PDA

View Full Version : Times Square Plaza - 11 Times Square - 42nd St @ 8th Ave - by FX Fowle Architects



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

NoyokA
October 14th, 2002, 09:21 PM
It would be my guess that development at 11 Times Square should begin before the new year. The parking lot which has remained open, has closed. Since Milstein is now losing money at the site, I take this action to foreshadow development. I would expect something more to take place before the end of the month.

NYguy
October 16th, 2002, 10:34 AM
I noticed it was closed also. *I bet the rats are still running freely though...

blanger
October 21st, 2002, 05:55 PM
According to the security guard on site, and contacts I have in the development industry, Milstein is breaking ground this week. *He is going to begin his foundation work while he continues to search for a lead tenant. *

NoyokA
October 21st, 2002, 06:03 PM
Thanks blanger.

What contacts do you have, maybe you could help us with a couple other development hold-ups?

NYguy
October 22nd, 2002, 08:56 AM
NY Post...

LAST PIECE OF 42ND ST. PUZZLE

By STEVE CUOZZO

October 22, 2002 -- AT long last, ground will be broken today on Times Square Plaza, Howard and Edward Milstein's $400 million office and retail tower at the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street.

And - hallelujah! - the unsightly parking lot is gone.

The tower designed by Fox & Fowle, first shown in these pages last spring, will fill in the last gaping hole on the dazzling block between Seventh and Eighth avenues - home to Ernst & Young, new theaters, and the Times Square Hilton.

But with demand for new office space scarce, it's a long way from a ceremonial groundbreaking to an actual tower. Howard Milstein said, "We continue to hear all the worriers say that the market is too uncertain, we don't have anchor tenants, the financial world is nervous. We say now is the time to move ahead without fear."

Gov. Pataki will wield a shovel for today's groundbreaking, to be attended by the Milstein brothers, Empire State Development Corp. Chairman Charles Gargano, and by Howard and Edward's father, patriarch Paul Milstein.

"I'm pleased that we've come to this point," Gargano said. "It's the last piece of the puzzle on 42nd Street and the western gateway to the project - another exciting event for Times Square."

The state agency and the Milstein family had bickered for years over the site - first over the Milsteins' delay in developing it, then over its size. The Milsteins wanted 1 million square feet. ESDC argued that zoning allowed only 660,000 feet and that bonus footage available in the 42nd Street area had been exhausted.

A memo of understanding between ESDC and the Milsteins appeared to clarify things. Gargano said it calls for a 35-story tower of 720,000 square feet, including a 60,000 square-foot bonus for a new subway entrance.

The Milsteins are marketing the tower as having 850,000 "rentable" square feet - a figure which includes common areas and is typically higher than actual floor area. The L-shaped tower boasts floor plates of up to 40,000 square feet.

Times Square-watchers are keeping their fingers crossed.

The animosity between ESDC and the Milsteins dates back to the years when the site was owned by a Milstein partnership that included Philip Milstein, a cousin of Howard and Edward, and two other families.

Howard and Edward bought out the others' interests last year.

Gargano said the plan is subject to final contract with the Milsteins, which will take several months to execute. After that, he said, the Milsteins have four years in which to begin work.

The Milsteins face the daunting challenge of finding anchor tenants in a weak market. But Mary Ann Tighe, head of New York operations at CB Richard Ellis, observed: "It is typical of the old New York real estate families that they are contrarians.

"They believe the time to go forward is when the market is down, because then they'll be among the first buildings to meet the upturn when it comes."

Tighe helped put the deal together for the New York Times' new headquarters, to rise across the street from the Milstein site between 40th and 41st streets. "Given that the Milsteins' timing will to a great extent parallel that of the Times building, it's a tremendous validation for the Eighth Avenue location," she said.

NYguy
October 22nd, 2002, 09:55 AM
NY Times...

35-Story Tower Is Planned for Last Open Times Sq. Lot

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Twenty-two years after the city and the state announced an ambitious project to transform a seedy and forlorn Times Square, a prominent real estate family is planning to build a 35-story tower on the last remaining parcel in the 13-acre redevelopment district.

The family, Howard and Edward Milstein, plan to break ground today on the 850,000-square-foot building, which will combine office space, street-level stores and possibly apartments on a parking lot at the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue.

It is designed by Fox & Fowle, the same architects who designed the Condé Nast and Reuters buildings a block away on Times Square.

The Milsteins' $500 million project will sit in an area that has already undergone a neon-glazed sea change as T-shirt shops and pornography stores gave way in the mid-1990's to new theaters, sleek glass office buildings, a World Wrestling Entertainment restaurant, the largest toy store in the world and, last week, a colorful 860-room Westin hotel.

But, until now, the last piece on the Times Square checkerboard sat quietly.

"Eddie and I are 100 percent committed to completing this building by 2004," Howard Milstein said yesterday. "Even in these times of uncertainty, New York City and Times Square remain the crossroads of the world."

Former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, who spent much of the 1980's and early 1990's trying to get the Times Square project off the ground, said it was a long time coming.

"It's gratifying," Mr. Cuomo said yesterday. "It took longer than it should have and was more tortuous. But the energy and the power of the place is so formidable."

Despite frequent news conferences and much fanfare, the redevelopment of Times Square was stymied for many years by community opposition, 47 lawsuits and a deep recession in the early 1990's.

But companies and retailers flooded into the area beginning in the late 1990's, after Disney announced it would rehabilitate the New Amsterdam Theater, on 42nd Street near Seventh Avenue, and Douglas Durst, the developer, began building a new skyscraper in Times Square.

State and city officials provided developers with hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to build in Times Square. They also granted tax breaks to tenants like Condé Nast Publications, Ernst & Young, Reuters, The New York Times and others.

Even after the transformation was well under way, the subsidies got larger, not smaller. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani provided Condé Nast, for instance, with incentives worth about $10.7 million in 1996, while Ernst & Young got $20 million in 1999.

Although the resurgence of Times Square is certain, the Milstein project is not without some risk for a family that has not erected a new office building in 19 years or a new residential building in a decade.

The booming economy of the late 1990's, which brought tourists, new restaurants, stores, investment bankers and even accountants to once-forbidding Times Square, has faded a bit.

Boston Properties is scouring the city for tenants for its tower under construction on the south side of 42nd Street between Seventh Avenue and Broadway, as is Forest City Ratner for space in the proposed headquarters for The Times on Eighth Avenue, between 40th and 41st Streets.

Developers have also completed, or are building, eight apartment towers with more than 3,000 apartments on 42nd Street, west of Eighth Avenue, or nearby.

But Mr. Milstein said he expected to complete his tower in 2004 after Boston Properties opens its building and before Forest City completes its project.

If the office market remains soft, he said, he has the option of building apartments instead of a large block of office space. The Milstein building will also have a parking garage and retail space on three floors.

NYguy
October 23rd, 2002, 09:56 AM
I think the name of the building will be Times Square Plaza (looking at a pic in the paper). *There will be TS Plaza and TS Tower under construction on the same street. *Not to confuse anyone...

NoyokA
October 24th, 2002, 06:54 PM
Times Square Plaza should be 565 feet. Not bad.

Gulcrapek
October 24th, 2002, 07:37 PM
Times Square Plaza, Times Square Tower, New York Times Tower, ahh, the Times we live in

Derek2k3
December 30th, 2002, 10:42 AM
Rendering from \http://www.rkf.com
http://www.rkf.com/images/prpimg/7times_full.jpg

NoyokA
December 30th, 2002, 11:12 AM
WOW great looking building.

Anyone know why construction has not begun?

Evan
December 30th, 2002, 12:42 PM
It will certainly have a home in Times Square. *I think the building will need an anchor tenant before construction begins, especially with the economy not looking so promising.

Kris
December 30th, 2002, 02:56 PM
It might look alright on the corner and next to the Times building.

Fabb
December 30th, 2002, 03:19 PM
Does it have a translucent skin like the LVMH tower ? That would be nice.

BrooklynRider
February 11th, 2003, 10:50 AM
The lot has been fenced off with the blue plywood wall that signals construction...

Finally!

NoyokA
February 11th, 2003, 01:09 PM
Good last I checked there was a "crack" in the blacktop.

DominicanoNYC
February 11th, 2003, 05:48 PM
It look's great. It will make Times Square look great. It's noot like there's too many other sections in NYC that look better than Times Square anyway.

aloha
February 16th, 2003, 03:12 PM
fatal! please, Fox and Fowle doesn't deserve such projects!

Rich Battista
February 17th, 2003, 01:30 AM
that building will look beautiful from street level, but only if it were more visable to people across the rivers.

Zoe
February 17th, 2003, 11:24 AM
I have been looking at that parking lot since the 70's. *I am so happy this will finally be a real building. *This building and NYT I think will push construction west and open up 8th ave to additional projects. *I forsee the west side of 8th ave (38-40th) getting new towers by the end of this decade.

Derek2k3
February 17th, 2003, 12:59 PM
There is already an office building proposed on the west side of Eighth Avenue just south of Port Authority which is building its own tower too.

Edward
February 17th, 2003, 02:07 PM
11 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/default.htm) will rise on this parking lot, across 41st Street from the site of New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/default.htm). 25 January 2002.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/images/11xsq_amc_25jan02.jpg



The corner of 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue, the future home of 11 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/default.htm). 22 February 2002.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/images/11xsq_amc_22feb02.jpg



A dreary parking lot is expected to give way to 11 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/default.htm), a glamorous, new, $400 million tower with offices, stores and a dazzling stack of electronic signs. The tower will stand across 42nd Street from Westin Times Square Hotel (http://www.wirednewyork.com/hotels/westin_times_square_hotel/default.htm). 8 June 2002.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/images/11xsq_westin_times_square_8june02.jpg

Edward
February 17th, 2003, 02:15 PM
Howard and Edward Milstein are building the 850,000-square-foot building, 11 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/default.htm), which will combine office space, street-level stores and possibly apartments on a parking lot at the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue. New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/default.htm) will replace the white 3-story building on 41st Street. 17 February 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/images/11xsq_42nd_17feb03.jpg

dbhstockton
February 17th, 2003, 02:58 PM
This neighborhood is going to be the great gateway to Manhattan for tourists, now that Grand Central no longer takes Amtrak and the new Penn Station geared more towards business travellers. *Just ten years ago, who would have thought? *The bus terminal is still kind of seedy, but it seems a lot better than what it was. *If New York can succeed in making its Bus Depot the centerpiece of a business district, it will have accomplished something trully unique amung American cities (that I know of).

Does anybody know what's going on with the SOM tower to be built on top?

JerzDevl2000
February 17th, 2003, 06:34 PM
Edward - I love how ya take pics and scan 'em the same day. Thanx to everyone who kept us updated on this chaging neighborhood!

TLOZ Link5
February 17th, 2003, 07:17 PM
The rennaisance continues.

Edward
February 22nd, 2003, 09:47 PM
From the building's website at ElevenTimesSquare.com (http://www.eleventimessquare.com/):

LOCATION TO APPLAUD

11 Times Square is ideally situated and easily accessible from the five boroughs of New York City, as well as the entire tri-state region. The Port Authority Bus Terminal is conveniently located across the street, and commuters can gain access to 11 subway lines through an entrance within the building. Both Penn Station and Grand Central Station are within walking distance

BUILDING AMENITIES

• Rooftop Atrium
• Excellent views
• Ground floor retail
• Messenger Center
• 24-hour Concierge
• Subway entrance incorporated into the building
• Significant signage and identity opportunities


A STAR IS BORN

11 Times Square is the newest addition to the impressive cluster of corporate headquarters in the Times Square District. Located at the gateway to the new "New 42nd Street," the 1,000,000 square foot monolith will rise as a majestic symbol of 21st century modernity and style. This newly constructed, class A office tower, occupying the southeast corner of 42nd Street and 8th Avenue, will capture the imagination and spirit of the renaissance that transformed Manhattan's Midtown West into one of New York's most dynamic business districts.

Designed by Fox & Fowel Architects, PC, New York's Premier office building architect, 11 Times Square will serve as an exciting monument to the future. The 35 story, sculptural office tower will be elegantly sheathed in a state of the art aluminum and glass curtain wall. Perched high above the city, a rooftop atrium and telecommunications tower will crown the shimmering building.

At street level, passersby will be drawn 11 Times Square's expansive entrances, which will feature scaled, all glass walls and brilliant canopies. Once inside, visitors will enjoy 60,000 square feet of the finest ground floor retailers. The lobby, exclusively situated on the second floor, will provide a 24 concierge, a security desk, and a card reader security system. A stone, ornamental metal and wood motif, befitting the finest office towers in the world, will enrich the lobby's sophisticated design.

11 Times Square's outstanding construction and layout will provide tenants the opportunity to modify the space to meet their specific needs. Floors will range from 29,914 to 41,035 square feet and allow for 9' ceilings. High performance glass windows at the perimeter of the building will offer exceptional light and stunning views of the Hudson River and the Times Square area.
State-of-the-art mechanical systems will be integrated in the building to meet tenants' high level and diverse technological requirements.



OPPORTINUTIES FOR A LEADING ROLE

A corporate tower's name gives it a unique identity and position among Manhattan's most illustrious skyscrapers. At 11 Times Square, the anchor tenant will be afforded significant naming potential.

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/stacking_plan.gif

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/floor_plan_highrise.gif

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/floor_plan_midrise.gif

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/floor_plan_ground.gif

Gulcrapek
February 22nd, 2003, 10:00 PM
It just struck me that the profile of this buildings looks like the top of Reuters.

Times Square should be renamed Spireville.

ZippyTheChimp
February 22nd, 2003, 10:30 PM
A nice statement for arriving bus travellers.

Zoe
February 24th, 2003, 01:33 PM
I just walked by the site and am happy to tell you all that they broke ground today. *Looked like they were busy digging out the foundation.

billyblancoNYC
February 24th, 2003, 02:52 PM
Nice!!! A 34th storey restaurant, hopefully overlooking 42nd and TS. *

NICE JOB. *I love when planning includes such great amenities like that.

Now, if we can only get W on the W back.

Evan
February 24th, 2003, 03:18 PM
Isn't there supposed to be a parking garage as part of the building?

Zoe
February 24th, 2003, 03:32 PM
There does not look to be one. *However there will be another empty lot next to the building on 41st (see how the building is L shaped). *A good map to see this is the one Just Rich posted a ways back
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=253

Eugenius
February 25th, 2003, 11:52 AM
I thought the building was L-shaped because the plot was L-shaped. *On the other hand - the L seems to be facing in the wrong direction, so maybe there will be an empty lot after all.

Derek2k3
February 27th, 2003, 11:25 AM
There is no empty lot and the floor plan views are from the South not from the West.
http://live7.truelook.com/timages/live7/strends/NorthView/imgbuf/buf_8600/1042735751110109.jpg

BrooklynRider
February 27th, 2003, 11:35 AM
Very inspiring. They have lively posters with renderings at 41st & 8th and 42nd & 8th. *I have to admit I am extremely excited to see this one proceed.

NoyokA
March 3rd, 2003, 04:14 PM
I havent really had a chance to get to construction sites recently. But I snapped this one from the ESB cam.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid53/p98145d9a49649c8b4557ef84d2193052/fc8ee980.jpg.orig.jpg

Construction is underway.

Edward
May 11th, 2003, 01:31 PM
Howard and Edward Milstein are building the 850,000-square-foot building, 11 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/default.htm), which will combine office space, street-level stores and possibly apartments on a parking lot at the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue. New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/default.htm) will replace the white 3-story building on 41st Street. 10 May 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/images/11times_square_10may03.jpg

BrooklynRider
May 12th, 2003, 10:56 AM
Those trucks haven't moved in a month. *Anyone know what the delay is?

Derek2k3
June 12th, 2003, 11:02 PM
If Milstein doesn't find an office tenant in 6 months he's going to build a residential tower. :( *It also seems that they might build the same KPF designed 505 Fifth Avenue. thread here \http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=27

From Globe St.
\http://www.globest.com/RMITIDQSQGD.html

REBNY Members Discuss Spec Development in NYC
By Diana M. Rodriguez
Last updated: Jun 12, 2003 *02:53PM

NEW YORK CITY-With unemployment rates still high and the stock market still low, new construction, nationwide, has virtually come to a standstill. Yet, amidst all the negative performance figures, three real estate developers got together yesterday to explain their decisions for going forward with speculative developments here.
At a Real Estate Board of New York luncheon, held at the Waldorf=Astoria, Veronica Hackett, partner of the Clarett Group; Howard P. Milstein, managing partner of Milstein Properties; and Dr. Axel Stawski of the Kipp-Stawski Management Group, answered questions from moderator Warren Heller, executive managing director of Insignia/ESG, on the state of their respective development projects.

While both are building office properties, Stawski and Milstein are taking dramatically different approaches to filling their speculative space. Stawski's 253,000-sf building at 505 Fifth Ave., in the Grand Central Station district, is seeking 8-20 small leases to fill its floors. Conversely, Milstein is looking for one major office tenant to put its name on the Times Square property and occupy the entire 850,000-sf building.

Located at 42nd Street and Eighth Ave., Milstein's project is already in the excavation process with construction expected to begin in about six months. However, he admits that if no major tenant is found by the time of the ground-breaking ceremony, his company will consider building an apartments rather than offices.

"A Times Square building is not a standard building," he explained. "The retail there is valuable, the signage is valuable and the parking is valuable. You can get about $12 million exclusive of the apartment or office [leases]." He added that the property also marks the last piece of the Time Square redevelopment project.

Having had a previous bad experience with a major office tenant, Stawski now tries to look for diversity in his buildings to avoid dependency on major lessees. "We had a 300,000-sf building, where a 50,000-sf tenant left. We lost a significant amount of cash flow," he explained. "Now, I don't like big tenants because they always move out at the wrong time…We don't want our building to go down the drain with our tenants, so we stick to smaller leases."

Speaking for a different industry, Hackett detailed her development plans in the multifamily sector. In December, the Clarett Group sold its interest in two buildings that it had under a joint venture with Post Properties in order to form a new JV with Prudential, she said. Now, the residential development partners are looking at space here on 107th Street and Broadway.

"We purchased the property and expect the condos there to be ready in early 2005," she stated, noting the deal is not yet finalized.

Despite the poor job market, Hackett is convinced that Big Apple real estate will survive the downturn. "We look over 30 years. Supply has historically been low here," she remarked, noting there will be a need for new multifamily products when the economy turns around.

JerzDevl2000
June 13th, 2003, 02:06 AM
Great article Derek - I hope Milstein finds it's tenant. I'm not a fan of the new apartment towers in the area, but if the design is the same for either possible use, that would be fine with me!

BrooklynRider
June 13th, 2003, 12:32 PM
Anyone know how long that site was a parking lot? What was there before? *I can't recall anything there in my lifetime. *Am I not remembering?

Derek2k3
June 13th, 2003, 02:52 PM
From The NY Post
\http://www.nypost.com/realestate/987.htm

GARGANO NOT SOLD ON MILSTEIN CONDO FLIP

By LOIS WEISS

June 12, 2003 -- The long-dormant plot on the northeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street could give rise to luxury condominiums rather than a 1.1 million-square-foot office tower, its developers said yesterday.
Howard and Edward Milstein, who bought out their family and partner's interests just two years ago, are exploring options other than an office tower there, Howard told the Real Estate Board of New York at its luncheon yesterday.

Charles Gargano, the chairman of the Empire State Development Corp. told The Post he had not heard the Milsteins were considering apartments. "That's not what he's told us," Gargano said after leaving a Landmarks Conservancy lunch where he was honored.

Speaking on a panel at the Waldorf-Astoria, Howard Milstein said his firm doesn't need an office tenant to start construction, but could carry the site merely with its retail, parking and lucrative signage income.

But such use is contrary to what the city and Empire State Development Corp., which must grant the zoning variance for the large office structure, want there under the Times Square master plan.

Milstein has had trouble rounding up an anchor office tenant, but a REBNY audience member scoffed at the notion of luxury units there, asking, "Do you really want to live opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal?"

Evan
June 13th, 2003, 04:36 PM
Even if it was residential, which would be a bad thing, because the city could always use more apartments, would Milstein still keep the design the same???

billyblancoNYC
June 13th, 2003, 05:13 PM
Maybe this could be apartments or mixed use and that'll get the PA tower built - that would be nice to look at, further (and greatly) enhancing the area.

BrooklynRider
August 25th, 2003, 10:43 AM
This thing was *out of the gate like a flash and now seems to languish. *Was there a reason Milstein had to break ground on the project quickly? Did breaking ground early entitle him to special bonds or funding that he wouldn't have received otherwise?

kliq6
August 25th, 2003, 03:36 PM
The problem with this site is that Milstein wants a Trophy tenant that will have its name on the building and take up atleast half of the office space built. *His best bet in badd times like these is to chase smaller leases and fill the building up that way. WIth the current state of the NYC economy, not many large companies are willing or able to take on vast real estate projects right now.

billyblancoNYC
August 25th, 2003, 05:14 PM
I bet he thinks he's gonna land a law firm.

BrooklynRider
August 26th, 2003, 10:19 AM
If it's not purely a speculative tower and financing requires a major tenenat, why break ground? Hope this doesn't wind up likethe Alexander's site - empty for years....

(Edited by BrooklynRider at 9:20 am on Aug. 26, 2003)

Zoe
August 26th, 2003, 10:25 AM
Milstein could build this tower with no financial backing. *Your talking about an extremely wealthy group.

BrooklynRider
August 26th, 2003, 10:30 AM
I know enough to know that the extremely wealthy NYC Development families NEVER spend there own money. *They are more like movie producers pulling in all the players and specialties needed to create the building. *They would never put their personal wealth on the line.

kliq6
August 26th, 2003, 10:54 AM
He has already said he could make money just by having the signage, parking and retail stores on the base level without any office tenants, Times Square buildings are like that, case in point Times SQuare Tower, it will open half empty.

If no tenant is found by the end of the year, the architect has been told to redesign the building as a residential tower

billyblancoNYC
August 26th, 2003, 10:58 AM
Would it be just an interior re-design or exterior as well. *I kinda like the design - very Time Square-y.

kliq6
August 26th, 2003, 10:59 AM
Just interiors, the whole MEP systems of an office building and a residenital building is different

TLOZ Link5
August 26th, 2003, 11:32 PM
Quote: from BrooklynRider on 9:19 am on Aug. 26, 2003
If it's not purely a speculative tower and financing requires a major tenenat, why break ground? Hope this doesn't wind up likethe Alexander's site - empty for years....



Albeit not so huge a site, thankfully.

Freedom Tower
August 27th, 2003, 01:19 PM
Kliq, sorry to be dumb, but what is MEP?

kliq6
August 27th, 2003, 02:10 PM
Mechanical, electrical and plumbing

kliq6
October 24th, 2003, 03:11 PM
I heard today that the NYS Economic Development Corpp is going to remove the Milsteins from this project and reawarded the site to a new devloper

NYatKNIGHT
October 24th, 2003, 04:06 PM
Really, wow. You get good scoops, kliq6, thanks for sharing.

kliq6
October 24th, 2003, 04:25 PM
it helps to work for a NYC developer

emmeka
November 9th, 2003, 04:01 PM
Thats probably why the thing is taking so long to get started, They havent even finished clearing the site yet.

P.S. here's the website'http://www.eleventimessquare.com/flash.html

Derek2k3
June 8th, 2004, 09:45 AM
From the New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/realestate/25344.htm


Whatever happend to Paul and Howard Milstein's big 42nd Street project?

According to a CoStar compilation of Manhattan's largest blocks of available office space, reported in Crain's this week, the tower the Milsteins plan for the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street will have 960,413 square feet of new offices ready for occupancy by October 2005.

But for that to happen, the building would have to shoot out of the earth overnight. Since a groundbreaking presided over by Gov. Pataki in October 2002, the site remains a walled-off, empty lot.

The Milsteins have been in talks with the Empire State Development Corp. about doing the project as partly residential. And in any event, the site can only accommodate 720,000 feet of offices and/or apartments — the maximum that ESDC guidelines allow at the corner, which falls within the boundaries of the 42nd Street Development Project.

However, Howard Milstein says that under Real Estate Board of N.Y. rules for "rentable" space, the floor size is really 850,000 feet. Asked about the status of things, Milstein joked, "We're building it in China and we're going to float it over."

More seriously, he said, "We're looking forward to coming out of the ground by year's end."

It will likely be a commercial/residential mix, with 450,000 square feet of apartments in an "80/20 project" — with the Milsteins getting lower-cost financing available under city or state authority in exchange for earmarking 20 percent of the units for moderate-income tenants.

Milstein also confirmed long-standing buzz that the tower might house a world-class aquarium, saying he was in talks with two prospective operators.

ESDC chairman Charles Gargano would only say: "We're ready to sign an agreement with the Milsteins. We have been flexibile and we'll allow all-commerical or a mix."

* Please send e-mail to: scuozzo@nypost.com

Jasonik
June 8th, 2004, 09:59 AM
http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/stacking_plan.gif

krulltime
June 8th, 2004, 10:19 AM
The Milsteins have been in talks with the Empire State Development Corp. about doing the project as partly residential. And in any event, the site can only accommodate 720,000 feet of offices and/or apartments — the maximum that ESDC guidelines allow at the corner, which falls within the boundaries of the 42nd Street Development Project.

Ok so first it has to be 720,000 sqft...


However, Howard Milstein says that under Real Estate Board of N.Y. rules for "rentable" space, the floor size is really 850,000 feet. Asked about the status of things, Milstein joked, "We're building it in China and we're going to float it over."

Here Milstein said it is 850,000 sqft of office (I assume is "rentable" space)...


It will likely be a commercial/residential mix, with 450,000 square feet of apartments in an "80/20 project" — with the Milsteins getting lower-cost financing available under city or state authority in exchange for earmarking 20 percent of the units for moderate-income tenants.

Here Milstein said it is 450,000 sqft apartments...

So how big is it in sqft according to Milstein? 850,000 + 450,000? 1,300,000 sqft? :? I am confuse.

Eugenius
June 8th, 2004, 11:05 AM
I think that the 850,000 is total (offices+apartments).

krulltime
June 8th, 2004, 11:41 AM
Oh ok..thanks...I was getting excited for a minute. :wink:

Derek2k3
November 12th, 2004, 09:51 PM
Renderings by Jon Seagull of one of the schemes for the tower.

http://www.jonseagull.com/p_11tsq_1.shtml

TLOZ Link5
November 12th, 2004, 10:16 PM
Nice.

Note the NYT tower rising behind it. :D

Gulcrapek
November 12th, 2004, 10:17 PM
Whoa, cool. And it looks so teeny next to NYT.

NoyokA
November 13th, 2004, 12:25 AM
What I find intrinsically remarkable about this design is that it’s a throw back to a past Fox and Fowle design aesthetic in modern forms and materials. It’s a nice building btw.

http://www.edcmag.com/EDC/FILES/IMAGES/65413.jpg

Johnnyboy
November 13th, 2004, 10:21 AM
:shock: wow That is so cool :shock: can't wait for those two wonderfull buildings.

kliq6
November 13th, 2004, 10:56 PM
nice to see it but any real news on actual construction

BrooklynRider
November 14th, 2004, 11:19 AM
They had said they would consider a residential tower if commercial tenants couldn't be secured. It looks like they are going for it.

NoyokA
November 14th, 2004, 11:49 AM
It looks like they are going for it.

Its possible, but Im not so sure. The site said:

"This is one proposed scheme of several for the site."

billyblancoNYC
November 14th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Very nice looking. I guess if I was them, i'd go for a hotel/office/residential/retail development. You cover all your bases that way. We'll see. Great design, though. Throw in a new PA tower and you have one heck of an area over in the "new" TS.

NYguy
November 14th, 2004, 05:36 PM
It looks like they are going for it.

Its possible, but Im not so sure. The site said:

"This is one proposed scheme of several for the site."

Whatever the case, they need to take those old renderings down at the site. And its probably just my imagination, but the site has been looking deeper lately...

BrooklynRider
November 14th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Deeper? That would be interesting. Sitting atop a subway station / line, there will be a limit to how far down they go. I would guess, no on-site parking.

NoyokA
November 14th, 2004, 09:20 PM
Whatever the case, they need to take those old renderings down at the site. And its probably just my imagination, but the site has been looking deeper lately...

I dont know NyGuy the site looks pretty overgrown to me.

kliq6
December 16th, 2004, 12:20 PM
I walk past this site everyday for the last three years and nothing, they break ground in 2002 for financial purposes and then nothing further, anyone hear anything on this job. One day I hear it may be half residential, a hotel and then the website still advertize a Office Tower. Durst and Forest City have gotten Tenants for there building in the same area so you cant say it location, WHAT'S up with this project

BrooklynRider
December 16th, 2004, 02:52 PM
The most anti-climactic ground breaking of the last decade.

I think the real start of the NYTT next door will put pressure on this project. If the Milsteins can't build, the city might find a company that will. It is a glaring missing puzzle piece that needs to be in place to call the "New" 42nd Street "complete".

kliq6
December 16th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Im with you rider, it just looks so stupid staying dormant like this. But this is not the first time in NYC with Milstein that this has happened, He sat on a site next to 90 West Street for 20 years and the city took it from him in 2003 to get the Trade Center more space and he had plans in place once for a office tower and once for a residential tower in the seaport area, waited and this year landmarks said the area cant be developed now, some developer

londonlawyer
December 16th, 2004, 08:11 PM
Personally, I'd prefer to see the city or Times acquire the Milstein site and build a grand plaza on it with fountains, scultpures and trees. It would serve as a great entrance to the NYT tower.

ube
December 16th, 2004, 11:42 PM
After it rains, the big hole in the ground looks like a dirty lake ! :)

Eugenius
December 17th, 2004, 10:50 AM
The site of the current Bloomberg Building (formerly known as the Alexander's site) was a gaping hole in the ground for many years while the winds of development shifted. I think that the eminent domain process through which the city could repossess this particular site would take many many years. I really hope it doesn't come down to that.

BrooklynRider
December 17th, 2004, 11:33 AM
But when you look at activity on 42nd Street itself, we have 505 Fifth underway, BoA underway, the residential tower next to McGraw-Hill underway, the site across from the zebra building getting ready for demolition, and, of course, NYTT around the corner on Eighth, the Marriott Execustay up to 40 stories on 36th & 6th. What exactly is the problem with this project? It just doesn't make sense.

kliq6
December 17th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Zebra building?

NoyokA
December 17th, 2004, 01:17 PM
What exactly is the problem with this project? It just doesn't make sense.

Just like the stagnant PABT Tower its a spec. office building. Here the developer tried to build without tenants, however Im not even so sure he got financing.

BrooklynRider
December 17th, 2004, 01:42 PM
Zebra building?

I can't remember the name. It is west of The Victory and at the exit of the Lincoln Tunnel. It has the dark brown and beige stripes of brick. Playwrights Horizons & the Little Shubert Theater are at its base.

TLOZ Link5
December 17th, 2004, 02:21 PM
The Theater Row tower.

kliq6
December 17th, 2004, 03:32 PM
Also along 42nd in early 2005 the Bush Tower will start its office addition. As for PABT Tower, its actually in court now as the PANYNJ is being sued by the developer it picked to build it before 9/11, the Rudin Family because they pulled out even thought Rudin had a tenant

NoyokA
December 17th, 2004, 04:50 PM
Why did the PA pull out? Security concerns?

Gulcrapek
December 17th, 2004, 05:34 PM
It needs to stay on hold, or get redesigned. What an unremarkable addition it would be.

(PABT, not 11TS)

billyblancoNYC
December 18th, 2004, 03:35 AM
Also along 42nd in early 2005 the Bush Tower will start its office addition. As for PABT Tower, its actually in court now as the PANYNJ is being sued by the developer it picked to build it before 9/11, the Rudin Family because they pulled out even thought Rudin had a tenant

Really? I only heard Cisco mentioned. Is this still the case? I would love the tower to have all the big "Silicon Valley" names...Cisco, Intel, Sun, Microsoft, etc. These companies should have big offices in NY (MS Has a decent sized on at World Plaza).

NoyokA
December 18th, 2004, 09:23 AM
Manhattan already has its own "Silicon Valley" where all the big tech companies gravitate, its in the Flatiron District.

kliq6
December 21st, 2004, 01:00 PM
Silicon Alley is basically dead of high-tech, internet firms, i work down there believe me. As for 11, i hope they get going on this

kliq6
January 29th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Walked pst the site today on way to Port authority, the big sign advertising the building is gone,, i think this project is dead. The state should reclaim the site and put out a RFP on it again in hopes a developer that has actually built something in NYC in the last 15 years, unlike Milstein, will come out the winner

Gulcrapek
January 29th, 2005, 04:23 PM
...or they might be starting preconstruction of the redesign soon.

kliq6
January 31st, 2005, 04:21 PM
redesign, into what residential?

Gulcrapek
January 31st, 2005, 04:37 PM
As Derek posted 2 pages ago,

http://www.jonseagull.com/p_11tsq_1.shtml

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2005, 11:41 AM
Yes, I noticed the old Times Square Plaza rendering/site signage covered with advertising as well. I think there has got to be pressure to develop this site with NYTT going up and the new tower going up adjacent to the McGraw Hill Building. This parcel and the one next to Bush Tower are the glaring missing pieces to the Times Square revitalization puzzle.

The Milsteins have unveiled proposed building around the city for the last five years. Can anyone recall any actually going forward?

kliq6
February 1st, 2005, 02:26 PM
They have not built a bulding from the ground up since 1989

alex ballard
February 1st, 2005, 07:19 PM
Yes, I noticed the old Times Square Plaza rendering/site signage covered with advertising as well. I think there has got to be pressure to develop this site with NYTT going up and the new tower going up adjacent to the McGraw Hill Building. This parcel and the one next to Bush Tower are the glaring missing pieces to the Times Square revitalization puzzle.

The Milsteins have unveiled proposed building around the city for the last five years. Can anyone recall any actually going forward?

What's the new tower going up next to McGraw Hill? Maybe the city should take the property and sell it to someone with a financial plan in place to get something going. I can see the city selling it to a entertainment company to put an attraction there.

Gulcrapek
February 1st, 2005, 07:32 PM
^The Orion, 58/62 floors.

NoyokA
February 1st, 2005, 07:52 PM
What's the new tower going up next to McGraw Hill? Maybe the city should take the property and sell it to someone with a financial plan in place to get something going. I can see the city selling it to a entertainment company to put an attraction there.

For the price Milstein payed and all the problems associated with it, its irregularly shaped, its a seedy location, I don't forsee anyother developer jumping in on it, it's a money pit.

NoyokA
February 15th, 2005, 02:33 PM
NYPOST:

MILSTEIN PLAN HITS A SNAG

By STEVE CUOZZO

February 15, 2005 -- AFTER years of internecine family struggle and false starts, it's back to square one at the Milstein development site at Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street.

Brothers Howard and Edward Milstein, who originally planned a 35-story office tower, have scrapped it in favor of four new alternatives submitted to the Empire State Development Corp.

ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano said the proposals call for either an all-commercial tower; an office-residential combo; a hotel-residential combo; and what Gargano called a "strange one," combining commercial, residential and educational uses. They range from 720,000 to 850,000 square feet.

More than two years ago, the Milsteins held a ceremonial groundbreaking where Gov. Pataki wielded the shovel. But, "They are still seeking a market," said one real-estate industry player.

Sources said the new schemes differ from the original Fox & Fowle design that adorned a sign at the site. It recently was replaced by an ad for Emigrant.com, a service of Milstein-controlled Emigrant Savings Bank.

One source said, "Fox & Fowle has done various iterations of the new proposals, but nothing in a sufficiently developed state that you could even call working drawings."

The Milsteins need the ESDC's sign-off on design because the site falls within the boundaries of the state's 42nd Street Development Project.

It's also across the street from the New York Times headquarters being jointly developed by the Times Co. and Forest City Ratner. In trying to lure office tenants, the Milsteins must compete with space available at the top of the glamorous Times project, now under way.

One broker said, "The Milsteins did some marketing, but not in an organized way. By comparison, the Ratner campaign next door runs like a machine."

Those said to have talked to the Milsteins for office space include the NBA and various financial-services firms. Several operators of public aquariums have considered the entertainment-use space at the tower's base.

There's no question Howard Milstein wants to build, and both ESDC and Milstein insiders say the agency and the developer are cooperating well.

But the corner's barren state has frustrated state officials. The "Deuce" between Seventh and Eighth avenues, now home to office skyscrapers and new theaters, will seem unfinished as long as the corner remains vacant.

The Milstein brothers bought out their family's interest in the land in January 2001 for $77 million of a total site value of $111 million and closed the parking lot on the site.

kliq6
May 25th, 2005, 03:40 PM
Anything?????????????????????????????

NewYorkYankee
May 25th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Stop bumping threads! If there was "anything" , "anything" would be posted!

merlyn316
June 2nd, 2005, 07:30 PM
I hea

NoyokA
June 2nd, 2005, 07:41 PM
Source?

alex ballard
June 2nd, 2005, 08:05 PM
What's my source? This my source, G!




http://www.amagarea.com/imgB/HDJGRT.jpg

macreator
June 2nd, 2005, 08:28 PM
Hey that's a good enough source for me!

:D

ryan
June 2nd, 2005, 08:36 PM
well that's about enough wired new york for one day... love that teeny bopper set.

macreator
June 2nd, 2005, 10:52 PM
Getting back to Times Square Plaza though I propose an ordinance that would allow the City's Times Square Redevelopment district to take back property from incompetent developers if they don't build anything in a reasonable amount of time.

How about we call it the "Milstein Ordinance"? Any takers?

merlyn316
June 2nd, 2005, 11:36 PM
Why is everyone so anti-milstein? Ever thought it has been a combination of a subpar office market post 2001 combined with an over ambitious zoning requirment for the 42nd street project area that has slowed the process??

kliq6
June 3rd, 2005, 10:06 AM
Milstein has failed to deliver on a number of projects in terms of lining up tenants including a site on Liberty Street and a site near the seaport which he had three false starts, now everyone around him is getting things done in TS and his lot sits and grows weeds, the NYSZ EDC should reclaim the land and give it to a Boston properties or Durst who have a track record in TS

merlyn316
June 3rd, 2005, 10:56 AM
But honestly, do you think that is a realistic situation? 1) how many years and legal battles would it take for the State to reclaim the land? 2) Both durst and Boston have their hands full with attempting to lease up 2.1mm and 1.2mm, respectively. Would they want another 1.0mm sf to develop and deliver right next door?

Either way...your solution would tangle up that site for another 10 years with legal troubles and what not.

kliq6
June 3rd, 2005, 11:08 AM
actually it would not take that long. The TS redevelopment had very strict guidelines for development, each developer that got a lot was told what they could and could not build. If the state wanted to take it back under there rules it would be fast. The site is only zoned for about 850,000 sf and is not even as big as the Hearst addition, in that location if they were trying they could get a deal done.

As for Durst, BOA is taking 1.1 million of the 2.1 million in his building and many many tenants have looked at it based on the fact its in such a great location for transportation. BP has almost leased all of TS Tower, with Anne Taylor taking almost a third of the space themselves

merlyn316
June 3rd, 2005, 12:20 PM
Actually, I believe it would. If Milstein is actively pursuing development within the guidelines of the ESDC code but not 100% complete there is no way that the state could take back that lot, especially with the pull they have in NYC, without a long litigious engagement.

The midtown office market is strong but not 100% recovered. Durst asking rents are incredibly high and, from what Ive heard, they have been having problems with leasing....average market rent for Midtown offce is $60 gross...which translates to about $30's net.....Durst needs a boatload more than that to make that project have healthy returns. Same thing goes for Boston. For either of them to take that lot and attempt to tenant would not only be a nightmare...but also take away from their own projects and hurt their own leasing efforts. Sure, they could get it done...but it would be after their own project gets stabilized (in regards to leasing).

Now, after a long litigious battle to rip away from the M's....do you think Durst or Boston have the time to deal with that anytime in the near future? That is the WORST case scenario.

kliq6
June 3rd, 2005, 12:32 PM
merlyn316- before in the thread you said this "I heard Times Square Plaza is definitely up and running in pre-dev. The bros have an anchor office tenant just about inked and excavation starting in 1st Qtr 2006"" is that truth or not?

cause if it is then why are we even talking about this and what BP and Durst could do???

merlyn316
June 3rd, 2005, 12:37 PM
thats what I heard.....

Durst and BP need tenants for their own buildings first at $75-$100 gross, which is above market.

Im guessing that rents at the Milstein's lot are more in tune with the market and built to suit.

kliq6
June 3rd, 2005, 12:44 PM
may i ask who you heard this from or is it confidential?

merlyn316
June 3rd, 2005, 12:52 PM
Confidential but accurate. Just dont be surprised....

kliq6
June 3rd, 2005, 12:56 PM
okay i hope your right, tired on that site lying there, may i ask if the tenant is already a NY firm or is locating from outside the city? Im concerened that NYC must do more to have other firms located here

merlyn316
June 3rd, 2005, 01:50 PM
Cant say.

kliq6
June 3rd, 2005, 02:17 PM
well as a commercial broker, ive heard nothing, so i have to assume nothing will happen. i hope im wrong but i dont think so

hella good
June 4th, 2005, 04:32 AM
they cleared the site ages ago, so they have to build something, they're not just going to leave such a high profile plot on manhattan empty.

NYguy
June 4th, 2005, 09:03 AM
I heard Times Square Plaza is definitely up and running in pre-dev. The bros have an anchor office tenant just about inked and excavation starting in 1st Qtr 2006.

It wouldn't be surprising. I can't imagine the city would let that prime location sit empty much longer than it already has, especially considering that the site of the fast rising NY Times tower wasn't even demolished when ground was broken there. I sense a new momentum in the area.

krulltime
June 4th, 2005, 09:32 PM
Which design are they going to use? Aren't there like 3 floating around? If it is going to happen then this is good news! It is the worst place to have an empty lot.

kliq6
June 6th, 2005, 10:21 AM
id assume the design is based on the tenant, if a commercial tenant takes alot of space then it will be a total office project if its a smaller amount of space, then it may be the mixed use one. However ive heard nothing about a tenant for this site and there website has not been updated in a LONG time

Phentente
November 18th, 2005, 03:27 PM
Its a shame that the Empire State Development corp won't let them build a 1million sq ft tower on this site. 720,000 just isnt all that significant. This is 42nd street after all. I hate to say it, but if I were the Milsteins I would want to hold out for something a little better from the city, but they have to line up a big name tenant before they pull off Goldman Sachs headquarters part 2. Not to mention grow some backbone have some guts.

kliq6
November 18th, 2005, 05:23 PM
merlyn316 we are waiting? were is this tenant you promised in the summer???

Anyway this project is at a satnd still and will remain there till the owner seriously wants to build something

lofter1
November 18th, 2005, 06:28 PM
This lot is turning into another "Time Landscape" site all on its own ...

http://www.paulrodgers9w.com/artists/a_sonfist/time%20landscape%20main.html

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/NY3199/

kliq6
November 22nd, 2005, 11:24 AM
it really makes no sense, such a prime spot, if they had awarded it to Durst like they almost did years back, it would be built out by now

krulltime
November 22nd, 2005, 12:07 PM
I know what gives... With Class A office space as tight as it is, it makes total sense to just built with out a tenant. It will fill in as times goes by. But the only way people will move in is if there is something there. Don't you think?

I like this rendering...

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/52618179.11Times.JPG

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/home.html

lofter1
November 22nd, 2005, 12:30 PM
Is this a new plan?

I like the curved facade at the base on 8th / 42nd ...

Stacking Diagram:

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/stacking_plan.gif

Ground Floor Plan (Not so good that subway access is shown as around the corner at 41st / 8th; an entrance is desperately needed at 42nd / 8th):

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/floor_plan_ground.gif

lofter1
November 22nd, 2005, 12:37 PM
Stupid me ... I see now that this is pretty old, as can be seen by some of the references on the map ("Arthur Anderson" is shown as a tenant at the X-Roads, and AA has been dead since ~2002):

http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/map.jpg

vc10
November 22nd, 2005, 01:22 PM
Totally agree with you there: subway access at 42nd and 8th should be a sina qua non for all future construction there. Should have been built into the hotel across 42nd St too (or is it already there? I don't think so, but it's been a while since I walked around there).



Ground Floor Plan (Not so good that subway access is shown as around the corner at 41st / 8th; an entrance is desperately needed at 42nd / 8th):

kz1000ps
November 22nd, 2005, 03:04 PM
http://www.eleventimessquare.com/images/stacking_plan.gif

Is it me or does this look like it was first propsed somewhere around 1954? That spire/mast seems straight out of the Jetsons.

Alonzo-ny
November 23rd, 2005, 10:38 AM
is this still a serious proposal

kliq6
November 23rd, 2005, 11:11 AM
Probally not, Milsetin has not moved on anything and has not even had a meeting with the EDC to discuss changes in the proposal

RedFerrari360f1
November 23rd, 2005, 11:57 AM
Yesterday I was droping someone off at the Port Athority and there was new fencing up around the site. Not to say there is any action but its a possibility.

kliq6
December 7th, 2005, 12:26 PM
the state is making there move in early 2006 to take the site back from Milstein, based on failure to act on his lease agreement, hopefully a better developer (Durst) wil get it and something will be done, what a waste of 4 years

lofter1
December 7th, 2005, 12:54 PM
^ One upside of no construction on this site is that allows us to get a great view of the Times Tower going up.

Hope they can get something going here, though.

londonlawyer
December 7th, 2005, 01:29 PM
Did the state own this land? Personally, I'd rather see a park or plaza on this site than a building. A park would be nice, and, as someone mentioned, it would afford views of the NYT Tower.

kliq6
December 7th, 2005, 01:38 PM
It would have really have been nice to see these two rise at the same time, which was possible. Thi slot ws the last of the Five large Commercial lots designated for redevelopment, Times Square tower, Conde, Reuters, E&Y being the other four. Each site was controlled by the state and a developer was selected. Based on the fact that post 9/11 security has compleetly killed any chance of the PABT, this site should be developed as quick as it can

Johnnyboy
December 7th, 2005, 01:40 PM
i personally hope its a supertall tower. New york is running out of space for collosal towers.

BrooklynRider
December 7th, 2005, 02:20 PM
The site is likely a 99-year lease, like the others on W 42nd Street between 7th Ave & 8th Ave. A park would be incredibly inappropriate for the site - especially in a major entertainment strip. It would quickly become an outdoor congregation point for the hordes of hustlers and homeless dotting the PA.

It would likely remain commercial / hotel as opposed to residential due to the traffic, crowds and noise levels on that corner. Height-wise I don't think the zoning allows for much taller than Milstein proposed.

vc10
December 7th, 2005, 02:20 PM
I part company with you. It's a major intersection, there should be something substantial there.


Did the state own this land? Personally, I'd rather see a park or plaza on this site than a building. A park would be nice, and, as someone mentioned, it would afford views of the NYT Tower.

kliq6
December 7th, 2005, 02:20 PM
it can only be about 850,000 sf, so probally 35 to 40 stories at most

londonlawyer
December 7th, 2005, 02:51 PM
I part company with you. It's a major intersection, there should be something substantial there.

Fair enough. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion. I like open spaces. Grand Army Plaza, the Place de la Concorde and Trafalgar Square are all plazas at major intersections and are all magnificent. The fact that a 40 story building will obscure views of the NYT Tower makes me want to see an open space there/

vc10
December 7th, 2005, 03:22 PM
I like open spaces too, but I like them in size. Bryant Park is a good example---it's big enough to balance the buildings around it. I think this space would just be overwhelmed as a park. Especially since, across 8th avenue is the PA Bus Terminal, one of the biggest hangouts of sketchy people in NY. I think the reality is that a small park would simply become another hangout for these sketchy types.


Fair enough. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion. I like open spaces. Grand Army Plaza, the Place de la Concorde and Trafalgar Square are all plazas at major intersections and are all magnificent. The fact that a 40 story building will obscure views of the NYT Tower makes me want to see an open space there/

kliq6
December 7th, 2005, 04:27 PM
agreed Eighth Ave and 42nd street is not the palce for a public park

londonlawyer
December 7th, 2005, 05:26 PM
agreed Eighth Ave and 42nd street is not the palce for a public park

Other than the vagrant argument, why not? Bryant Park on 6th and 42nd is awesome.

Ninjahedge
December 7th, 2005, 06:13 PM
Not vagrants.

Sketchy people. You know, the ones that do all those courtroom drawings!!!

NYguy
December 7th, 2005, 06:38 PM
Other than the vagrant argument, why not? Bryant Park on 6th and 42nd is awesome.

Bryant Park is a much larger space, and it borders the library. That stretch of 42nd by the TS Plaza site is a very different place.

kliq6
December 8th, 2005, 10:04 AM
Bryant Park is a gem, this site is small and being were it is, a tower is moe suitable, not saying more parkland and plazas are wrong just saying for this site, a office building is better

krulltime
December 8th, 2005, 11:34 AM
I agree with most. There should be an office tower on that spot. Not too tall. Just about 30 or 40 floors up.

Bryant Park is in a much bigger area. It is 2 blocks from north to south and it is almost a big long block from West to East. The right size for a good park.

I wouldnt like a small plaza neither. Nah.

ddjiii
December 8th, 2005, 12:59 PM
I actually disagree with the consensus. A well-designed plaza can really set off the buildings around it - that's why Times Square (although it's not well designed) is a "place" to begin with, the avenues open up and you get a sense of enclosure by everything around it. The West Side in general is desparately short of public space, and the area needs a place that can open up. Small size doesn't matter - think of Columbus Circle, or even the steps of the public library (which are also plagued by vagrants, except we call them "tourists.")

lofter1
December 8th, 2005, 02:06 PM
One huge problem with a plaza or open space on this site is that both the AMC and Hilton Hotel buildings just to the east offer sheer blank ugly walls (at the right in the pic below).

Better use of this space is a good sized mixed use office and / or hotel that relates well to the street (not a street wall all the way to the property line at the SW corner of 42 / 8th, but rather a curved facade that opens up the sidewalk for pedestrians as has been shown in some of the proposed designs).

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/11xsq/images/11xsq_westin_times_square_8june02.jpg

tmac9wr
December 8th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Fair enough. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion. I like open spaces. Grand Army Plaza, the Place de la Concorde and Trafalgar Square are all plazas at major intersections and are all magnificent. The fact that a 40 story building will obscure views of the NYT Tower makes me want to see an open space there/

I agree with you. I think a nicely designed plaza would look really nice in an area that is dominated by highrise buildings...a place where you can sit down and just look up.

antinimby
December 8th, 2005, 11:06 PM
Hotel would be perfect. In fact, use the design from the comatosed Harlem hotel proposal here instead. It will fit in perfectly.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/994-biz1027.JPGhttp://www.arcspace.com/architects/ten/harlem/1harlem.jpg

kliq6
December 9th, 2005, 10:58 AM
At this point im tired of this site sitting, id be happy with anything but a whol ein the ground, Lets complete the TS project

ASchwarz
December 9th, 2005, 12:40 PM
Antinimby, the Harlem project is only delayed because the developers are replacing the hotel with a more upscale brand.

Once they have a better brand, construction will commence.

ddjiii
December 11th, 2005, 11:21 PM
Antinimby, the Harlem project is only delayed because the developers are replacing the hotel with a more upscale brand.

Once they have a better brand, construction will commence.

Uh, off topic now, but wasn't that going to be a Marriott? Maybe not the best, but it's the first hotel to be built in Harlem in decades, how picky do they want to be?

Citytect
December 12th, 2005, 02:55 PM
...wasn't that going to be a Marriott?

Marriott Courtyard (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15577&postcount=15)

Fabrizio
December 12th, 2005, 04:55 PM
Lofter: whew...that photo brings shudders. The Westin looks like a ´61 Plymouth sitting in a junkyard. No, that´s no place for an open plaza....let´s hope for a good piece of serious architecture.

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

Or maybe the Westin got it´s cues from how they do it in Albania:

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/douglas/douglas11-4-1.asp

lofter1
December 12th, 2005, 06:19 PM
^ hee hee. Albania it must be ;)

antinimby
January 2nd, 2006, 07:12 AM
This is maddening!!
What the hell is going on with these Milstein people??
It's 2006 and they're still sitting on this lot.
The hot residential market have passed them by, now we have an emerging commercial market (in Midtown) and a scorching hot hotel space demand and still they do nothing.

For god's sake, sell the darn thing if you don't want to do anything.

kliq6
January 3rd, 2006, 11:37 AM
The State should, an i heard today may be making a move to oust them . They have built nothing in the city since 1987, sat on two great lots in Lower Manhattan and now this one. The State should never have given them this site, Durst big was more but they passed him sinc ethey wanted to (spread the love). A mistake, it would be done by now

TylerFC
January 3rd, 2006, 01:09 PM
Kliq6...where did you hear that information from? Who would oust them and how? Do they have the ability to do so without major lawsuit repercussions?

Financially...what makes sense at the site now? Office? Residential? Mixed-use Hotel? Office market is picking up but doesnt support spec. construction (and steel prices). Residential Condo is sloooowing and rentals do not have rents to support such high construction costs. A straight up hotel would mean they would leave a TON of FAR on the table, right? I mean...who builds a 720,000sf hotel next two that much inventory? what makes sense from the developer's POV?

kliq6
January 3rd, 2006, 01:20 PM
The NYS EDC coprporation under there sub the Times Square development orgnization, owned the land and sold develpment rights to varius developers. However if the developer does not hold up to his end, they can loose the rights. The only reason they broke ground at all was there was a deadline that within 2 years of award, ground must be broken, so they had that little ground breaking. They are however faulting on other aspects of the deal and the state is moving in. I work in Commercial real estate in leasing, i hear alot.

My opinion, best for this site is hotel.office mix

Peteynyc1
January 3rd, 2006, 01:29 PM
Kliq6...where did you hear that information from? Who would oust them and how? Do they have the ability to do so without major lawsuit repercussions?

Financially...what makes sense at the site now? Office? Residential? Mixed-use Hotel? Office market is picking up but doesnt support spec. construction (and steel prices). Residential Condo is sloooowing and rentals do not have rents to support such high construction costs. A straight up hotel would mean they would leave a TON of FAR on the table, right? I mean...who builds a 720,000sf hotel next two that much inventory? what makes sense from the developer's POV?

I think any building would be successful at this location, even under the current market conditions. Yeah the condo market is slowing, but if a developer drops their prices slightly a building sells out in record time. There are so many project planned for further West on 42nd and this is a far superior location. Also, hotel rooms are in an all time high demand in NYC and commanding record nightly rates. Think they are trying to stall while the Times building goes up, which I suppose would only increase the property value?

TylerFC
January 3rd, 2006, 01:39 PM
Im not 100% sure of the accuracy of your explanation as to why they broke ground. I would tend to believe it was confluence of factors...why would the Milstein's acquire the land only to sit on it for two years? Im sure the Milstein's are smart people and didn't acquire land just to pay real estate taxes on them and do nothing. that doesnt make sense....something else must have occurred.

Also, does an office/hotel mixed use make financial sense from the developer's POV right now? If so, whats the program that does it?

antinimby
January 3rd, 2006, 01:42 PM
Who would oust them and how?Angry PABT patrons with pitchforks!


Financially...what makes sense at the site now?Right now, even a lemonade stand will make more money.


...who builds a 720,000sf hotel next two that much inventory?Why not? This is the hottest hotel market right now and the current inventory there, is not even meeting the demand.

TylerFC
January 3rd, 2006, 01:55 PM
Angry PABT patrons with pitchforks!

Right now, even a lemonade stand will make more money.

Why not? This is the hottest hotel market right now and the current inventory there, is not even meeting the demand.
1) Great answer. Glad to see people are rational.

2) Lemonade stand would actually not make more money...Real Estate taxes alone have to be about $1mm/year. I asked from a developer's POV...what is the best use that will hit a targeted return? Quick/dirty...if office rents average $35/sf NET of RE TAXES AND OPEX and Construction Costs are $450-$500/sf....do people target returns for an office building at 7-7.7%?

3) The hospitality business is a cyclical business...yes, its very hot right now....but on an normalized basis (the way an investor or lending institution will look at it) are the the economics supportable to build that large of a hotel?

BrooklynRider
January 3rd, 2006, 02:12 PM
I know you are a new member, so I'm assuming we offer a grace period. Post #5 in this thread kind of begins the saga of what has happened and explained that the Milstein's were dickering around. The ESDC gave the Milsteins four years from groundbreaking to begin building or the lease would be reviewed and rebid. We are coming up on that time period, so KLIQ is correct.

TylerFC
January 3rd, 2006, 02:32 PM
I know you are a new member, so I'm assuming we offer a grace period. Post #5 in this thread kind of begins the saga of what has happened and explained that the Milstein's were dickering around. The ESDC gave the Milsteins four years from groundbreaking to begin building or the lease would be reviewed and rebid. We are coming up on that time period, so KLIQ is correct.
Thank you for the grace period. I read the entire string...so I saw those posts...but it sounds like Milstein's had a difficult time finding an anchor tenant and they would have been CRAZY to build an office building on spec at a time where the office market and general economy was going south. Similar with rental apartments....they have been out of the money for some time now. Condos were promising...but apparently they arent/werent aggressive with the condo market and now may have missed that boat. So, as I said, Im sure that it was a confluence of factors that lead to this hole lasting as long as it has.

Im not sure that the process of reviewing and rebidding is as easy as you make it out to be....that actually could be even worse for the site. If the Milstein's were serious and have invested a lot of time/money in this site...if the ESDC decides to remove them from the process...couldnt the Milstein's sue the state and cause the land to be tied up for an even longer period of time? Years?

kliq6
January 3rd, 2006, 04:35 PM
FYI, he had one tenant that went to him with strong interst, I can mention this now and could not then. in 2003, before its turn to a private firm, Toys r Us wanted to move there HQ to NYC from Jersey and take about 300,000 sf. Milstein refused to help them get tax breaks and wanted them to take more space, up to 500,000 of which they could not. After this, no serious talks between Milsetin and anone happened. The then CEO of Toys us to run FAO and felt Toys should be based in NYC for some reason

antinimby
January 3rd, 2006, 04:45 PM
FYI, he had one tenant that went to him with strong interst, I can mention this now and could not then. in 2003, before its turn to a private firm, Toys r Us wanted to move there HQ to NYC from Jersey and take about 300,000 sf. Milstein refused to help them get tax breaks and wanted them to take more space, up to 500,000 of which they could not. After this, no serious talks between Milsetin and anone happened. The then CEO of Toys us to run FAO and felt Toys should be based in NYC for some reasonOMG!!!! Say it ain't so. (I'm pulling my own hair out right now)

TylerFC
January 3rd, 2006, 04:45 PM
FYI, he had one tenant that went to him with strong interst, I can mention this now and could not then. in 2003, before its turn to a private firm, Toys r Us wanted to move there HQ to NYC from Jersey and take about 300,000 sf. Milstein refused to help them get tax breaks and wanted them to take more space, up to 500,000 of which they could not. After this, no serious talks between Milsetin and anone happened. The then CEO of Toys us to run FAO and felt Toys should be based in NYC for some reason

I wonder if there were any rent differences (ie what Milstein was willing to let for vs what Toys R Us could afford to pay.) I would LOVE to buy a porsche...but if I walked into the dealer and offered them $10,000 for a 2006 911 Carrera...I think he would refuse to do a deal just for the sake of doing a deal...better off to hold the inventory.....

BrooklynRider
January 3rd, 2006, 07:08 PM
...Im not sure that the process of reviewing and rebidding is as easy as you make it out to be....that actually could be even worse for the site. If the Milstein's were serious and have invested a lot of time/money in this site...if the ESDC decides to remove them from the process...couldnt the Milstein's sue the state and cause the land to be tied up for an even longer period of time? Years?

Charles Gargano of the ESDC is someone no one will cross. He'll work with you, but when he says you're done, like it or not, you're done. That corner is a blight in that neighborhood. If they were able to take the NYTimes Tower site through eminent domain citing blight, then this site should be able to be pulled back quite easily. Milsteins have very little excuse for not developing something there. Hotel? Residential? Office? The city's in the midst of one of its biggest booms and they don't know what to do. They are developers who lost their nerve.

TylerFC
January 3rd, 2006, 08:22 PM
I still think that if Gargano decides to pull the property...that the Milstein's could enter into a litigious battle that would actually tie up the property for a long period of time.

How would the state compensate the Milstein Family? Im sure that land values in 1998 were drastically lower than land values in 2006??? Eminent Domain requires just compensation......

kliq6
January 4th, 2006, 09:51 AM
In the last two years, Milstein has lost a site near South Street Seaport and a site near Ground Zero, they recived money but nothing compared to what a developed site would make them. Based on this id have to assume that they would not make a big issue if the state moved in, they would probally take there payment and run

antinimby
January 4th, 2006, 10:01 AM
Maybe that's their scheme all along. Why bother with the hassle of developing when you can just do nothing and in a few years, get paid off. If this the case, the ESDC should move in quickly and take over for the site's sake.

NYguy
January 4th, 2006, 10:02 AM
The lack of any action at this site is worse than what has taken place at ground zero. Silverstein has at least managed to put up an office tower, given the green light.

The intersection of 8th and 42nd is too vibrant for the city and state to allow this to drag on as it has.

antinimby
January 4th, 2006, 10:11 AM
It's almost bordering on criminal if you ask me. I liken this to a situation where a negligent homeowner fails to upkeep his property (trash, junk, overgrown grass/weeds, graffiti, etc.) and makes the rest of the otherwise well-maintained neighborhood look bad. I know in some communities you can get fined.

TylerFC
January 4th, 2006, 10:24 AM
In the last two years, Milstein has lost a site near South Street Seaport and a site near Ground Zero, they recived money but nothing compared to what a developed site would make them. Based on this id have to assume that they would not make a big issue if the state moved in, they would probally take there payment and run

Kliq6, you're just plain wrong about both accounts. Apparently you aren't as close to the real estate ground as you say you are.....

NYguy
January 4th, 2006, 10:24 AM
It's almost bordering on criminal if you ask me. I liken this to a situation where a negligent homeowner fails to upkeep his property (trash, junk, overgrown grass/weeds, graffiti, etc.) and makes the rest of the otherwise well-maintained neighborhood look bad. I know in some communities you can get fined.

I remember there was a groundbreaking there for a tower, before demolition even began on the site of the NY Times tower. Yet, as the Times tower now rises, weeds still grow on 42nd and 8th (right side of pic)...

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/50big.jpg


If someone told you that a large empty lot would sit vacant on 42nd Street in the middle of is revitalization - for years - you would never believe it. Yet here we are...

TylerFC
January 4th, 2006, 10:28 AM
The lack of any action at this site is worse than what has taken place at ground zero. Silverstein has at least managed to put up an office tower, given the green light.

The intersection of 8th and 42nd is too vibrant for the city and state to allow this to drag on as it has.

Good job to Silverstein...on a million sf building he leased one floor (40,000sf) at substantial completion....Im sure both his accountants and the taxpayers are really happy that building went up. Now we have a beautiful building that is 95% vacant that will be leased up (maybe) by state subsidies (ie, NYS tax payers). That is NOT the way to develop.

NYguy
January 4th, 2006, 10:32 AM
Good job to Silverstein...on a million sf building he leased one floor (40,000sf) at substantial completion....Im sure both his accountants and the taxpayers are really happy that building went up. Now we have a beautiful building that is 95% vacant that will be leased up (maybe) by state subsidies (ie, NYS tax payers). That is NOT the way to develop.

You missed the point, which is something did get developed. And if you listen to everybody from the mayor to the press and just the general public, what Silverstein has built to date is nowhere nearly enough.

But back to the Times Square Plaza, reportedly the developer was deciding between office and residential at one time. Don't tell me that a residential tower couldn't have gone up there, when they are rizing up on 42nd street almost overnight.

antinimby
January 4th, 2006, 10:37 AM
Now we have a beautiful building [7WTC]"Beautiful" is questionable.

TylerFC
January 4th, 2006, 10:44 AM
You missed the point, which is something did get developed. And if you listen to everybody from the mayor to the press and just the general public, what Silverstein has built to date is nowhere nearly enough.

But back to the Times Square Plaza, reportedly the developer was deciding between office and residential at one time. Don't tell me that a residential tower couldn't have gone up there, when they are rizing up on 42nd street almost overnight.
Actually, I think you missed my point. Something did get developed and it is just sitting there. You need something called "Cash Flow" once you've developed. There is not even CLOSE to enough cash flow to even cover .05x debt service. Yes, he did develop something but that "something" was the wrong product for the market at the time and it DEFINITELY shows through its leasing. Why do you think the other "buildings" dont even have a foundation? If it was your money, would you build another 10mm sf of office space when the first 1mm sf hasnt leased at all? Would you lend to somebody with that prospect?? NO WAY!!!! Why would you? That would be a very stupid move.

Maybe they did miss the boat with Condo development....Ill give you that.

I just like 7 WTC from the southern elevation....once anything gets developed at ground zero...that view's gonna be obstructed. Enjoying it while it lasts....

kliq6
January 4th, 2006, 10:56 AM
tyler, look at the mans history of development in NYC, its non existant the last 20 years and if you dont cosider being a broker for a little firm called C&W a real estate insider, then your right

ZippyTheChimp
January 4th, 2006, 10:58 AM
A good article about the infighting within the Milstein family over the management of their real estate holdings was posted somewhere in this forum, but I can't locate it.

The Milsteins held the parking lot at Liberty & West for years without any development, in spite of the fact that the pedestrian bridge there was designed to connect with a building.

Now in exchange for that site, they have been awarded a site in BPC to develop. We'll see how that goes.

TylerFC
January 4th, 2006, 10:59 AM
tyler, look at the mans history of development in NYC, its non existant the last 20 years and if you dont cosider being a broker for a little firm called C&W a real estate insider, then your right

I will repeat....apparently you aren't as close to the ground as you say you are....cause the info that you are dispersing is incorrect....

Broker for Cushman doesn't really impress me. Sorry.

kliq6
January 4th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Okay, fine by me

ZippyTheChimp
January 4th, 2006, 11:05 AM
TylerFc,

Lay off the personal remarks. No one is here to impress you.

TylerFC
January 4th, 2006, 11:12 AM
Will do Zippy. Only one thing...Im not trying to impress anyone by stating my position in life. Im only making valid points and not saying "I do this...therefore I know more." This doesnt impress me and I felt obligated to say it. The comment was warranted and not unsolicited....

lofter1
January 4th, 2006, 11:47 AM
I just like 7 WTC from the southern elevation....once anything gets developed at ground zero...that view's gonna be obstructed ...
The majority of the southern facade will face onto the proposed "performing arts building" (low-rise structure), so the view of 2WTC will not be obstructed looking across the WTC site from the south.

Site plan: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=74387&postcount=2060

This image (showing the original design of 1WTC) shows the visibility of 2WTC from the south:

http://www.renewnyc.com/images_WMS/memorial_final/mem_aerial_small.jpg

TylerFC
January 4th, 2006, 11:56 AM
Thanks. Thats great...right now though...I love that building. My favorite thing is from BPC you have a direct line of site to both 7WTC and the Woolworth Building. To me, its like a great-grandfather looking at his great-grandson....

lofter1
January 4th, 2006, 02:20 PM
Pre 9/11 one of the great views from the SW was of the Woolworth Building peeking up between the two towers overhead ...

kliq6
January 4th, 2006, 03:15 PM
TylerFc,

Thanks for your negative coments, this site is declining quick.

ZippyTheChimp
January 4th, 2006, 07:13 PM
I couldn't find that article about the Milstein family, but I found another from the Philadelphia Inquirer concerning the stress of running a family business. The Milsteins are cited as examples:

In New York, the colossal Milstein family feud has turned into a brutal ballet. Brothers Paul, 78, and Seymour, 80, who preside over a $5 billion family fortune in prime real estate and banking, are tangled in a battle so vicious that each side has hired public relations consultants, in part to destroy the credibility of the other. Their properties include three million square feet of office space, 8,000 apartments, the Emigrant Savings Bank, and the Milford Plaza Hotel.


only 30 percent of family businesses make it through the second generation and only 10 percent through the third. When there is big money involved, these intriguing sagas often burst into the headlines and shock an astonished public

If you want to read the entire article:
http://www.dvfambus.com/pdf/inthenews.12.9.2001.pdf

michelle1
January 5th, 2006, 08:33 AM
good read

TylerFC
April 21st, 2006, 05:44 PM
Times Square Plaza wont be built by the Milsteins....

krulltime
April 21st, 2006, 07:12 PM
This site is a total nightmare!

Citytect
April 21st, 2006, 08:31 PM
A Nightmare on 42nd Street.

lofter1
April 21st, 2006, 08:54 PM
Google MAP (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=290+w.+42nd+st.,+new+york,+ny&ll=40.757071,-73.989476&spn=0.001764,0.005322&t=h&om=1) of that site -- back when it was at least doing SOME good.

TylerFC
April 24th, 2006, 01:01 PM
I used to work for the Milsteins.....

antinimby
April 24th, 2006, 02:12 PM
I used to work for the Milsteins.....What else do you know?

TylerFC
April 24th, 2006, 02:46 PM
Basically everything about Times Square Plaza and BPC - Site 23/24. I personally wrote and hand delivered the RFP for site 23/24. Renderings, Schematics, financial models...basically everything.

antinimby
April 24th, 2006, 02:57 PM
So I'm assuming they are looking to unload TSP to another developer?
Are they even working on doing that or will we have to wait several more years?
What did the financial models say about the site?
Doable?
What do you think will be the likely use for the site, residential, office and/or hotel?

TylerFC
April 24th, 2006, 03:12 PM
So I'm assuming they are looking to unload TSP to another developer?
Are they even working on doing that or will we have to wait several more years?
What did the financial models say about the site?
Doable?
What do you think will be the likely use for the site, residential, office and/or hotel?

1) No, they are actually looking to develop it. Possibly do a JV. However, HPM doesnt really focus on Real Estate right now....more on his Private Bank. Real Estate is more a hobby...if someone came with the right offer (TSP, Related, Extell...) Im sure he would sell.

2) They are pretty far along in pre-schematics for a large office building and a large mixed use (with hotel or office) that actually work and are approved. They are finalizing a deal with the state within the next few months. At which point, they will have a year to figure it out...so they are definitely going to develop (or sell it) within the next few years.

3) Financial models are only models. I could make assumptions that make a circus work there.....its all about perceptions of that market.

4) If the Milsteins develop the site, I believe it will be an office building. If someone could bring them a 400,000sf user at the right rent??? they would break ground tomorrow on an office building. Milsteins arent really in the condo business. They are Billionares....why would they want to sell off condos and make a measily $100MM profit...? A rental property makes more sense....tax shelter...whether its an apartment complex or an office.

and, for the record, the state has no right to take away the land without going through eminent domain. Milsteins own it fee simple.

antinimby
April 24th, 2006, 03:30 PM
1) No, they are actually looking to develop it.But you just said several posts ago that the Milsteins won't build TSP. I don't get it.

Possibly do a JV. However, HPM doesnt really focus on Real Estate right now....more on his Private Bank. Real Estate is more a hobby...if someone came with the right offer (TSP, Related, Extell...) Im sure he would sell.What's the advantage of a joint venture. Money, I'm assuming again?


2) They are pretty far along in pre-schematics for a large office building and a large mixed use (with hotel or office) that actually work and are approved. They are finalizing a deal with the state within the next few months. At which point, they will have a year to figure it out...so they are definitely going to develop (or sell it) within the next few years.Are these the proposals we saw in the past? Has the design changed? What kind of deal are they working on with the state?


4) If the Milsteins develop the site, I believe it will be an office building. If someone could bring them a 400,000sf user at the right rent??? they would break ground tomorrow on an office building. Milsteins arent really in the condo business. They are Billionares....why would they want to sell off condos and make a measily $100MM profit...? A rental property makes more sense....tax shelter...whether its an apartment complex or an office.That's good news. Office is good. Although, I think he has to go solicit offers and not wait until someone comes asking. I'm not in the biz so I wouldn't know how that works, though.

antinimby
April 24th, 2006, 03:37 PM
Plus, not that Milstein would, but even if they did a speculative office building right now, I don't think they would have any trouble moving 400,000 sf in Midtown.

TylerFC
April 24th, 2006, 03:47 PM
But you just said several posts ago that the Milsteins won't build TSP. I don't get it.

---They are working to develop it...I just dont have confidence that they will.

What's the advantage of a joint venture. Money, I'm assuming again?

---distribute the risk and keep some upside in the deal

Are these the proposals we saw in the past? Has the design changed? What kind of deal are they working on with the state?

---MUCH different and much better.

That's good news. Office is good. Although, I think he has to go solicit offers and not wait until someone comes asking. I'm not in the biz so I wouldn't know how that works, though.

---a site like 42nd street....you get offers left and right.



As for moving 400,000sf of spec? Sure I could lease 300MM SF....but probably not at $100/sf.

LeCom
April 24th, 2006, 03:59 PM
Would be good to believe that the site will be developed soon. Passed by it today, it's growing trees already.

antinimby
April 24th, 2006, 06:13 PM
---distribute the risk and keep some upside in the dealThis gives me the impression that Milstein isn't a very confident company (at least in real estate anyway). A more bullish company would have built this thing and rented it out already long ago.


---MUCH different and much better. Now I'm getting excited. In what ways is it "different and better?"


---a site like 42nd street....you get offers left and right.I suppose so. I'm sure they're probably getting plenty of brokers looking to do condos but like you said, they could do better with office.


As for moving 400,000sf of spec? Sure I could lease 300MM SF....but probably not at $100/sf.So that's what they're waiting for, $100 /sf ?
I remember hearing the Times next door is asking for $75 / sf with higher floors.
Although, with TSP, the tenant can have the whole building to itself including naming rights ala 505 5th Ave.

TylerFC
April 25th, 2006, 10:18 AM
This gives me the impression that Milstein isn't a very confident company (at least in real estate anyway). A more bullish company would have built this thing and rented it out already long ago.

Now I'm getting excited. In what ways is it "different and better?"

I suppose so. I'm sure they're probably getting plenty of brokers looking to do condos but like you said, they could do better with office.

So that's what they're waiting for, $100 /sf ?
I remember hearing the Times next door is asking for $75 / sf with higher floors.
Although, with TSP, the tenant can have the whole building to itself including naming rights ala 505 5th Ave.

- Even TSP and related bring do JV's. Just business. A bullish company could be sitting on 1MM SF of spec space and no market to hit your returns threshold right now.

- The design has just been worked on a lot since 2002. The renderings look really good.

- brokers dont call milstein with offers....people like Steve Roth call milstein with offers

- Originally, BofA and NYtimes tower were asking around $100 all in (the rent they needed to hit returns)...that is why it has leased like crap.

lofter1
April 25th, 2006, 10:39 AM
While this site looks like crud in its current condition I'm fine with it remaining as is for another few months -- just so we can see the Times Tower go up in all its glory.

But by autumn 2006 it would be great to see something start going in here. That might also spur some activity katty corner across the 42nd / 8th Ave. intersection (where the low rise Duane Reade now squats).

vc10
April 25th, 2006, 02:26 PM
Unfortunately, the potential for this intersection to be truly dramatic has been ruined by the fricking hotel on the northeast corner. But we can at least dream that great towers end up on the other three corners.


While this site looks like crud in its current condition I'm fine with it remaining as is for another few months -- just so we can see the Times Tower go up in all its glory.

But by autumn 2006 it would be great to see something start going in here. That might also spur some activity katty corner across the 42nd / 8th Ave. intersection (where the low rise Duane Reade now squats).

lofter1
April 25th, 2006, 02:35 PM
Unfortunately, the potential for this intersection to be truly dramatic has been ruined by the fricking hotel on the northeast corner.
The Westin will look like a masterpiece if the towers planned by our seemingly sightless NYC developers go up a few blocks north on 8th Ave.

MidtownGuy
April 25th, 2006, 02:45 PM
It is at the point where most NY "developers" might be more aptly called
NY destroyers.
Anyway, please excuse my posts today, I'm a bit frustrated after looking out the window and seeing that the diner across the street is closing. I'm afraid it will be another Wachovia or Sprint store. No one else can afford the rents in the retail spaces being created in these towers.
New York's "prosperity" is pricing its humanity into oblivion. Shiny new oblivion.

kliq6
April 25th, 2006, 04:32 PM
TylerFC, may i ask and i say this with respect since i work for a major NYC commercial developer, what doe sthe development people do in that firm, i mean they have sat on more site, the west street site, BPC, south street seaport site and now this, what do they need to develop, a tenant to walk in the front door and tell them they will anchor the site????

TylerFC
April 26th, 2006, 05:14 PM
TylerFC, may i ask and i say this with respect since i work for a major NYC commercial developer, what doe sthe development people do in that firm, i mean they have sat on more site, the west street site, BPC, south street seaport site and now this, what do they need to develop, a tenant to walk in the front door and tell them they will anchor the site????

They need a market and for HPM to get off his a$$.....part of the reason I left. The development people are sitting on sites.....HPM is.

antinimby
June 6th, 2006, 07:40 AM
FIXING A HOLE ON 42ND ST.


By Steve Cuozzo

June 6, 2006 (http://www.nypost.com/realestate/comm/69644.htm)-- IT looks like a different developer will get to fill Howard and Edward Milstein's gaping hole in the-ground at Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street.
A number of power players are said to have their eyes on the Milstein brothers' precious pit, which is not formally for sale but for which sources say CB Richard Ellis is quietly sifting offers.

The intersection's vacant southeast corner is the missing link on the reborn "Deuce" between Seventh and Eighth avenues, which is thriving with new office towers, theaters and shops.

It stands on the avenue between the rising New York Times tower, where law firm Seyfarth Shaw just rented 100,000 square feet for more than $80 a square foot, and the Westin Times Square hotel.

It's been a hole ever since Gov. Pataki presided at a groundbreaking in October 2002. It was a parking lot before that, when the site was owned by members of the Milstein family and partners.

In January 2001, the brothers bought out the others, paying $77.7 million for the share of the L-shaped lot they didn't yet own. At that time, it was valued in total at $111 million - far less than it's worth today.

But although Howard Milstein showed a rendering of a 35-story office tower in June 2002, nothing ever happened.

Now, after several changes of direction, something's afoot. Sources say several major developers are hot for the site, and the Milsteins may well be receptive.

Meanwhile - in a step that sounds contradictory but might not be - Empire State Development Corp. Chairman Charles Gargano said yesterday the agency will complete a "memorandum of understanding" with the Milsteins "within 30 days." Once signed, it will commit them to "start work on the project within 12 months or incur stiff penalties," Gargano said.

Gargano said the Milsteins want the option of building the project as either mixed-use or all-commercial. He said ESDC has agreed to let the Milsteins build 850,000 "rentable" square feet, about 120,000 larger than zoning allows.

Unless the Milsteins have secretly snared an office tenant, the site seems more ripe for an apartment and/or hotel project.

The sudden urgency on the part of the Milsteins combined with word of a possible sale has real estate circles buzzing that the brothers will flip the property to a new owner who would then proceed with the scheme pre-approved by ESDC.

Gargano said he knew nothing of any flip plan. A Milstein spokesman, George Arzt, said the Milsteins "are gratified there have been so many offers" for the corner, "but, the family has held the property since 1976 and to sell would be a major departure from its long-held position."

One name that's come up as a prospective buyer is Joseph Moinian, whose Moinian Group has built a number of major new projects on both Eighth Avenue and 42nd and also owns some prime development sites there.

But sources said late yesterday that he was now a long shot. Through a spokesman, Moinian would neither confirm nor deny talks. In a statement, he said, "The Moinian Group is always interested in potential development opportunities along 42nd Street and the far West Side."

Gargano, who was a driving force behind getting four new office towers built on 42nd Street, has been frustrated waiting for the Eighth Avenue corner to bloom as well. "We're anxious to complete this last corner," he said.

Earlier optimistic forecasts fizzled out. In June 2004, Howard Milstein told The Post he was "looking forward to coming out of the ground by year's end."

In February 2005, the project went back to square one when the Milsteins submitted four new alternatives with various commercial-residential combos. A proposal to include a giant public aquarium sank to the bottom.

Some sources say Howard Milstein now seems more interested in running Emigrant Savings Bank, of which he is chief executive officer. Last year, a billboard at the 42nd Street site touting the new building was taken down and replaced with a sign for Emigrant.

Robert K. Futterman, the project's retail leasing agent, said he's unaware of anything going on. "What's in Howard's mind when he wakes up in the morning - development or the bank? I don't know," Futterman said.

"Retail tenants need a certainty about dates. Without a set plan, you can't really go too far down the road."

But Douglas Durst, developer of mammoth One Bryant Park, a short stroll to the east, said the waiting game "shows how smart Howard is. If he'd done something earlier, it would have gotten less value."

CB Richard Ellis chief Mary Ann Tighe, who's marketing the remaining office space in the Times tower for developer Bruce Ratner, said that site was once considered a "pioneering" location for new offices.

Now, "given that the Times has already pioneered that location, no one coming to the Milstein site is pioneering anything."


http://www.nypost.com/photos/comm0606036.jpg
TIMES SQ. TOWER
Milsteins' plan.

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.

kliq6
June 6th, 2006, 09:57 AM
Idf love to See Durst get in on this, hed make a nice building at the site

krulltime
June 6th, 2006, 10:46 AM
A proposal to include a giant public aquarium sank to the bottom.

Hmmm... a public aquarium on 42nd street. That is just too aquanomics! :p

jeffpark
June 6th, 2006, 10:47 AM
i think thet Vornado will by it

kurokevin
June 6th, 2006, 10:53 AM
This is great news. Now we can all concentrate our complaints towards the Duane Reade building on 42nd St. full-time.

kliq6
June 6th, 2006, 11:35 AM
lest not celebrate till the site changes hands

jeffpark
June 6th, 2006, 01:42 PM
whats do you think Darcy will get for Howard per "Buildable SF"
$450

jeffpark
June 6th, 2006, 02:16 PM
http://www.rkf.com/images/FILESFORWEB_2005/11TimesSq_main.jpg
Print Quality PDF (http://www.rkf.com/pdf/2005_Exclusive_PDFs/11_Times_Square.pdf)
Floorplans (http://www.rkf.com/listings/NEW/11tsq_plan.asp)
Contact Broker:
Henry Henderson (%20hh@rkf.com)

antinimby
June 6th, 2006, 08:39 PM
To whoever that will ultimately develop this site, please don't let this one have any condos in it whatsoever.

Order of preference: office, office, office, office and did I mention OFFICE?!!

alibrot
June 6th, 2006, 08:53 PM
To whoever that will ultimately develop this site, please don't let this one have any condos in it whatsoever.

Order of preference: office, office, office, office and did I mention OFFICE?!!

split between office bottom and hotel top would be ideal...without an anchor tenant would be tough to build all office. a split would also provide quality foot traffic all day and night. are there any other combos other than time warner? with the NYT and tourists, this is the spot that needs hotels.

antinimby
June 6th, 2006, 08:57 PM
I would normally agree with you, but you've got to take the current lack of office space in Manhattan into consideration. There are already quite a few hotel projects in the pipeline. There are no new office dev. on the drawing boards. I would place companies and jobs higher on the critical list than tourists.

kurokevin
June 6th, 2006, 09:52 PM
Yes, but this is Times Sqauare, perhaps the most popular tourist trap in America, if not the world. There will be plenty of options in the future for office devlopement with a number of underutilized sites on the Island, Brooklyn and Queens. As Times Square continues to grow, it really should think about its own future, and the massive amount of tax dollars generated from the hoardes of tourists that flock this area. Shouldn't they be serviced first?

But of course, I agree that a mix of office and hotel would be the most ideal usage for the site.

JCMAN320
June 6th, 2006, 11:52 PM
I would love to see this exchange work. That building would look great there. That corner is so drak and such an gaping eyesore that this would be welcomed. I agree mix of office and hotel would be great, but they need an strong anchor tenant. Hope this goes through.

antinimby
June 7th, 2006, 03:48 AM
Yes, but this is Times Sqauare, perhaps the most popular tourist trap in America, if not the world. There will be plenty of options in the future for office devlopement with a number of underutilized sites on the Island, Brooklyn and Queens. As Times Square continues to grow, it really should think about its own future, and the massive amount of tax dollars generated from the hoardes of tourists that flock this area. Shouldn't they be serviced first?
But of course, I agree that a mix of office and hotel would be the most ideal usage for the site.The Island, Brooklyn, Queens?
kk, you are apparently not aware of the urgency.
kliq, will you do me the favor of explaining the situation to him? I'm all explained out at this point.

kliq6
June 7th, 2006, 09:45 AM
First off most firms would relocate jobs to Iowa before Long Island, there are no benifits and besides thats out of the cities realm as welll so any jobs moved there is like a job moved to Jersey City

Queens and Brooklyn just dont have what it takes, sure you can have cheaper rents but the taxes on eash employee is just as highas Manhattan so there is little to know savings by going to eaither of those places as can be seen bythe small amount of commercial development that has been built in both places combined compared to Jersey City

Manhattan is a Island it wont get bigger, for the most part so what we have is what we get. Firms want to be here but when there is no options, as there arent now, they will move and go to the most attractive alternative, which happens to be JC. Manhattan needs space and it needs it now, its the only viable place in NY that firms will go to , not BK, not LIC not BX and sure as hell not Long Island.

This is without a doubt one of the best sites left in the whole city for a commercial building. its over transportation, near a major commuter hub and as OBP and NYT has proven, tenants would flock to this type of location, if it was actually marketed, something HM has never done

antinimby
June 8th, 2006, 04:52 AM
Thank you kliq.

antinimby
June 8th, 2006, 05:00 AM
But Douglas Durst, developer of mammoth One Bryant Park, a short stroll to the east, said the waiting game "shows how smart Howard is. If he'd done something earlier, it would have gotten less value." While that might be true back then, I think the site's value has pretty much reached its peak already. I don't think it's not going to go much higher than it is right now, so if they don't start building, they are losing out on revenue stream and also taking a risk that real estate value might fall (hey, you never know, these things are cyclical). I have a feeling we'll hear an announcement pretty soon, perhaps before the year's end.

TylerFC
June 8th, 2006, 11:20 AM
MY bet is that Milstein doesnt just flip it. They enter into a JV with a big boy office player (vornado or the like) and get some cash and a huge participation.

Ill know better next week after speaking with the developer at milstein.

ZippyTheChimp
June 8th, 2006, 11:41 AM
I would place companies and jobs higher on the critical list than tourists.Hotels and the tourist industry are just as much a business as traditional office buildings.

kliq6
June 8th, 2006, 11:50 AM
tourist are coming no matter what, businesss will leave with no space, its very simple.

If BPC was not built out overally residential and more space used to have possibly doubled the WFC capacity, the loss of the WTC would almost have been wash in term of real esate, we would have had plenty of space for those displaced firms and companies like Morgan Stanley wouldnt have moved 1500 people to Harrison. the Embasssy Suites site as well as the irsh memorial should have be built out as office complex in addition to the five commercial sites of WFC

ZippyTheChimp
June 8th, 2006, 12:08 PM
Tourists will not come if there is no hotel space. And it is the one industry where we have a natural advantage over Iowa.

Business began to move out of Lower Manhattan long before there were any residents, when there was plenty of room for commercial development. Residents make the area more attrative for business. People who are tired of commuting want to live close to work. Residents also fuel retail business, another industry that many overlook as a source of city revenue.

Finally, a CBD with a low percentage of residents and tourists dies every day at 5PM.

kliq6
June 8th, 2006, 01:18 PM
a debate for another time and thread, i hate when posts get off topic and i apoligize for getting this one off topic, lets keep it to TS Plaza

TylerFC
June 8th, 2006, 02:10 PM
Hotel doesn't make economic sense at TS. Last estimats are heard were around $900,000 per key. The economics just wont work. I think hotel is going to be very difficult if not impossible to complete.

Im going to guess it becomes and office building.

pianoman11686
June 8th, 2006, 03:28 PM
The planned conversion of 6 Times Square (the former Knickerbocker Hotel) back into a hotel will end up costing 300 million dollars, for 300 rooms.

antinimby
June 8th, 2006, 04:29 PM
Hotels and the tourist industry are just as much a business as traditional office buildings.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.

But that wasn't even my point. The critical list I referred to, takes into account the extremely and alarmingly tight office market. 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.