotel rooms are coming and so right now, I'd place office space higher up on the priority list. Eventhough, like you said, it won't completely solve the problem but every little bit helps. That's all.

Do you have a major tenant?I'm sure it won't be difficult (see 505 Fifth).

Let me pose the question to you now.
Do you have an anchor tenant for the hotel?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Antinimby, you keep missing the point about tourism. I was responding to your statement...
the economic share it contributes to a city relative to other industries may be debatable. with an example of how a city can fuel enormous growth (population doubled in a decade) utilizing tourism as the primary source of revenue. I was not comparing it to any other city.

You seem to be saying that tourism is some minor industry, whose impact is "debatable." Pianoman provided data. As for "firepower," revenue is revenue.

Let me pose the question to you now.
Do you have an anchor tenant for the hotel? About 42 million of them. Unless you are referring to a developer, in which case, if a need is seen,one may step up. But you are ignoring my main point about the site. I'll repeat

My point was that the Milstein site should be developed with either a hotel, office building, or residential.

You are locked in to an office building. If rising interest rates cause a downturn in the economy, the site could sit vacant for a decade.

[antinimby]

Antinimby, you keep missing the point about tourism. I was responding to your statement...No, it is you who is missing the point and taking what was said and twisting it around like this:

with an example of how a city can fuel enormous growth (population doubled in a decade) utilizing tourism as the primary source of revenue. I was not comparing it to any other city.

You seem to be saying that tourism is some minor industry, whose impact is "debatable." Pianoman provided data. As for "firepower," revenue is revenue.Re-read my posts and look for the word "minor" or anything to that effect. I didn't say that its impact was debatable, but rather, if all else being equal, would it have the same economic weight (I'm running out of words to describe) as other industries? And yes, of course you've got to compare because isn't that your whole argument, that tourism is equal with the rest?
Apparently you are misquoting, misintrepreting, and frankly, trying to prove your point by making obvious statements that no one disagrees with.
About 42 million of them. Unless you are referring to a developer, in which case, if a need is seen,one may step up. But you are ignoring my main point about the site. I'll repeat
My point was that the Milstein site should be developed with either a hotel, office building, or residential.
You are locked in to an office building. If rising interest rates cause a downturn in the economy, the site could sit vacant for a decade.Do you realize what you just said can be applied to either offices or hotels?

[ZippyTheChimp]

I won't refute this point by point. You obviously will not understand what I have been saying. But your last statement is hilariously ironic.


Do you realize what you just said can be applied to either offices or hotels?That is precisely my point. I would accept either a hotel or an office building. They would both be economically viable.

[antinimby]

I won't refute this point by point. You obviously will not understand what I have been saying.I understood you perfectly, ever since your first statement into this recent discussion as a matter of fact.

You: it doesn't matter if it becomes offices, hotels or condos. Hotels cater to tourism, which contributes to a city's economy and is just as important as other industries. The city's office deficit can't be met with one site, the Westside Railyards is where they should plan office development.

Me: Yes, they all contribute to the economy, but there are plenty of hotel projects coming along in that part of town, this site should be offices above all else. Obviously an office tower at this site won't make the deficit go away, but 850,000 sf is still 850,000 sf and every single sf is needed right now. The Westside Railyards is all fine and dandy but in the meantime, while they're doing all the talking and planning and arguing, here's a site that's ready to go (that is if Milstein ever makes up his mind :rolleyes: ).

But your last statement is hilariously ironic.
That is precisely my point. I would accept either a hotelOnly ironic because you are once again not understanding or just refusing to understand. For the last time: if like you say, all else being equal (hotel vs. offices vs. condos), why not go with offices as that is more of a scarcier and much more needed commodity right now and in the near future?

[antinimby]

My gut feeling (and as others here have also stated) is that it will be likely either offices/retail or condos(gasp!)/retail. The number of potential hotel tenants is pretty thin right now since most either have a presence there already or are planning something there. So all this discussion and wish listing on our part will pretty much be moot.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I don't accept the fact that at the moment, office space is scarcier than hotel space. If that is so, then an office tenant will come along, and that is fine with me, But if that does not materialize and a hotel developer comes along, I think it is best for the site, both economically and aesthetically, that a hotel be developed.

And if you are going to attribute statements to me, quote me directly. Where exactly did I state

it doesn't matter if it becomes offices, hotels or condos. Hotels cater to tourism, which contributes to a city's economy and is just as important as other industries. The city's office deficit can't be met with one site, the Westside Railyards is where they should plan office development.

That really annoys me, especially since I have pasted your statements exactly, and you have accused me of misquoting you.

and frankly, trying to prove your point by making obvious statements that no one disagrees with.I'm sorry. I'll refrain from doing that.

[antinimby]

I don't accept the fact that at the moment, office space is scarcier than hotel space. If that is so, then an office tenant will come along, and that is fine with me, But if that does not materialize and a hotel developer comes along, I think it is best for the site, both economically and aesthetically, that a hotel be developed.Oh for heaven's sake Zippy. NO ONE is disagreeing with that. Let me say one last time (I swear it will be): I'm not against a hotel there. Just prefer to see offices. There is no officially announced office tenant but likewise, there is also no hotel tenant either.

And if you are going to attribute statements to me, quote me directly.OH MY GODDDDDD!! : pull own hair :
That wasn't meant to be a statement attributed to you. It was a summarization of what I understood to be your point.

[pianoman11686]

Let's all just stop bickering about what's best for the site and come to our senses: make it a tower of sex to consolidate all the adult stores and gentlemen's clubs in the area. It could be a big success, something unique to New York. There could be a museum on the ground floor, an IMAX theater showing a production that chronicles the history of porn in NY, and a central lobby full of ATM's. Meanwhile, we'll clear out so much crap in the area by relocating the porn shops that there will be several new sites for commercial and hotel use. That way, everyone wins. And here's the capper: enlist Foster (of Gherkin fame) or someone with a similar project in their profile to design an (in)appropriately shaped tower.

[lofter1]

Best idea ^^^ yet :)

Gives a whole other meaning to "New Amsterdam"!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Too late. Already happening farther west.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/913/hustler01c3id.th.jpg (http://img96.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hustler01c3id.jpg)

Will the Parthenon have accent lighting?

[ablarc]

Too late. Already happening farther west.
Yeah, but that one's all under one management, like Macy's. What we need is more like the Mall of America: Aphrodite's Retreat.

[lofter1]

The existing MUSEUM OF SEX (http://www.museumofsex.org/) at 5th Ave. / 27th St. would probably benefit from the move to Times Square.

http://museumofsex.com/data/large_img_1.jpg

[czsz]

A Chelsea Arts Tower for porn. The time has come!

Imagine its potential as a terrorist target, though. No surer a symbol of corrupting Western decadence...

[kliq6]

no need to argue about what will be built, as long as HM owns the site nothing is going to be built, so lets not worry until this site is sold, then argue over what will happen

[mgp]

I heard a rumor that SJP Properties (New Jersey firm) was going to purchase this from Milstein and build a 1 million square foot office tower on the site.

[antinimby]

That would be fantastic, but where is the extra 150,000 sf coming from?
Btw, 850,000 is the size of the Hearst tower, just to give an idea of the size this can be.

[kliq6]

SJP has never done anything in NYC and in a sense it would be nice if they did give something back, as there projects have for the most part been anchored with NYC based firm jobs

[jeffpark]

It’s good to see an outside firm coming into the market (and not always the same Related Vornado Tishman BP etc besides durst Kilog)
And I have to tell you I went on their web site and they have developed some nice new class office buildings in NJ

[djf17]

SJP has never done anything in NYC and in a sense it would be nice if they did give something back, as there projects have for the most part been anchored with NYC based firm jobs

SJP is developing on condo on park....

http://www.45parkave.com/

[lofter1]

^^ with "Juliette Balconies" :eek: (and huge doors that swing into the unit -- oy)

[ablarc]

...huge doors that swing into the unit -- oy
Wheelchair accessibility?

[lofter1]

Doubt it ^^.

The "Juliette Balcony" shown on the website is about 9" deep at the exterior. And there is a "lip" at the floor.

The JBs are as bad as faux (i..e: super-shallow) bay windows.

CRUD :eek:

[kliq6]

i should have been clear, a commercial building in NY

[mgp]

That would be fantastic, but where is the extra 150,000 sf coming from?
Btw, 850,000 is the size of the Hearst tower, just to give an idea of the size this can be.

Like others here, I am excited about the possibility of another office tower on the west side - especially since it is coming on this particular site.

I'm not sure about the extra 150,000 sf. Most likely the rumor I heard has increased the size of the building. Still, 850,000 sf is not too shabby.

[ablarc]

Doubt it ^^.

The "Juliette Balcony" shown on the website is about 9" deep at the exterior. And there is a "lip" at the floor.

The JBs are as bad as faux (i..e: super-shallow) bay windows.

CRUD :eek:
Paris is full of these. That's why they're called French balconies. The railing is just there to keep you from falling out when the full-length glass is open. It's not so bad.

[antinimby]

^ I'd bet Paris can do no wrong in your eyes. ;)

Anyway, SJP is also doing a new condo just a couple of blocks up on 46th.

[lofter1]

Paris is full of these. That's why they're called French balconies.
But in Paris they would do it RIGHT. These aren't. ;)

[TylerFC]

Just so you anti-milstein people know...source at milstein says expect a big announcement in the next 90 days...my feelings are they selling the site to brookfield or vornado. but this site will become active in the next 3 months.

[ablarc]

But in Paris they would do it RIGHT. These aren't. ;)
Well, OK.

[jeffpark]

what is the last office that Milstein developetd

[macreator]

what is the last office that Milstein developetd

Great question. I think their last project was the Liberty View condos in Battery Park City back in the early 90's. Not an office development, of course, but I can't recall anything else in the last decade and a half they've built.

And those condos are pretty bland even for Battery Park City.

[jeffpark]

i think the last OFFICE develpment by Milstein was
335 Madison-Bank of America Plaza in 1985
but in general the Milstein's (brothers Paul and the late Seymour) were never known as OFFICE developers like DURST, TISHMAN, RUDIN

they were always known as condo and rental developers

[TylerFC]

Thats why they probably will bring in a real office developer...think positive.

[kliq6]

fact is the state dropped the ball, they shouldnt have given him the site as Durst bid, albeit a bit lower had a actually plan with a tenant, the law firm that eventually went into 4 Times square.

Also i wouldnt call Vornado a office/commercial developer, they are mainly a retail empire, outside on NYC

[jeffpark]

you would or you would not...? Vornado

[jeffpark]

if you are saying that Vornado are NOT pure office developers i would agree with you 100 percent
they realy did NOT develop any office buildings (or even condo)
besides the BLOOMBERG TOWER which they got the site becouse they
1995 bought controlling interest in Alexander's Inc,
and the whole penn plaza area and other midtwn properties he bought in 1997 from Bernard H. Mendik or 1 penn plaza from Malkin in 1998 etc

but in terms of developent they realy haven't done that much.

but nevertheless i would take Vornado/Roth in a heartbeat over any other Developer because STEVE ROTH has an eye for ARCHITECTURE

[jeffpark]

NY POST
By LOIS WEISS

June 15, 2006 -- Milstein Properties was officially chosen yesterday to develop two "green" condo towers on the last remaining residential site in Battery Park City.

Another Milstein site at the World Trade Center was taken over by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. and the contract - controlled by the state - gave them first dibs on the BPC site.
The Milsteins will pay about $125.5 million, or $225 per square foot, over the life of the long-term lease, James Gill, Chairman of the Battery Park City Authority, told The Post. "It's more than any other developer is paying." The towers, located on North End Avenue between Warren and Murray streets, will be designed by Stan Eckstut of Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn, will rise to 230 feet and 320 feet and have 421 units between them in 557,577 square feet. The average size of the apartments is expected to be 1,142 square feet. Underground parking is also planned.

[kliq6]

Just so you anti-milstein people know...source at milstein says expect a big announcement in the next 90 days...my feelings are they selling the site to brookfield or vornado. but this site will become active in the next 3 months.

Are you the guy that said last year aroun dthis time that somthing was about to happen? I personally emailed a few people over there and there responses were not very hopeful, so do tell what they will do?

[antinimby]

if you are saying that Vornado are NOT pure office developers i would agree with you 100 percent
they realy did NOT develop any office buildings (or even condo)
besides the BLOOMBERG TOWER which they got the site becouse they
1995 bought controlling interest in Alexander's Inc,Yeah, but now that they've got a taste of it--they like it!

[antinimby]

Well, whatever they plan to do, I just hope they go with a really bold and daring design instead of the usual boring New York box with four square corners.
Something sleek and curvaceous could do wonders for this corner.

[jeffpark]

they should hire my favorite architect -Cesar Pelli- (now known as Pelli Clarke Pelli)
they have design my favorite buildings in New York City the WFC (for brothers Paul & Albert) and BLOOMBERG TOWER

[TREPYE]

Yeah Pelli would be a great choice for this site he is one of my favorites as well. I love the Tower he did in Jersey city (looks like that awesome one he did in Hong Kong). The Bloomy Tower is OK, its way too boxy up top but the facade and set backs are really nice so I have some appreciation for it.

[TylerFC]

Are you the guy that said last year aroun dthis time that somthing was about to happen? I personally emailed a few people over there and there responses were not very hopeful, so do tell what they will do?

Not the same guy. I highly doubt you emailed anyone in the Milstein Office. if you did, you didnt email anyone of substance. I had lunch with the head of development at Milstein and he indicated things are in the works and will be announced soon. Im pretty positive they will move forward as they are at the 1 yard line with the ESDC and as soon as they complete their deal, they have 12 months to start digging or else they lose the rights to the additional 150,000 sq ft.

I have renderings, elevations and floor plans of all four of their proposed schemes....

Also, I highly doubt they will develop the BPC site 23/24 either.

[pianoman11686]

Are you the guy that said last year aroun dthis time that somthing was about to happen? I personally emailed a few people over there and there responses were not very hopeful, so do tell what they will do?

No, but the other guy had a similar avatar (Brad Pitt). That would be merlyn316. Haven't heard from him in over a year...

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51683#post51683

[TylerFC]

No, but the other guy had a similar avatar (Brad Pitt). That would be merlyn316. Haven't heard from him in over a year...

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51683#post51683

You should be a detective. Not the same guy....sorry. Milstein and Brookfield did have a MOU last summer but it fell through in August or September....

[jeffpark]

i would not be so happy if Brookfield got the site look what they JUST did with
300 Madison

[TylerFC]

300 Madison looks nice but is terrible in terms of constructibility and design....there were a lot of law suits with that.

[jeffpark]

300 Madison is just another crap by SOM

[Scruffy88]

FYI- recent pic of the site
6/17/06

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/DSC00027.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/DSC00198.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/DSC00199.jpg

[jeffpark]

how many SF is the lot?

[ablarc]

Let's see now, this is legal, right? This is not maintaining a public nuisance.

Right?

[lofter1]

ye olde swimming hole???

[kurokevin]

The next highline!

[kliq6]

a joke, we have a park growing on West 42nd street in what is basically one of the most desirable locations to develop something, anything on

[TylerFC]

Lot Size is about 38,500sf. Specially zoned for up to 1mm sf of office.

[Kris]

June 20, 2006
Developer Plans Times Square Office Tower
By CHARLES V. BAGLI

A New Jersey-based developer is buying the last remaining parcel in the Times Square redevelopment district to build an office tower, real estate executives said. The developer, SJP Properties, signed a contract this month to pay more than $260 million for the land at the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue. The property is owned by Howard and Edward Millstein.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Derek2k3]

I have renderings, elevations and floor plans of all four of their proposed schemes....

Could you post them some time?

[kliq6]

N.J. SURPRISE AT TIMES SQ.


By STEVE CUOZZO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2006 -- A dark-horse candidate from New Jersey has emerged as the prospective buyer of the Milstein brothers' famous empty pit at the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street - Parsippany-based SJP Properties, multiple sources said.
Ever since The Post first reported two weeks ago that Howard and Edward Milstein had decided to sell the precious corner rather than develop it themselves, speculation has been rampant over who would snatch it up.

Although not a household name in city real estate circles, privately held SJP owns or manages 12 million square feet of office space in the metropolitan area -...

[BrooklynRider]

SJP is a respectable company. They've done a bit on the other side of the river. I think new blood coming into the New York market is good. This is a good thing.

At some point, one has to look at the track record of the Milsteins and see what they have actually developed in relation to projects and sites awarded to them. They do seem to be making more money flipping properties than developing. After a while, it has the appearance of impropriety. Why is anyone awarding anything to developers with such dismal track records?

[kliq6]

agreed brooklyn and the BPC authority just gave them a site in BPC, lets see what they do there

[lesterp4]

I am so happy that this has been sold, finally. I asked that same question when Battery Park awarded Milstein development rights while this plot has been vacant for years.

[jeffpark]

as I had written before on this site, that the ONLY reason BPC gave Milstein the site is because milstien agreed to sell them "LMDC" a site across the WTC and
Under the deal, Milstein got the exclusive right to negotiate for the rights to develop the two residential sites in Battery Park City – Sites 23 and 24,

But if it were not for that Milstein would have never got the site in a Million Years

[Drexel]

With The New York Times Building and now with this new building at 42nd and 8th, what do you think the impact is going to be on updating or cleaning up the Port Authority Building...

[krulltime]

With The New York Times Building and now with this new building at 42nd and 8th, what do you think the impact is going to be on updating or cleaning up the Port Authority Building...


I hope they clean it up and put another tower on top of the bus terminal station. Then again why not built a better Bus terminal from scratch!

I am glad this area is getting the attention it deserves... and maybe because the Times building is securing tenants that is has become more desirable.

I hope that NJ company builts office space.

[pianoman11686]

The office tower plan for the bus terminal was scratched a while ago, due to security concerns. Nonetheless, the Port Authority is getting better. A new bowling alley/restaurant is going up on the corner of 9th and 40th, along with an updated, metal facade. Not sure how far that will extend. I also remember hearing that an upscale restaurant will be moving into the terminal soon, once the Times building opens. They've already closed a fast food place in the South wing of the terminal, right on 8th. I assume that's where it'll go. Inside, Au Bon Pain and Deli Plus recently completed renovations, and a Jamba Juice has moved in. The place is becoming less sketchy, although the basement is still pretty bad.
As per the new tower: I expect it'll be commercial, as SJP has traditionally been an office developer. I think it said in one of the articles that they recently expanded into residential, and were considering doing a mix. Hopefully that won't be the case. No word about any possible hotel rooms, either.

[kliq6]

they will build what is told to them by the edc so nothing gets done till edc signs off

[jeffpark]

they will build what is told to them by the edc so nothing gets done till edc signs off
its esdc

[Drexel]

what is esdc

[pianoman11686]

Empire State Development Corporation

[kliq6]

sorry Jeff i stand corrected

[TylerFC]

how can I post renderings that are in PDF form?

[Derek2k3]

You can capture the images and save them as jpegs in paint or photoshop or you can email them to me and I'll post them.

[lofter1]

how can I post renderings that are in PDF form?
Or save them as jpeg and then re-size the image, if necessary (to meet the max size allowed). Use the "manage attachments" function to insert them into your post.

[krulltime]

how can I post renderings that are in PDF form?

Oh goody! Renderings! Please follow the suggestions above. Thanks! :)

[antinimby]

how can I post renderings that are in PDF form?How certain are these designs? Will the buyer be likely to adopt them or go with something entirely different?

[Clarknt67]

photoshop will open PDFs directly too, (it will ask you which page) then you can resave as jpgs.

[TylerFC]

Still havent been able to post them. the design is set in stone if the buyer wants the additional SF given by ESDC. if they decide to go as of right they will get 120,000 less buildable SF.

chances are...they are buying subject to design.

will try to post tonight.

[lofter1]

Mmmmm -- can't wait ^^^ ....

Is it an entirely new design or a revision of one of the past proposals?

[kz1000ps]

To get the images to jpeg, Acrobat also has an image capture/ crop function (sorry I'm on my Mac right now, which doesn't have/need acrobat so I can't get more specific) towards the middle of the tool bar that highlights a select part of the screen. You can copy the image and then paste it into Paint. From there you can save it as whatever file type you want.

[antinimby]

Is anyone else nervous? I feel like an expectant father or getting an acceptance/rejection letter from a college.

[pianoman11686]

In that case, you might want to liquor yourself up a little bit before you view the rendering. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

[antinimby]

The problem with that is we were promised the big revelation many days ago. I don't want to be get drunk everyday for the next two weeks if it doesn't show up.

[pianoman11686]

Of course you don't. Here, I'll make it easier for you. For now, don't open this thread. I'll send you a PM when the rendering is released. Then, you can take as much "preparation" time as you want.

[antinimby]

That'll work, thanks. ;)
I'm not coming back here until I hear from you.

[sfenn1117]

All this hype over a filler tower? I don't want it to be ugly, but I'm not losing sleep over this one. Expect Times Square style frills and probably mediocrity overall.

The one I'm really looking forward to is Foster's WTC tower, the rendering of which I think will be out soon......certainly by the end of the summer. This release will have a much greater implication on the city.

[pianoman11686]

Just because it's a filler tower doesn't mean it needs to be mediocre. Just look at the wasted opportunity at 1600 Broadway, and to a lesser extent, 505 Fifth. This building should be bold, ultra-modern, and an attention-getter. It sits on a major intersection, and could really lend credence to the idea of Midtown moving westward past 8th Ave. Plus, any corner deserves a striking building. So-called filler towers can be reserved for sites like the one next to Bush Tower, where the goal is more to blend in with the neighbors than to stand out.

[sfenn1117]

You're absolutely right pianoman, that is the way it should be. But this is NY in 2006, a place and time where you can't expect much at this point. I'm sure it'll look nice and modern, but bold and unique? Very doubtful.

[kliq6]

Just because it's a filler tower doesn't mean it needs to be mediocre. Just look at the wasted opportunity at 1600 Broadway, and to a lesser extent, 505 Fifth. This building should be bold, ultra-modern, and an attention-getter. It sits on a major intersection, and could really lend credence to the idea of Midtown moving westward past 8th Ave. Plus, any corner deserves a striking building. So-called filler towers can be reserved for sites like the one next to Bush Tower, where the goal is more to blend in with the neighbors than to stand out.


How is 505 a wasted opp, its built to zoning, took the place of a freakin flea market in the middle of Midtown and helped a Fortune 500 get more space in order to relocate it HQ as well as 500 people from Livingston, NJ!

[krulltime]

505 should have been much taller with more office space. But if Zoning made it the way it is, then I can live with that.

[pianoman11686]

Kliq: I never said that 505 Fifth was a wasted opportunity as a development. Of course anything is better than a flea market in Midtown, and bringing a Fortune 500 firm is great. I was speaking strictly about architecture. That intersection, at 5th and 42nd, deserved something more monumental, in my opinion. I recall seeing a more ambitious plan for the corner that was ultimately dumped. While it's a nice building, it definitely has the appearance of a "filler", as opposed to a "landmark" building. Same goes for 1600 Broadway. Prominent locations call for prominent designs.

Upshot: I'd like to see a prominent design for this new building on 8th & 42nd, not another 505 Fifth.

[kliq6]

okay sorry bout that im clear now.

As for the chance of SJP Properties doing something great at the Milstein lot, id bet that the price of this site comes with the development plan and rendering already approved by the EDC so i think whats designed now will be built.

[pianoman11686]

No worries. Sometimes the meaning of a post gets lost in the typing.

I do hope you're wrong about the pre-approved plan, though. Plus, it would make more sense if there were a new plan, otherwise TylerFC wouldn't be making such a hoopla about posting new renderings.

[ablarc]

Prominent locations call for prominent designs.
Ideally, zoning would recognize this.

[Dirty]

I heard that with the Empire State Development Corporation has time restrictions for building must start within 12 mo and finish within 2 yrs after that. So the the new owner will have to use the existing pre-approved plans and that they are for office w/retail on the 1st, 2nd, and LL.

[krulltime]

Still havent been able to post them. the design is set in stone if the buyer wants the additional SF given by ESDC. if they decide to go as of right they will get 120,000 less buildable SF.

chances are...they are buying subject to design.

will try to post tonight.

So what happened to the renderings? :(

[Jaffster]

I was walking past this site today and saw a notice taped to the wall about the MTA using eminent domain to use the site as a station for the number 7 train extension. Anyone know anything about this?

[lofter1]

It ^^^ relates to THIS (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=108264&postcount=1451) , THIS (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=108276&postcount=1454) , THIS (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=108277&postcount=1455) and THIS (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=108279&postcount=1456)

[Jaffster]

Is there any news on this one? I'm tired of walking past this hole in the ground all the time. Do you think ground will be broken before the NYT tower is completed?

[lofter1]

But the trees are starting to pop up over the fence now :)

You wouldn't want to see the destruction of a self-sustaining green space in the middle of Times Square...

Would you :confused: ;) :confused: ;) :confused:

[Peakrate212]

But the trees are starting to pop up over the fence now :)

You wouldn't want to see the destruction of a self-sustaining green space in the middle of Times Square...

Would you :confused: ;) :confused: ;) :confused:

Yes, Call Bette Midler and help save this glorious open space!

[BrooklynRider]

At the very least, her organization would see a project through to its end and maintain it going forward. Unlike the Milsteains, who should have been fined - if not sued - by the city for failure to commence construction. This empty lot represents a colossal failure of city planning given all else that has been spawned along the West 42nd corridor. And the "New 42nd Street" is really the "AS YET TO BE COMPLETE New 42nd Street" at five years and counting.

This building should be commercial and it ought to be built spec given that EVERY indicator in the industry points to a growing need and commercial PPSF that are a curse on attracting new businesses to NYC.

[lesterp4]

At the moment 42nd Street is almost embarrasing. There are 3 gigantic holes in the ground 8th, 10th and 11th aves. Just sitting vacant in the center of Manhattan and it almost looks like a throw back to the 70s, vacant lots and abandoned bldgs.

[BrooklynRider]

Are all three sites affected by the 7 Subway easements?

[pianoman11686]

What do you mean by easements?

We know why the lot on 8th has been languishing. The lot on 11th is Silverstein's, and it had been involved in a dispute over whether the new Javits Convention Hotel should go there. I believe Silverstein's started construction on a new residential there. The 10th avenue site (extending all the way to Dyer) is where a tall residential was supposed to go, but Related was unable to incorporate a Cirque de Soleil theater into it, so they sold the plot of land. Not sure what's happening there, although I do believe that's where one of the new subway stations will go.

[alibrot]

the plot between dyer and 10th is the one that the new 7 would cause delays since a station has to go there. Otherwise, the tracks are deep below 41st street and shouldnt cause too much disruption. Most of these temporary easments will just be a minor distraction.

Are construction costs delaying building? There are empty boarded up plots on 38th/10th, 44th/10th, boarded up buildings on 9th and 38th (although vague plans were announced recently). And dont forget the closed fenced up gas station on the northwest corner of 42/11th. This will probably be that way for years. Unless something in the market changes drastically that drives costs down, its gonna be slow moving. Downtown is sucking up a lot of local construction resources too.

[Citytect]

Renderings?

[lofter1]

>> please !!! <<

[ramvid01]

One can only pray that whatever is built on this lot will be pleasing to the eye and very tall.

[TylerFC]

There is an existing subway station (not in use) located on the north side of 41st street that will affect the site as it will be part of the 7 train expansion. However, it is well below the foundation of the property and an easement is only used for actual construction within the existing subway. As part of the deal with the ESDC, the Milstein (or whomever builds) will be required to build a subway station stop at the corner. Not sure if the person builds "as of right" if the station will be required.

Also note that the Milstein's own the site in fee simple. Therefore, the State cannot "take back" the land or fine them for not building or sue or whatever. They could possibly use the New London Case for eminent domain, however, I am sure that the Milstein team of lawyers would fight them until death.

As to building spec, I still dont think it is wise yet to build 1mm sf spec given where construction costs are, especially steel and concrete. Grant it rents are rising, but construction costs have increased 40% in the last two years. Rents/demand for space still needs to catch up.

[kliq6]

with seven being very shaky now, they should push forward with the lots now as 7 may be pushed back more becuase of the mayor

[Citytect]

I guess you're not going to post a rendering after all, TylerFC?

[pianoman11686]

As to building spec, I still dont think it is wise yet to build 1mm sf spec given where construction costs are, especially steel and concrete. Grant it rents are rising, but construction costs have increased 40% in the last two years. Rents/demand for space still needs to catch up.

If you truly believe that, I think you need to take another look at the market right now. This is one of a few large sites that can still accommodate a new office tower in Midtown (excluding Hudson Yards). Vacancies continue to drop, and rents continue to rise. Every opportunity to expand the pool of office space should be taken advantage of, because it will take some time before Hudson Yards starts to fill the gap. Until then, it will only become more difficult for firms to find space, and they will have to look elsewhere (meaning Jersey City and other smaller business districts). The construction costs concern is irrelevant, as there is no end in sight to the rising costs, thus it is best to get a project going as soon as possible these days to avoid cost overruns.

[TylerFC]

If you truly believe that, I think you need to take another look at the market right now. This is one of a few large sites that can still accommodate a new office tower in Midtown (excluding Hudson Yards). Vacancies continue to drop, and rents continue to rise. Every opportunity to expand the pool of office space should be taken advantage of, because it will take some time before Hudson Yards starts to fill the gap. Until then, it will only become more difficult for firms to find space, and they will have to look elsewhere (meaning Jersey City and other smaller business districts). The construction costs concern is irrelevant, as there is no end in sight to the rising costs, thus it is best to get a project going as soon as possible these days to avoid cost overruns.

Obviously, you are not a developer. Constructions costs are irrelevant? That is an amazing statement. If the building can be built for $600/NSF (including land), they would require an average Net $55/NSF ($90/NSF Gross) to make the project feasible subject to a 9.0% ROC. Now this includes the low floors and the crappy space. Right now, they wouldnt get that. Also, to build another 1.0mm NSF on spec when there is over 1.5mm of additional supply coming to market at around $90/NSF or so. They would be forced to rent for less since BofA and NYTimes are of higher quality and reknown. So any rational developer that didnt want to piece meal lease a 1.0mmsf, they would wait until they get a lead tenant. This would also help for branding the building, which could command higher rents. Say if JPM wanted to move or something of that nature. You also have to figure that the building is an irregular "L" shape that hurts the office floor plate.

As for the Sketches...I dont know how to post them...but antinimby can....

[pianoman11686]

First off, I never claimed to be a developer. You seem to be into listing the numbers that make projects work, and I'm not going to doubt you. However, I will reiterate why I made that statement about construction costs: if you're a developer, and rising costs seems like an issue, I could not see the logic in waiting longer to get a project under construction. We see this with almost every new major construction project in the city. The Javits Center alone has increased in cost by $500 million dollars because of the delays in getting it approved.

So, (and correct me if I'm wrong with this assumption) if a developer can lock in a price for all his construction materials now, and get things underway before costs go up some more, I think it would be more logical not to wait for rents to go up even more, because by the time the building is finished (within a few years), rents will conceivably have increased again, and available inventory will have decreased.

Quick question: as for making profits on the lower floors, wasn't the entire base of this building supposed to be a retail complex? I don't see this being a real concern with the demand for retail in Times Square. (If the retail plans have changed, please confirm.)

Another quick question: please confirm that there will be 1.5 million square feet of additional space coming on line at the time that this building is supposed to be completed. I don't have a specific source, but from what I remember reading, both Bank of America and the NY Times Tower are very quickly running out of space, and only have a few hundred thousand square feet left.

As for branding: again, why wait for the delay, when a firm in need of a lot of office space (big blocks of which are very hard to come by these days) can come along and brand the building before it opens? We saw this happen with CIT at 505 Fifth, and with Conde Nast at 4 Times Square (and this occurred arguably during a time when the office market was not as healthy as it is today).

Last thing: I think antinimby said he wouldn't look at this thread until there were sketches posted. You might want to send him a PM. Or, if you tell me what format they're in, I might be able to help you out. Thanks.

[lofter1]

TylerFC: You can PM me -- I'd be glad to post the images ;)

[TylerFC]

First off, I never claimed to be a developer. You seem to be into listing the numbers that make projects work, and I'm not going to doubt you. However, I will reiterate why I made that statement about construction costs: if you're a developer, and rising costs seems like an issue, I could not see the logic in waiting longer to get a project under construction. We see this with almost every new major construction project in the city. The Javits Center alone has increased in cost by $500 million dollars because of the delays in getting it approved.

So, (and correct me if I'm wrong with this assumption) if a developer can lock in a price for all his construction materials now, and get things underway before costs go up some more, I think it would be more logical not to wait for rents to go up even more, because by the time the building is finished (within a few years), rents will conceivably have increased again, and available inventory will have decreased.

Quick question: as for making profits on the lower floors, wasn't the entire base of this building supposed to be a retail complex? I don't see this being a real concern with the demand for retail in Times Square. (If the retail plans have changed, please confirm.)

Another quick question: please confirm that there will be 1.5 million square feet of additional space coming on line at the time that this building is supposed to be completed. I don't have a specific source, but from what I remember reading, both Bank of America and the NY Times Tower are very quickly running out of space, and only have a few hundred thousand square feet left.

As for branding: again, why wait for the delay, when a firm in need of a lot of office space (big blocks of which are very hard to come by these days) can come along and brand the building before it opens? We saw this happen with CIT at 505 Fifth, and with Conde Nast at 4 Times Square (and this occurred arguably during a time when the office market was not as healthy as it is today).

Last thing: I think antinimby said he wouldn't look at this thread until there were sketches posted. You might want to send him a PM. Or, if you tell me what format they're in, I might be able to help you out. Thanks.

1) A developer can't lock in prices until he has Construction Documents..as the CM wont know what he is building until that point. Also, you can lock in costs for a GMP for any project...but to lock in costs and to move forward on a project that you dont think makes economic sense as of right now or in the near future? That is dumb.


2) If you get a GMP for a set of Construction Docs and then a 400,000 user comes along that wants reconfigured space....you either can lease to that tenant or you are screwed on the GMP.

3) The entire ground floor is retail and is a homerun regardless. It also can make up a lot of ground on the office. However, it is only 22,000sf (grade only) of a 1.0mm sf building. floors 3-8 are office and due to the signage requirement at 42nd st...they are crappy floors with very limited light...which limits the end user and restricts the marke value of the floors. Those floors are basically 150,000nsf+ of dead weight.

4) As for BofA and NYTimes, call a broker. I believe you will be surprised at the inventory left. I also didnt include 7WT, which is basically giving floors away (that building did well on spec...)

5) Due to the prominence of the location, you would be leaving money on the table if you dont build to an anchor tenant's needs.

6) Antinimby should have them...he told me he would post them.

[Gotham]

How about the fact that interest rates continue to climb? Financing for construction and site purchase will cost more the longer you wait. It may be worth getting the docs and permits rolling, and secure some financing before the fed keeps creeping higher.

[krulltime]

6) Antinimby should have them...he told me he would post them.

He doesn't come here anymore... I think... send it to lofter1. Please!

[lofter1]

I'm pretty much in the stone-age regarding programs on my pc -- so if it's a pdf I can open it.

Beyond that who knows???? Let's give it a shot!

[sfenn1117]

Yes what did happen to antinimby? Or londonlawyer? I miss their input.

[pianoman11686]

1) A developer can't lock in prices until he has Construction Documents..as the CM wont know what he is building until that point. Also, you can lock in costs for a GMP for any project...but to lock in costs and to move forward on a project that you dont think makes economic sense as of right now or in the near future? That is dumb.

You're assuming the developer thinks it doesn't make economic sense. Can't say I agree with you.

2) If you get a GMP for a set of Construction Docs and then a 400,000 user comes along that wants reconfigured space....you either can lease to that tenant or you are screwed on the GMP.

That makes sense, but only if the user has really specific needs. How many new leases have been signed so far this year for more than 200,000 square feet? 10? These were all in existing buildings, some of which probably seem outdated when compared to new buildings like the Times tower.

3) The entire ground floor is retail and is a homerun regardless. It also can make up a lot of ground on the office. However, it is only 22,000sf (grade only) of a 1.0mm sf building. floors 3-8 are office and due to the signage requirement at 42nd st...they are crappy floors with very limited light...which limits the end user and restricts the marke value of the floors. Those floors are basically 150,000nsf+ of dead weight.

Thanks for the heads up on that. I'm disappointed that the retail portion will be so minimal, and that it will result in sacrifices for the lower floor offices. Do you know if this site was given any subsidies or economic incentives to offset the lost revenue because of the signage requirement?

4) As for BofA and NYTimes, call a broker. I believe you will be surprised at the inventory left. I also didnt include 7WT, which is basically giving floors away (that building did well on spec...)

Easier said than done. I don't know anyone in the business, and I don't think I could just look up CBRE's phone number and give them a call, asking about how much space is left. However, I can give you published statistics, which may explain some discrepancy, but not as much as you claim.

This article (http://www.nypost.com/business/dursts_100_ft__is_top_rent_in_apple_business_steve _cuozzo.htm), printed on July 26th, says B of A is about 90% leased, which leaves at most, ~250,000 square feet left.

And this article (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=109430&postcount=1595), printed on the 13th, says that Forest City's portion of the Times tower is 50% leased. That leaves around 350,000 square feet left.

Combined, the two total 600,000 square feet - an unacceptably large discrepancy compared to "over 1.5 million". There are no other new office projects under construction in Midtown. And as for 7WT, I don't know how you can say that Silverstein's giving the space away, as he just recently rejected Vantone's bid for 200,000 square feet. If he was really that desperate for leases, he wouldn't have done so. And besides, comparing Lower Manhattan (especially a building across the street from the open construction pit) to a centrally located site in Midtown is like apples and oranges.

5) Due to the prominence of the location, you would be leaving money on the table if you dont build to an anchor tenant's needs.

Again, how do you explain the overwhelming success of 505 Fifth and 4 Times Square? They were both built to spec and have already been leased (both with anchor tenants).

6) Antinimby should have them...he told me he would post them.

We haven't heard from him in a while. Is there any way you can send them either to me, or to lofter? Maybe one of the moderators? Or at least can you tell us what kind of file it is so we can help you upload it? You've been talking about this rendering for quite a long time now, and frankly, I think some of us are getting antsy. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif Thanks again.

[lofter1]

antsy in my pantsy ...

:rolleyes:

[ablarc]

Yes what did happen to antinimby? Or londonlawyer? I miss their input.
Turned into lurkers?

antinimby last visited August 2, and londonlawyer August 3.

[lofter1]

ablarc the narc ;)

[lofter1]

these fell off the back of a truck ...

north facade

***

[lofter1]

west facade

***

[lofter1]

south facade

***

[lofter1]

east facade

***

[RS085]

old renders, looks very times squarish.

[pianoman11686]

Lofter, are these supposed to be the new renderings? They look very much like the originals, which (hard to believe), were first released 3 and a half years ago.

[lofter1]

some floor plans

***

[lofter1]

Well -- what can I say?

Sometimes life is just a series of disappointments :cool:

Note that the date on the docs says: "14 JULY 2006"

ps: you could say, "thanks" for all the cutting / pasting / re-sizing ;)

***

[krulltime]

So what has changed? Not much really.

old renderings...

http://www.rkf.com/images/prpimg/7times_full.jpg

[mgp]

So what has changed? Not much really.

old renderings...

I think a few people had mentioned that the site was being purchased with the building essentially pre-approved. Although disappointing, these plans would seem to indicate that there was some truth to that sentiment...

[pianoman11686]

Well -- what can I say?

Sometimes life is just a series of disappointments :cool:

Note that the date on the docs says: "14 JULY 2006"

ps: you could say, "thanks" for all the cutting / pasting / re-sizing ;)

***

I hope you didn't get the wrong impression from me. I was just asking to confirm, as the design looked almost no different than what I remember. And your work is definitely appreciated. I'm just happy to see anything that indicates this project is moving forward.

As for the actual design: don't really like it. It seems like too much is going on there. In one rendering, I counted four distinct facades all overlapping each other. Could turn out to be more awkward than Conde Nast.

Also, I'm a little suspicious of the way these are shaded/colored. It very much reminds me of the preliminary renderings for Friars Tower (also FX Fowle), and that one turned out to be very disappointing. But, as they say, anything's better than what we have now.

[krulltime]

I think a few people had mentioned that the site was being purchased with the building essentially pre-approved. Although disappointing, these plans would seem to indicate that there was some truth to that sentiment...


Well that explains.

I don't think the building itself is a dissapointment. It seems to look fine. I was just expecting a different rendering. Although I am not sure I am feeling the top of the tower. But I like the way the glass slopes down.

[Derek2k3]

This design looks so dated now or maybe it's because we've seen it from 2001. Atleast it seems like construction will start soon and it's about 600 feet.

[lofter1]

Maybe I should go look for the truck that these fell off the back of ... maybe there are some other renderings for this site tucked away back there ;)

[kliq6]

design was bought with the site and a few amendments were made, but they are stuck in the design as per there contract with EDC!!

Anyone hear a start date, i have not

[lofter1]

One failure of this plan is the single teeny-weeny subway staircase on 42nd just east of 8th Avenue. Note that there is no access to the subway on 41st St. (either in this building or in the Times Tower).

Another failure in the design is the way that this building hugs the corner of 42nd / 8th Ave. Despite the little curve to the facade, this building seems to do nothing to lessen the insufficient sidewalk space at that corner -- a corner that constantly gets backed up with pedestrians. At street level that corner of the building should have been pulled back, much like they did with the Reuters Building on 42nd / 7th Ave.

These are problems were created more by the EDC and the Times Square Redevelopment Guidelines / City Planning rather than the developer. Still, it would have been good of the developer to recognize those problems and try to solve them.

[Citytect]

Thanks for posting those.

Same design different drawings. At least this is some sort of confirmation that something is happening with the project. The design, while marginally disappointing, fits in with the surroundings. It's a filler building; plugs that awful hole in the ground, but otherwise adds nothing new to the area.

[antinimby]

Sorry to disappoint you all, but the files TylerFC sent me are indeed the old design.

http://www.rkf.com/images/prpimg/7times_full.jpg

[antinimby]

Anyway, here are the .pdf files he sent, if you're interested.

[lofter1]

Those ^^ are dated April 2005 -- the ones I posted are dated july 2006.

Same bones, different skin.

[lofter1]

The West facade April '05 ... and July '06

***

[ablarc]

Hasn't even been built, and I'm tired of this already. Like Arquitectonica's hotel: b o w - r i n g .

[Stern]

Hasn't even been built, and I'm tired of this already. Like Arquitectonica's hotel: b o w - r i n g .

You're the first person I've seen write that the Westin is "boring"...

[stache]

Absurd, maybe -

[ablarc]

You're the first person I've seen write that the Westin is "boring"...
Well, it bores me.

Talks too much, and too excitedly...but hasn't much to say.

Maybe it bores others too.

[lofter1]

The arc of light that moves up the southern facade of the Westin saves it -- to some degree ... although it might be more interesting if it didn't "say" the same thing over and over and over with such regularity ...

I walked by 7WTC late last night and the way the lights move on the base of the facade there is nice -- it quietly shifts between blue and white behind the metal screen. Since the light source is hidden within the screen the light is mainly reflected back from the interior. Plus the blue and purple neon from the movie theatres across West St. reflect off the metal along Vesey St.

Good effect without screaming.

[TREPYE]

Talks too much, and too excitedly...but hasn't much to say.


Skyscrapers talk???

[macreator]

Skyscrapers talk???

I don't know about talk, but at least one of them is known to have whistled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspire). ;)

[GregV]

I read that there is going to be a residential component in the new design, though I don't see a separate lobby in the renderings. Any news on this?

[TylerFC]

You're assuming the developer thinks it doesn't make economic sense. Can't say I agree with you.



That makes sense, but only if the user has really specific needs. How many new leases have been signed so far this year for more than 200,000 square feet? 10? These were all in existing buildings, some of which probably seem outdated when compared to new buildings like the Times tower.

Thanks for the heads up on that. I'm disappointed that the retail portion will be so minimal, and that it will result in sacrifices for the lower floor offices. Do you know if this site was given any subsidies or economic incentives to offset the lost revenue because of the signage requirement?



Easier said than done. I don't know anyone in the business, and I don't think I could just look up CBRE's phone number and give them a call, asking about how much space is left. However, I can give you published statistics, which may explain some discrepancy, but not as much as you claim.

This article (http://www.nypost.com/business/dursts_100_ft__is_top_rent_in_apple_business_steve _cuozzo.htm), printed on July 26th, says B of A is about 90% leased, which leaves at most, ~250,000 square feet left.

And this article (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=109430&postcount=1595), printed on the 13th, says that Forest City's portion of the Times tower is 50% leased. That leaves around 350,000 square feet left.

Combined, the two total 600,000 square feet - an unacceptably large discrepancy compared to "over 1.5 million". There are no other new office projects under construction in Midtown. And as for 7WT, I don't know how you can say that Silverstein's giving the space away, as he just recently rejected Vantone's bid for 200,000 square feet. If he was really that desperate for leases, he wouldn't have done so. And besides, comparing Lower Manhattan (especially a building across the street from the open construction pit) to a centrally located site in Midtown is like apples and oranges.


Again, how do you explain the overwhelming success of 505 Fifth and 4 Times Square? They were both built to spec and have already been leased (both with anchor tenants).

I do not know their case studies but I would be surprised if they were completely spec and didnt have an interest from some big boys before breaking ground. OR, they got huge incentives to be the first office buildings in rehab program.



We haven't heard from him in a while. Is there any way you can send them either to me, or to lofter? Maybe one of the moderators? Or at least can you tell us what kind of file it is so we can help you upload it? You've been talking about this rendering for quite a long time now, and frankly, I think some of us are getting antsy. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif Thanks again.



An anchor tenant will definitely want specifics needs, especially at a secondary building like "Milstein Tower" (ha.) In order to get a high rent, the developer, in this market, would definitely bend over backwards for them. Also, you can't get a good GMP until you have Construction Documents, which on a building like an office building, takes at least 6-9 months. Any changes past this point are a nightmare.

The subsidies/economic incentive is an additional 150,000sf at the top of the building. Still doesnt get you there.

Those reports are crap. Marketing people are constantly feeling pressure to make the project look better than it is. how many condo projects do you know that have been 90% sold out for the past year! either sales have slowed to 0 or they were more like 60% sold and said they were 90%. Call or ask a broker (off the record), I guarantee they will be singing a different tune

Antinimby is going to post them.

[TylerFC]

Is it official that Milstein has sold the site?

[krulltime]

According to the RKF (http://www.rkf.com/listings/NEW/11tsq_main.asp) website possession for the retail space is in Spring 2007... Here is the plan for the retail part...

http://www.rkf.com/images/FILESFORWEB_2005/11TimesSq_plan.jpg

[pianoman11686]

I think that website hasn't been updated for several years.

[krulltime]

I think that website hasn't been updated for several years.

The same can be said about the rendering. ;)

[Jaffster]

I was walking past this site today...and I swear I saw a construction guy with survey equipment walk out a little door at THIS SITE! Maybe a sign of activity to come soon?

[pianoman11686]

Planned Tower Would Cap Off Revitalization of Times Square

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Published: August 15, 2006

A New Jersey developer plans to build a $1 billion office tower on the last parcel in the 13-acre Times Square redevelopment district, bringing an end to the 26-year effort to clean up an area that was known as the Deuce when it was a motley collection of movie houses, sex shops, T-shirt stores, pimps and drug dealers.

If in the past many people feared strolling down 42nd Street, now the block between Seventh and Eighth Avenues, and Times Square itself, are safe for investment bankers, accountants, MTV fans and tourists alike. The theaters, skyscrapers, theme restaurants and nightclubs that have opened in recent years under pulsating neon signs and giant electronic billboards are often packed.

But the decision by the developer, SJP Properties, to build a 40-story tower at the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street is remarkable on several fronts. Not only would it complete a major public revitalization project, but urban planners and real estate executives say another first-class tower would also establish Eighth Avenue as a legitimate boulevard for corporate offices.

“This is the last piece of the puzzle,” said Charles A. Gargano, the chairman of the 42nd Street Development Project and the state’s top economic development official.

SJP’s 1 million-square-foot building would join two other major office towers on Eighth Avenue: the Worldwide Plaza tower at 49th Street and The New York Times headquarters under construction at 41st Street. Until now, few companies have been willing to locate west of Seventh Avenue or Broadway.

If the project goes forward as planned, the SJP tower will also be the first major speculative office building — one built without an anchor tenant — in a decade and another sign of a resurgent commercial market in Midtown. Builders have erected apartment houses by the dozens over the past five years, but office developers have bemoaned that rents did not justify the cost of building a new tower.

But commercial rents are now going up quickly, with some tenants paying as much as $150 a square foot per year in prime Midtown buildings, and large blocks of available space are hard to find.

“This is the first time in 25 years that we’ve seen the Midtown market this strong for Class A office space,” said Steven J. Pozycki, SJP’s chairman. “We’re excited about both the opportunity and the timing.”

SJP Properties has been largely known as a developer of suburban office parks in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But the company has been eager to get into the Manhattan market. It has begun excavation for a 42-story apartment building at 46th Street and Eighth Avenue and plans to build a condominium tower on Park Avenue.

Mr. Pozycki bought the 42nd Street property last month for $305 million from Howard and Edward Milstein. The Milstein family had acquired the property early in the redevelopment project, in 1983, for $5 million. The Milsteins announced in 2002 that they planned to build a 35-story tower there, but never got beyond erecting a blue construction fence.

The 42nd Street Development Project gave tentative approval yesterday to SJP’s plan for a 40-story tower and a deal to buy additional development rights for $23.2 million. Mr. Pozycki, whose firm hired FX Fowle Architects to design the building, said the office tower would sit above two floors of stores at what would be known as 11 Times Square. Construction should begin in about 10 months, he said. Final approval is expected later this year.

“It’s ironic that this site, which we thought might be the first one to be developed, ends up being the last one to complete the Times Square project,” said Carl Weisbrod, who worked on the redevelopment plan as both a state and city official from 1980 to 1995. “It’s turned out to be a highly successful venture, but I don’t think any of us thought it would take 26 years.”

Despite a string of news conferences and much fanfare during the 1980’s, the redevelopment of 42nd Street and Times Square was hobbled by 47 lawsuits, opposition from civic groups and a deep recession in the early 1990’s. A merchandise mart was originally planned for the two blocks between 40th and 42nd Street, where the Times building is now under construction and SJP’s property sits. In 1980, the city had actually passed on an opportunity to buy the SJP property for a couple of million dollars.

Mr. Gargano said there were two key breakthroughs, the first in late 1993, when the Walt Disney Company signed a tentative agreement to renovate the landmark New Amsterdam Theater on 42nd Street. Then in 1996, he said, the developer Douglas Durst began building a skyscraper at 4 Times Square, the first of what would eventually be four office towers in the middle of Times Square. As SJP is doing, the Durst family took the relatively rare step of starting construction without an anchor tenant.

Ten years later, Mr. Pozycki says the time is right to build another speculative office tower, this time on Eighth Avenue. Oddly enough, his partner is Prudential, the giant insurer that was selected by the state in the 1980’s to buy 13 acres between Seventh and Eighth Avenues and develop four office towers in Times Square. But Prudential sold the land for the towers during the 1990’s recession.

The market is hot now, Mr. Pozycki said. The average asking rent in Midtown has climbed to $58.26 a square foot, while the vacancy rate dropped to 8.7 percent last month from 13.1 percent in late 2003, according to Newmark Knight Frank, a real estate broker.

And there is little new office space available. Mr. Durst, who is building the Bank of America Tower at 42nd Street and Avenue of the Americas, has signed leases for virtually the entire 2.1 million-square-foot building, including one for $100 a square foot.

At The New York Times Building, across Eighth Avenue from the Port Authority Bus Terminal, the newspaper company plans to occupy half the tower next year, and its partner, Forest City Ratner, has leased much of the rest of the building to three law firms and a financial services company.

Recently, Vornado Realty opened talks with the Port Authority about reviving plans to build an office tower over the bus terminal, across Eighth Avenue from the SJP project.

Mr. Pozycki said his broker, Stephen B. Siegel of CB Richard Ellis, took him to Howard Milstein earlier this year to talk about a deal. He said Mr. Milstein responded, “This is my price, take it or leave it.” Despite the relatively high cost of the land, Mr. Pozycki said it should not be too risky to build without a tenant.

“The market and confirmation of the Eighth Avenue neighborhood itself takes a lot of the ‘spec’ out of speculative,” Mr. Siegel said. “What’s going on in Midtown is fueled by real job growth and a lack of supply.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[macreator]

Construction should begin in about 10 months

Ugh. Another 10 months of empty corner. I'm surprised they can't start far quicker with a design already done up.

[sfenn1117]

If it's now 40 stories, and the previous one was to be 35, I hope that the building has been redesigned. It's not terrible....but could be much better.

I also found it funny that the article stated in a few places that 8th was now a prime address for office. Yet, SJP decided on building a condo at 46th. Sort of contradicting.

[stache]

And they also pronounced 8th Ave as being totally cleaned up. It's still gamey.

[kliq6]

With the marketing being what it is in Midtown, this will fill up very quick if built on spec


Residential or biz tower for last lot at Times Sq.



BY BRIAN KATES
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The state gave the go-ahead yesterday to plans to develop the last remaining parcel of land in the Times Square redevelopment zone.
New proposals are calling for either a 40-story office building or a 58-story residential tower to rise above what is now a gaping hole in the ground at 42nd St. and Eighth Ave., the Empire State Development Corp. said yesterday.

"It's a critical element ... the last piece of the puzzle" in Times Square, said Charles Gargano, chairman of the ESDC.

The land was sold by Howard and Edward Milstein to a Parsippany, N.J.-based developer, SJP Properties, in June for a reported $260 million.

The ESDC yesterday approved an amendment to the Times Square redevelopment-project plans to allow the new owner to develop the property, which is across the street from the new headquarters of The New York Times, now under construction.

The state would prefer that an office building be built on the site, but with residential development in the area booming, SJP has offered the apartment tower as an "alternative plan," ESDC Director Robin Stout said.

Negotiations on which plan will go forward will be based on market trends, Stout said.

Construction at the site would begin within a year of signing a lease agreement and would be completed in about 36 months, according to Stout.

The property, which was formerly a parking lot, has a checkered history.

In October 2002, Gov. Pataki presided over a ceremonial groundbreaking for a 35-story office tower at the site and touted it as "an important step in our highly successful effort to revitalize and rebuild the Times Square area."

It was to be the first major construction project in the city after 9/11. But the tower never rose, and various other proposals - including a public aquarium - fell through.

Shortly before the Milsteins sold the property, Gargano threatened to exact stiff penalties if work at the site did not begin within a year.

The ESDC will announce public hearings on the terms of a proposed lease for the project, which is officially known as Site 8 North, an agency spokesman said.

Originally published on August 15, 2006

[TylerFC]

There will be no redesign. Milstein had two office building's planned. One was 850,000 RSF and the other was 1.0mm RSF. SJP is developing the 1.0mm....that is the reason they are paying an additional $23m for the additional FAR.

Has anyone really thought that through? SJP, a company that has neither built a high rise building nor built anything in NYC is not entering the market by paying $328mm or $329 per RSF? Hard costs are $400 per RSF, Soft Costs are $133 per RSF...so All in they are at $862 per RSF to develop. Even if they get $100 per RSF Gross ($65 net), they are developing that thing for a 7.5% ROC. Not to attactive.

I seriously doubt SJP's ability to Execute...but let's see.

[TonyO]

^ If they build it for $860 Million, lease it up to credit tenants for long leases and then sell at a 4 cap, they can double their money.

[kliq6]

There will be no redesign. Milstein had two office building's planned. One was 850,000 RSF and the other was 1.0mm RSF. SJP is developing the 1.0mm....that is the reason they are paying an additional $23m for the additional FAR.

Has anyone really thought that through? SJP, a company that has neither built a high rise building nor built anything in NYC is not entering the market by paying $328mm or $329 per RSF? Hard costs are $400 per RSF, Soft Costs are $133 per RSF...so All in they are at $862 per RSF to develop. Even if they get $100 per RSF Gross ($65 net), they are developing that thing for a 7.5% ROC. Not to attactive.

I seriously doubt SJP's ability to Execute...but let's see.


SJP is building a project on 46th and eighth and are serious and commited to building. remember its Milstein that has not built anything in NYC or anywhere now since 1987, 20 years!!!!

[TylerFC]

Yes...but SJP has never built anything close to this in terms of size and scope. Good chance it could turn into a crap storm.

In 2009, no one will be buying office buildings on 4 caps, especially a fully lease building with new 10 year leases and no upside potential. Even an institutional guy wont buy it for that. Interest rates and the macroeconomic environment will be completely different than the last few years and cap rates will expand.

Good thinking.

[kliq6]

If it's now 40 stories, and the previous one was to be 35, I hope that the building has been redesigned. It's not terrible....but could be much better.

I also found it funny that the article stated in a few places that 8th was now a prime address for office. Yet, SJP decided on building a condo at 46th. Sort of contradicting.\


The developments for Eighth are mixes of residential and office, it didnt say one was better then the other. Obviously the sites closer to PABT are better for office

[TonyO]

In 2009, no one will be buying office buildings on 4 caps, especially a fully lease building with new 10 year leases and no upside potential. Even an institutional guy wont buy it for that. Interest rates and the macroeconomic environment will be completely different than the last few years and cap rates will expand.

Buying upside would assume a higher cap, not a lower one. The stronger position for the seller, the lower the cap rate, as you probably know. Neither of us has any clue what the market will be like in '09 but with a brand new class A building in midtown where rents are pushing beyond $100/sf I wouldn't bet against anyone even if its their first manhattan development.

[Citytect]

Yes...but SJP has never built anything close to this in terms of size and scope. Good chance it could turn into a crap storm.

I think they've built a few projects of similar size in NJ. Hoboken's Waterfront Corp Center. Bridgewater's Summerset Corp Center. Large projects. Successful too. This will be their first high-rise and first NYC project. I suspect they'll have success here too.

[pianoman11686]

In 2009, no one will be buying office buildings on 4 caps, especially a fully lease building with new 10 year leases and no upside potential. Even an institutional guy wont buy it for that. Interest rates and the macroeconomic environment will be completely different than the last few years and cap rates will expand.

So you're suggesting they wait until the economic cycle comes full circle again? That doesn't sound like the attitude of someone who capitalizes on market conditions.

[TylerFC]

So you're suggesting they wait until the economic cycle comes full circle again? That doesn't sound like the attitude of someone who capitalizes on market conditions.

No, I am suggesting that they overpaid for that site. I am also saying that no company, instution, or investor is going to buy a brand new building with no future (at least 10 years out) upside in rent on a 4 cap in 2009, now, tomorrow, last week....doesnt matter. Especially, a second rate building to BofA and NYtimes. HPM didnt need to sell but took advantage of SJP's desire to enter the NYC market...and bent him over.

The stuff SJP built in JC doesnt come close to this project, especially since there is an NY State agency invovled.

I highly doubt a good execution at this site. I would bet against these guys achieving a good return and being able to exit the property in the near future (5-year hold) with a return worth the risk they are taking.

[Deimos]

\


The developments for Eighth are mixes of residential and office, it didnt say one was better then the other. Obviously the sites closer to PABT are better for residential

Why would being close to PABT favor residential? I would think commercial would benefit from the ease of commuting.

[LeCom]

Save New York's rainforests!

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/4122/pict0100timessqplazatreessmallgq2.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/6945/pict0101timessqplazatrees2smallkz4.jpg

[lofter1]

Betting on the Bus Station as a Dinner Destination

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/nyregion/21authority.html?ref=nyregion)
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
August 21, 2006

New York offers a smorgasbord of choices for a business lunch or a pretheater supper, but it has never had a bistro in a bus station.

Two veterans of the business of feeding the city are risking about $3 million on the proposition that people will sit down for plates of steak frites and goblets of Margaux in the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a building most New Yorkers avoid dawdling in but some choose to loiter around.

In what could be a remarkable transformation, Simon Oren, who operates several French restaurants in Manhattan, and his partner, Steve Tenedios, plan to open Metromarché early next month on Eighth Avenue at 41st Street. The restaurant, which will have a full wine list and a zinc bar imported from Paris, will fill a corner of the terminal last occupied by the Silver Bullet Saloon.

Its arrival will herald the ambitions of the terminal’s managers to upgrade it from an unsightly transportation hub to a more inviting place for commuters and people who live or work in the neighborhood. Some New Yorkers may see the bus depot as a seedy haunt of vagrants, but Grand Central Terminal had a similar image problem before it was renovated in the 1990’s.

“You could have said that about Grand Central a number of years ago, and now they have a lot of good restaurants there,” said Charles A. Gargano, vice chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and operates the bus station. The neighborhood around the bus terminal, he said, is improving; he pointed to the construction of the New York Times headquarters across Eighth Avenue and plans for two more towers, one at Eighth Avenue and 42nd street and one on top of the bus terminal, as reasons.

“Generally speaking, we want to upgrade in every way possible,” Mr. Gargano said.

Even the bowling alley on the second level of the terminal, Leisure Time, is in the middle of a face-lift. And its owners plan to add a restaurant at the building’s west end, on Ninth Avenue, Port Authority officials said. But it might not open for more than a year.

For Mr. Oren, getting a restaurant into the bus terminal has taken more than five years. He still has the security badge he received in mid-2001 when he visited Port Authority executives in their offices on the 88th floor of the World Trade Center. All records of his discussions with them were destroyed on Sept. 11, along with all near-term business investment plans.

But a year later, as New York’s restaurant and tourism industries began to recover, Mr. Oren resumed the negotiations. Despite his enthusiasm for the space, he did not believe the bus terminal would support a higher-end establishment, though the authority’s officials initially hoped to have an even fancier dining room, he recalled.

“They really wanted a tablecloth restaurant,” Mr. Oren said, but he eventually persuaded them that a less formal establishment would work better. He envisions a restaurant where commuters may stop for a quick meal on the way home, he said, but “they’re not going to be there two hours before the bus.”

Metromarché will be a hybrid of a European brasserie and one of the dozens of quick-serve, soup-and-sandwich cafes that dot the streetscape of Midtown Manhattan. While the front will offer takeout items like coffee and sandwiches, the rear of the restaurant will have tables and a bar and will seat about 100 for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Mr. Tenedios said that between the two areas of the 4,000-square-foot space, there should be something to satisfy everybody, commuters or tourists. Mr. Tenedios, who operates 12 Cafe Metro stores in the city, will oversee the quick-service side of the business.

“A lot of people have tried to do a dual-concept like we’re trying and failed miserably,” he said. “Sit-down food at the port is a novel concept. But we think we can benefit from the transient population, as well as the people who are looking to come in and get a fine meal and linger a while.”

Mr. Tenedios said he considered the venture less risky now than it was in 2004, when the partners signed their lease.

“I feel that the neighborhood is in transition as we speak,” he said. When Times Square was redeveloped several years ago, he said, “a lot of the less-desirable elements were pushed to that area around 41st Street and 40th.”

But with the new buildings opening in the area, he said, he expects even less loitering around the terminal.

Regardless of the scene outside, Mr. Oren, whose other restaurants include Marseille and Nice Matin, believes that heading to the bus terminal to meet friends for dinner or a cocktail will soon be as natural as going to Grand Central to dine.

Metromarché “is designed as if it was a restaurant downtown,” said Mr. Oren. “It’s not what you expect to see in a bus terminal.”

The interior, boldly splashed with red, yellow and black paint and terrazzo, was designed by Scott Kester, whose other restaurant interiors include Marseille and Sushi Samba. He said he tried to create a “hinge between the commuter and city visitors and regular street life.”

Originally, Mr. Kester hoped to install French doors that would open the restaurant to the street, creating the feel of a sidewalk cafe, but Port Authority officials vetoed that idea. Instead, he installed red frames on the building’s glass walls to add a touch of intimacy.

The primary challenge, Mr. Kester said, was to make the restaurant feel as if it had been reduced to “a neighborly scale, instead of this institutional scale.” The bus terminal is “a massive structure,” he said, “and I don’t think anybody would consider it to be elegant design.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company