PDA

View Full Version : Riverside South Development



Pages : [1] 2 3

NYguy
October 16th, 2002, 10:30 AM
NY Post...

TRUMP ROUNDING OUT W. SIDE DEVELOPMENT

By LOIS WEISS

October 16, 2002 -- DONALD Trump is keeping busy.

He's putting together plans to top off the northernmost piece of his West Side project with a new curved condominium building at 72nd Street, while also working on a new master plan to turn the southernmost commercial portion of the site, at 61st Street, into several more apartment buildings. Skidmore Owings Merrill is now taking another look at the section on Trump's behalf.

Skidmore planned the original Riverside South project on the Hudson Railyards and helped Columbia University lay out the four-block commercial piece as a Business School and performing arts campus annex.Trump and his Hong Kong-based partners will have to take any development plan for the southern Trump Place site through rezoning and the city's land use review process.

"We're designing a fantastic, residential development on that site," Trump confirmed. "It's zoned now for commercial and it's very early in the process, but we will be going for that [zoning] fairly soon."

Meanwhile, at the northernmost piece of the West Side site, HRH Construction has already begun working on an unusual 35-story tower designed by Costas Kondylis that will eventually contain 180 condominium units.

To its south is the tallest building on the site, a 50-story condo that is topped by a round crown. Another condo and three rental buildings already line Riverside Boulevard.

"We're doing a building which is going to be really very beautiful, and very luxurious," Trump said. "It's going to have a gentle curve and will look up and down Riverside Park and the Hudson River to the George Washington Bridge."

Trump compared the design to the curved glass façade on the 17 State St. office building downtown, overlooking New York Harbor.

That building gives a sense of what the new Trump condo will look like - just move it uptown, add lots of limestone and spin it around.

As for Trump's most recent multimillion-dollar commercial venture - a McDonald's ad filmed in his own offices, overlooking Central Park - Trump laughs, "Not bad for an afternoon."

If you watch the ad carefully, you might also glimpse of a small rendering of the first few Trump Place buildings.

NoyokA
October 16th, 2002, 04:12 PM
"We're designing a fantastic, residential development on that site," Trump confirmed. "It's zoned now for commercial and it's very early in the process, but we will be going for that [zoning] fairly soon."

-Wrong move. Spectacular, Im sure, like the rest. Further the final building is nothing like 17 State Street, foremost it is brick, Im sure the NIMBY's wouldnt allow a beautiful glass building anyways.

Agglomeration
October 16th, 2002, 04:27 PM
You're right about that. There is an organization that opposes Riverside South in all its forms. it's called Coalition for a livable west side, and it's the epitome of nimbyism. It wanted to shut down the AOL Time Warner Center, and it virulently opposes the rebuilding of the World Trade Center.

Here is a good example of their views from a newsletter:

The World Trade Center towers should not be replaced. Our collective strength as a nation and as New Yorkers, is rooted not in power or tower, but in the love evidenced in the rescue efforts. Community breeds such devotion.

Neighborhoods, not architectural statements, create bonds among people. Neighborhood residents, workers and visitors share needs, pleasures, adversities, celebrations and commemorations.

Instead of isolating towers, let us choose to embody the core of our society in a community designed to bring commuters and residents together in an all encompassing complex of residential, cultural, educational, health, business, commercial and gathering place uses. And, most importantly, at the center create a tangible monument to all those who so tragically lost their lives on the site. " Mary Brendle, Manhattan resident (Community District 4 Manhattan Historian) (former Chair CB4)

NYguy
October 17th, 2002, 11:02 AM
Instead of isolating towers, let us choose to embody the core of our society in a community designed to bring commuters and residents together in an all encompassing complex of residential, cultural, educational, health, business, commercial and gathering place uses.

And in the process we'll create world peace, end world hunger, and unite in song and dance...

Fabb
October 17th, 2002, 11:59 AM
Right. She's a dreamer.

Trump and his Hong Kong-based partners
I wonder who they are.
Some of them are not afraid to build tall.

NYguy
October 21st, 2002, 10:12 AM
NY Times...

Blotting Out the Light: A New Tower by Trump

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Richard Seader and his fellow residents in the Chatsworth, a landmark building on 72nd Street near Riverside Drive, battled their landlady for decades with the dramatic flair of the musicals and plays Mr. Seader once produced on Broadway.

Now Mr. Seader and the other tenants have joined forces with the current landlord to fight Donald J. Trump over a 36-inch-wide strip of land that separates the Chatsworth's western wall from the site of the next planned tower in the $3 billion Trump Place project, on the Hudson River waterfront.

Both sides claim to own what can best be described as a three-foot demilitarized zone.

The dispute has all the elements of a typical New York real estate brawl, but it also wends its way through the city's industrial past, when railroad barons ruled New York, and the storied history of the Chatsworth, a Beaux-Arts masterpiece where Brenda Vaccaro and Susan Sarandon once lived and Conan O'Brien now occupies the penthouse. Finally, the Chatsworth's fate may have fallen into a Catch-22 in the arcane and contradictory world of zoning and urban planning.

If Mr. Trump has his way, his latest condominium tower at Trump Place will cantilever over the 36-inch strip and block the unobstructed views of the Hudson from the Chatsworth's 350 or so west-facing windows. More important, the tenants say, a portion of the 31-story Trump tower will come as close as three inches from 102 windows of the 12-story Chatsworth, blocking all light and air from 82 rooms and rendering them uninhabitable.

The city does not usually permit windows in a wall built on a property line, but no one imagined when the Chatsworth was completed in 1904 that a residential development would spring up on the once bustling railyard next door.

Mr. Seader and the tenants' association worry that the fire escapes on the western wall, like the one outside his kitchen window, will become dangerously impassable and that construction of Mr. Trump's tower will damage the stability of the Chatsworth, much as a nearby sewer project cracked the foundation in the 1970's. Some of the fire escapes themselves could be knocked out by Mr. Trump's tower. The landlord has filed a lawsuit to block the project. There is also a Web site: TrumpPlaceIsChokingUs.com

"This is an enormously serious problem," said Mr. Seader, who has lived in the Chatsworth with his wife, Sylvia, for 41 years. "The most critical issue is the physical safety of the building."

Mr. Trump, who successfully fended off lawsuits against his supersized Trump World Tower near the United Nations, is unsympathetic to the tenants' complaints about their loss of views.

"Welcome to New York," Mr. Trump said.

"They've had those windows for many years," he continued. "But I got this approved in 1992. They're 10 years too late."

After years of community opposition and lawsuits, Mr. Trump obtained city approval in 1992 to build what he now calls Trump Place, which will have 16 apartment buildings with 5,700 apartments when finished, a 20-acre public park and an extension of Riverside Drive from 72nd Street to 59th Street. The developer's model clearly showed that the tower at 72nd Street would butt up against the Chatsworth, blocking windows and possibly making some rooms illegal for occupancy.

The tower will be the sixth built in the project and the one regarded as the most valuable, because of its location. Excavation work for the foundation has already begun, and the developer hopes to begin construction by December.

But the owner of the Chatsworth, Lenore Dean, never voiced any opposition, mostly because control of the building had been taken away from her and put into the hands of a receiver in 1987.

Regarded as one of the finest apartment hotels in the city a century ago, the Chatsworth had fallen on hard times. The vast 15-room apartments had been carved into smaller units, the elevators did not work and the terra cotta cherubs that adorned the facade were chipped and broken. For more than 20 years, the tenants' association, which included Ms. Sarandon and Mr. Seader, had to fight for heat, hot water and the most basic repairs.

"It was monstrous what was going on here," said Mr. Seader, a tenant leader who produced more than 60 plays and musicals on and off Broadway, including "Swinging on a Star."

Mrs. Dean died in 1998 at 93, and ownership of the building passed to her five grandchildren, who have regained control of the property and worked hard to restore the grandeur of the Chatsworth, according to Mr. Seader and another tenant, Henry Saltzman, whose apartment windows on the 10th floor look west onto Mr. Trump's construction site.

But just as a sense of relief and hope settled over the residents of the building, the reality of Mr. Trump's project shocked them. The only windows in a number of apartments will be completely blocked by Mr. Trump's tower. In some spots, the new building will be 3 to 48 inches away, according to the lawsuit. The tower will be so close, Mr. Seader said, that the fire escapes could be turned into dangerous chimneys in the event of a fire.

Assemblyman Scott Stringer said he had asked the city to intervene, but so far, each of the appropriate agencies has said the matter is out of its hands.

"We're looking at the issues," said Ilyse Fink, spokeswoman for the Buildings Department. "But the siting of the building was approved by City Planning."

Not so fast, said Robyn Stein, Ms. Fink's counterpart in the Department of City Planning.

"It's not under our purview anymore," she said. "We went through the land use process 10 years ago. We approved a facade and an envelope," or a space within which a developer can design a building. "But the design wasn't detailed. They have to go to the Buildings Department."

So the Chatsworth owners are trying to force Mr. Trump to redesign his tower so it does not encroach on their property. They contend that they own the 36-inch strip of land atop the retaining wall at the edge of the two properties as a result of a 100-year-old deal with Chauncey M. Depew, president of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company.

According to the documents, Mr. Depew wanted to build the retaining wall on the two properties in 1887 so that rocks, earth and debris would not fall on his train tracks. In a subsequent agreement, Mr. Depew gave his neighbor the right to excavate a portion of the retaining wall and erect the western foundation of what became the Chatsworth.

The Chatsworth's current owners contend that Mr. Depew also said that the three-foot strip along the top of the retaining wall and along the west side of the Chatsworth belongs to the building. Even if he did not, the Chatsworth lawyers contend, the Chatsworth has established ownership by maintaining the fence and the locked steel gates at either end of the strip for more than 30 years.

"It's totally without merit," Mr. Trump said of the Chatsworth lawsuit.

The Trump project's lawyers claim that the developer owns the top of the retaining wall and can therefore build a tower that will rise up against that wall and then cantilever over the top of it and almost, in some places, brush up against the Chatsworth.

Howard S. Weiss, a lawyer for the Chatsworth owners, said that they had tried to reach a compromise with Mr. Trump this year. But, Mr. Weiss said, when City Planning officials indicated they would consider their alternative proposal from the Chatsworth group, the talks were broken off. He vowed to continue the battle.

"This is not about views," Mr. Weiss said. "We understand that the reality of life in New York is that there's always going to be development and views are going to be lost and gained. This is about light, air and safety."

Gulcrapek
October 21st, 2002, 04:03 PM
So make it thinner and taller.. geez

chris
December 16th, 2002, 04:56 PM
Does anyone have photo progress or renderings of this building?:
"HRH Construction has already begun working on an unusual 35-story tower designed by Costas Kondylis."

Derek2k3
January 25th, 2003, 08:34 PM
looks like 17 State Street my ass...maybe in the dark.

240 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place http://www.kondylis.com/projects/00a09.html

240 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place, or Building A at Trump Place is part of a large-scale residential architecture project on Riverside South in New York City. These buildings are being designed and constructed for Trump New World Project Management and Hudson Waterfront Associates. This building will have 409,000 square feet of rental space upon completion.

http://www.kondylis.com/images/photos/00a09_ab1.jpg http://www.kondylis.com/images/photos/00a09_ab2.jpg

http://www.kondylis.com/images/photos/00a09_ab4.jpg http://www.kondylis.com/images/photos/00a09_ab3.jpg

http://www.kondylis.com/images/photos/00a09_ab5.jpg

enzo
January 25th, 2003, 10:27 PM
Yuck. How is that "unusual" as stated in the first article?

Looks like a great condo-complex for Buckhead, Atlanta but falls really short of anything that deserves built on a bluff overlooking the Hudson. Not much interesting in the entire development if you ask me.

NYguy
January 26th, 2003, 01:39 AM
I like it. *For a residential building, its better than 17 State St. *17 State is nice, but it does stick out from the rest of Downtown. *This building will be a nice addition not only to Trump's development, but the entire Upper Westside...


http://www.kondylis.com/images/photos/00a09_ab1.jpg

NYguy
January 26th, 2003, 01:41 AM
I'm still more interested in this area of the development though...


"We're designing a fantastic, residential development on that site," Trump confirmed. "It's zoned now for commercial and it's very early in the process, but we will be going for that [zoning] fairly soon."

DominicanoNYC
February 21st, 2003, 07:18 PM
Trump is starting to become the *juggernaut of residential buildings. He's buying property like crazy. This render looks nice though.

JerzDevl2000
February 22nd, 2003, 03:26 AM
Not a bad building, I think Mr. Kondylis also designed TWT.

The renderings are better than that architecture itself. Anyone else think that this should have more than a flat top. C'mon!

Edward
March 25th, 2003, 07:08 PM
Riverside South's official website, www.riverside-south.org , is coming soon:

Riverside South is a $3 billion real estate and public use development on the 52-acre site of the former New York Central Railroad yards on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The final Riverside South project will include 5,700 new apartments and condominiums at both market and affordable rates and a 27-acre public waterfront park along the Hudson River financed with private funds. The Riverside South Planning Corporation exists to implement details of the master plan, including enforcing building design controls, overseeing park construction, and lobbying for the relocation of the elevated Miller Highway, the noisy, obstructive and potentially dangerous structure that cuts through the entirety of the new waterfront park.


Hudson River waterfront in January of 2002, with the gantry of the float bridge of New York Central Railroad (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=1&topic=32) and George Washington Bridge (http://www.wirednewyork.com/bridges/gwb/default.htm) in the background.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/guide/ny_central_railroad/gantry_ny_central_railroad_gwb.jpg



Construction started on a 27-acre public waterfront park along the Hudson River. 24 March 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/parks/riverside_south/riverside_south_park_24march03.jpg

TLOZ Link5
March 25th, 2003, 07:38 PM
it's certainly a worthwhile reclamation of brownfields.

Evan
March 25th, 2003, 07:41 PM
Any chance they would either submerge or relocate that highway in the second picture???

JerzDevl2000
March 26th, 2003, 03:26 AM
Evan,

Here's the answer to your question

http://www.nycroads.com/roads/west-side/

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

From the above link:

"North of West 57th Street, the urban boulevard ties into the rebuilt "Miller Highway" viaduct. Originally constructed as an extension of the West Side Highway, this elevated highway opened in 1936 to serve as a connector to the Henry Hudson Parkway (which officially begins at West 72nd Street). Throughout the 1990's, the Federal and state governments spent $80 million to bring the viaduct up to current operational and seismic standards. (Preliminary studies are underway for the relocation of the elevated "Miller Highway" section from West 72nd Street south to West 59th Street. The design studies, for which $17 million has been allocated, will be completed in 2003.) "

Keep your fingers crossed - I'd like to see Riverside Park connect seamlessly with this proposal and go right down to 57th St.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2003, 08:43 AM
There's no info yet on the website Edward posted. There is a
sign at the park construction site with drawings. The agreement between Trump and the city states that he pays for the construction and maintenance of the park. The project involves extensive road work. Fill is brought in to slope the land up to the level of the existing streets. Riverside Blvd is constructed on top, along with connecting side streets.

The Miller Highway would submerge at 72 St, run under Riverside Blvd, and return to grade at 57 St. The problem with the tunnel is money. The highway was completely rebuilt in 1996, and in 1999 Congressman Jerrold Nadler opposed "rebuilding a new highway that would only benefit Trump."
The financial picture has gotten a lot worse since 1999, so I think the odds of this tunnel getting built soon are slim.

The drawings on the site show a logical approach. The "interim" park is being built (basically the waterfront). There are two plans for a final park, one with a tunnel, and one with the existing highway. Maybe the situation will change by the time the project is complete.

Kris
June 12th, 2003, 09:41 AM
June 12, 2003

New Park on Hudson Fills Gap in Greenery

By PATRICK HEALY

Malissa Liburdi remembers when the east bank of the Hudson River was a nest of rotting railways and a haven for drug dealers and addicts. The riverfront was unsettling in the daylight and unsafe at night, said Ms. Liburdi, 40, who has lived on the Upper West Side for 15 years.

But yesterday, Ms. Liburdi ambled along a newly opened section of Riverside Park South, her nephew and brown-and-white spotted dog in tow. As joggers and bikers zipped along the river, Ms. Liburdi said she was pleased to see the industrial riverfront evolving into parkland.

"We're very excited about this new park opening," Ms. Liburdi said. "The trees and the water and the grass — it's kind of a balance of nature."

Donald J. Trump gave a three-acre swath of land between 65th and 69th Streets to the city yesterday. It was another step in Mr. Trump's planned $3 billion development, which will add 16 apartment buildings and 29 acres of public park to the east shore of the Hudson River between 59th and 72nd Streets.

"When all the phases are complete, there'll be nothing to touch it," Mr. Trump said.

Riverside Park South will "close the gap" between Riverside Park on the north side and Hudson River Park on the south, said Henry J. Stern, the former Parks Department commissioner.

Lying in the shadow of the West Side Highway, the newest parcel of park features marsh grasses and boardwalks that curl like ribbons. Thomas Balsley, architect for the Riverside South project, said the park is designed to evoke memories of railroads, which once loaded and unloaded freight cars at piers that are now toppled hunks of burnt metal.

The $62 million Riverside Park South project is just one example of a citywide attempt to convert miles of waterfront to green space. The city is reviving the waterfront and marina at Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens, parks on the Harlem and Bronx Rivers and a five-mile walkway on the northern shore of Staten Island.

"This is taking the decrepit industrial waterfront and returning it to a natural state," said Michael Bradley, executive director of the Riverside South Planning Corporation. "People are rediscovering the waterfront."

And at Riverside South, the city is paying nothing, said Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe. As part of a 1992 deal that allowed the Riverside complex, Mr. Trump and his partners agreed to pay to renovate and maintain the park.

The new segment cost $8.5 million to renovate. Maintenance and security at all of Riverside South currently costs about $1 million per year, which is paid by Mr. Trump and his partners.

Parks department officials said construction on the third phase of the park will begin this September and be completed by 2004.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

czsz
April 4th, 2006, 12:32 AM
Photo found on flickr...they should have restored the old viaduct with its industrial-chic archways...

http://static.flickr.com/3/5081350_ee1c75184e_b.jpg

vc10
April 4th, 2006, 11:26 AM
I was up there a week or so ago -- the connector from Riverside Blvd to 79th St has yet to be finished. What's the schedule for that or is litigation still stopping it?

Peakrate212
April 4th, 2006, 12:25 PM
Any chance they would either submerge or relocate that highway in the second picture???

Evan - go read about the highway under the Thread on The Avery.....We talk all about it and how you have to blame the govt reps for the West side for our exposed highway......talk to Fat boy Nadler

BPC
April 5th, 2006, 01:21 AM
I bicyle through their frequently and think the park and highway work well together. The combo creates a cool urban setting, with weather-protected BB courts and such underneath. If you want pristine green lawns, move to the burbs.

czsz
April 5th, 2006, 02:16 AM
I guess we ought to divert the funds for Hudson River Park to soup kitchens then, and sell off Central Park to developers. Damned suburban intrusions.

BPC
April 5th, 2006, 03:00 AM
"I guess we ought to bulldoze Rockefeller Center and Times Square then and put up green lawns. Damn urban intrustions."

See -- your argument works in both directions! Cities are about diversity and balance, not purity. The stretch of Riverside Park in front of the Trump buildings, IMHO, achieves that balance. The oinly real beneficiairies of a billion dollar project to bury that viaduct would be Donald Trump and his Asian investors, as the lower stories of those new buildings would be vested with river views. Congressman Nadler was right not to support federal funding for something that would only benefit a private developer.

vc10
April 5th, 2006, 05:39 AM
Disagree. First of all, Trump and the Asian investors are out of there, so he's no longer the beneficiary.

Secondly, burying the traffic is its own reward -- making the park (and it's a public park...) far more useful and attractive.

The Westway was a good idea. Anything that makes the waterfront more accessible is a good idea. Long term, the city should seek to bury all of its waterfront highways, which were a really bad mistake (by among others, Robert Moses) when they were built.


The oinly real beneficiairies of a billion dollar project to bury that viaduct would be Donald Trump and his Asian investors, as the lower stories of those new buildings would be vested with river views. Congressman Nadler was right not to support federal funding for something that would only benefit a private developer.

ZippyTheChimp
April 5th, 2006, 08:57 AM
Burying the viaduct would make sense in a world of unlimited funds, but given the present fiscal realities, it would divert money from other projects.

The viaduct has no impact on accessibility to the river. Unlike the FDR, it is about 6 stories high for much of its length, and does not have a roadway beneath it. That land is put to good park use, the viaduct providing a canopy for basketball courts.

Except near 72nd St, the roadway is far removed from the buildings, so the impact on residents is minimal. It blocks river views, so that should be a consideration when deciding what floor to live on - standard practice for Manhattan home-hunting.

Spending billions to bury a roadway that has not yet reached middle-age is a waste of money; it would be better spent burying the Gowanus Expwy, where the DOT is spending hundreds of millions just to keep it from falling apart.

vc10
April 5th, 2006, 02:23 PM
That might be true, but saying that burying it would only benefit a private developer is wrong.



Spending billions to bury a roadway that has not yet reached middle-age is a waste of money; it would be better spent burying the Gowanus Expwy, where the DOT is spending hundreds of millions just to keep it from falling apart.

ZippyTheChimp
April 5th, 2006, 02:33 PM
I didn't say that at all. Acknowledging fiscal limitations, I pointed out that this project would be a lesser priority than, among others, the example I cited.

NYatKNIGHT
April 5th, 2006, 02:50 PM
http://www.pbase.com/image/58236257.jpg

ablarc
April 5th, 2006, 03:34 PM
http://www.pbase.com/image/58236257.jpg
So this is almost alright, right?

ZippyTheChimp
April 5th, 2006, 04:57 PM
Compared to this...

http://www.oldnyc.com/lomex/watts_elizabeth/Dscn0092.jpg http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/043Summer/images/19gowanus.jpg

http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/brooklyn/bqe/avoidingtraffic/21bqe.jpg

I'd say it's perfect.

JMGarcia
April 5th, 2006, 05:30 PM
I hear there's plans to replace the ill-fated tunnel between the WFC and WTC with a high viaduct along the BPC waterfront... ;)

lofter1
April 5th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Didn't Libeskind have a circular ramp (aka viaduct for peeps) linking WTC + WFC in his original Master Plan?

ZippyTheChimp
April 5th, 2006, 06:20 PM
Who?

JMGarcia
April 5th, 2006, 07:13 PM
LOL

I needed a good laugh.

BrooklynRider
April 6th, 2006, 12:50 PM
I like the new park, but I think there is a big difference in quality between it and the Hudson River Park sections that are completed. The Trump Park (Riverside park?) seems to have been done on the cheap to some extent and the plantings are kind of mundane and repetitive. It is is an immense improvement over what was there before, but for me it is lacking somethingI can't quire put my finger on.

finnman69
April 6th, 2006, 01:10 PM
I like the new park, but I think there is a big difference in quality between it and the Hudson River Park sections that are completed. The Trump Park (Riverside park?) seems to have been done on the cheap to some extent and the plantings are kind of mundane and repetitive. It is is an immense improvement over what was there before, but for me it is lacking somethingI can't quire put my finger on.

Hanging out in the summer by the boardwalks is wonderful. All that sea grass makes me forget I'm in NYC. It feels like Amagansett or Cape Cod.

JMGarcia
April 6th, 2006, 01:50 PM
I like the new park, but I think there is a big difference in quality between it and the Hudson River Park sections that are completed. The Trump Park (Riverside park?) seems to have been done on the cheap to some extent and the plantings are kind of mundane and repetitive. It is is an immense improvement over what was there before, but for me it is lacking somethingI can't quire put my finger on.

I think that having something so large and tall (the elevated) running through it completely changes the scale of everything else in the park making everything seem somewhat small rather than a feeling of openess I think it would have otherwise.

czsz
April 6th, 2006, 01:52 PM
It feels like Amagansett or Cape Cod.

...if they were under a giant bridge...

Anyway, isn't sea grass inappropriate for the Hudson riverfront? It isn't an Atlantic beach...

lofter1
April 6th, 2006, 02:52 PM
Anyway, isn't sea grass inappropriate for the Hudson riverfront? It isn't an Atlantic beach...
As opposed to, say, a manicured lawn?

czsz
April 6th, 2006, 03:09 PM
It could have had little rock outcroppings to mimic the Palisades. Something more riverine. Hudson-y. They could have even tumbled something down from viaduct level ...

NYatKNIGHT
April 6th, 2006, 04:22 PM
The section just south of the last finished section is sort of like that - natural trees and plants, and rocks right down to the water. Is this a future part of the park, anyone? There is nothing but creepy camp sites and litter there now.

lofter1
April 6th, 2006, 08:45 PM
Eventually there will be park all the way to 59th St. where the Hudson River Park begins.

Info (http://www.nylcv.org/Programs/WPC/blueprint/boroughs/manhattan/pages/3_riverside/index.htm)

lofter1
April 6th, 2006, 08:48 PM
There is a THREAD (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3059), with a link to the Park website but the website still says "under construction" :mad:

lofter1
April 6th, 2006, 08:52 PM
Some Cool Pics (http://www.figure-ground.com/travel/image.php?piers) of the old collapsed piers, like this ...

http://www.figure-ground.com/travel/piers/0023.jpg

BPC
April 14th, 2006, 12:26 AM
God those are beautiful. Whenever I muster up the energy to bicycle the Hudson (rarer and rarer), seeing the collapsed piers is the highlight. Of course, Trump wants them carted off to the dump.

krulltime
April 14th, 2006, 11:14 AM
There is a THREAD (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3059), with a link to the Park website but the website still says "under construction" :mad:

Yes it has been for along time. Stupid website.

MidtownGuy
April 14th, 2006, 08:52 PM
Like a Gehry design that happened naturally. I love seeing this when I'm rollerblading.

lofter1
June 23rd, 2006, 11:52 AM
The Surprise in This Box?
A Highway, Some Assembly Required

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/06/23/nyregion/0623-met-webBOX.jpghttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif

By JAMES BARRON
June 23, 2006
NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/nyregion/23box.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Quietly, if the arrival of a wheezing, chugging pile driver can be described that way, a construction crew is beginning to build a highway in a box on the West Side of Manhattan.

Or, more precisely, a box for a highway.

Maybe, years from now, the highway will be routed through the box. Maybe.

The road is the West Side Highway, which between West 59th and West 72nd Streets runs on a viaduct. For generations the ground below the viaduct was a no-man's land of railroad tracks. But as apartment buildings began to rise above it, on the eastern edge of the 13-block-long parcel in the 1990's, the lower western edge was transformed into a 23-acre park.

Now, as work begins on four more apartment buildings in the planned 17-building community, the highway-in-a-box crew will build the structure to contain the West Side Highway between 59th and 72nd Streets when the viaduct is no longer viable. Because the viaduct is less than 15 years old — still fairly young for a viaduct — no one expects the city to consider routing the road through the box for at least 10 to 15 years.

Michael W. Bradley, who has played a major role in getting the highway-in-a-box going, is careful to say what the project is not. It is not Westway, the underground road that residents waged war on and that the city abandoned in the 1980's. It is nothing like the Big Dig, Boston's leak-prone tunnel project, and its $180 million price tag is nowhere near the Big Dig's $14.6 billion.

"It's all relatively simple construction," said Mr. Bradley, the executive director of Riverside South Planning Corporation, a nonprofit organization formed by five civic groups and Donald J. Trump (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/donald_j_trump/index.html?inline=nyt-per), when he was the developer for the buildings at the edge of the site. "You don't have to excavate and relocate the utilities and shore everything up."

Unless the utilities and the buildings to which they are connected have already been built.

That is why the four new buildings created an opportunity for Mr. Bradley's group to start on the box, as well as what he called "Rubik's Cube of construction" — the work on the box would have to be coordinated with work on the four new buildings.

The first step in building the box is to place steel support columns — hence the pile driver — between 65th and 64th Streets.

"If this is done now, you save a ton of money and heartaches," Mr. Bradley said. He estimated that the savings would total "at least $40 million."

But with the box ready when the viaduct needs to be replaced, the cost of rerouting the highway could be about the same as building a new viaduct.

Some excavation would still be necessary, because the space for the box between 65th and 69th Streets was filled in when the first of the apartment buildings was being built. The box was suggested in the city's 1992 agreement that allowed Riverside South to be built, and the responsibility for building it was the developer's.

For years the developer was Mr. Trump, who Mr. Bradley acknowledged was a "lightning rod" for opponents. "Just by his presence," Mr. Bradley said, "there were people who might have seen the merits of the project but were either turned off or scared."

But Mr. Trump's Hong Kong partners sold the Riverside project last year for $1.76 billion. And now Jerrold L. Nadler, who represented the Upper West Side in the New York State Assembly and now represents it in Congress, says that "their obligation was to build the box at their expense — Trump, Riverside South, whoever's building it."

By Riverside South's calculations, $30 million in private money will be spent on the box project, along with $150 million in city, state and federal transportation money. The state is committed to building the southbound section of the box between 65th and 62nd Streets, Riverside South says.

But Mr. Nadler took issue with using city or state money to excavate filled-in stretch between 65th and 69th Streets. "They're going to say, 'We have to remove the landfill and build the box at public expense,' " Mr. Nadler said.

"That's wrong. If and when there's an agreement that we ought to move the highway, then the box ought to be there, built at their expense, not at public expense."

Mr. Bradley said that by the time the environmental impact statement on the highway-in-a-box concept was finally completed in 2001, there was a consensus that "it doesn't make any sense to do this now, but maybe we'll get back to this" when the existing elevated road is showing its age.

Some longtime opponents of the Westway are equally unhappy about the box project. "It is absolutely the wrong thing to do," said Olive Freud, an organizer of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development.

"If they wanted to do something for the people in the neighborhood, they'd complete Riverside Boulevard and forget about the highway," she said. The boulevard was created to run in front of the new apartment buildings.

But the parks commissioner, Adrian Benepe, said the park "will be a better park if the highway is underground and the park's on top."

"It really makes a lot of sense," he added. He called Carl Schurz Park, on the Upper East Side next to Gracie Mansion, "a much better park because the highway is underneath it, not next to it or on top of it."

"I think a lot of people now realize no matter how nice Hudson River Park is, it would have been nicer if Westway had been built in some configuration," he said. "The highway would have been underground, we would have had a much larger park and a much better connection from the community to the park."

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

lofter1
June 23rd, 2006, 11:57 AM
... the parks commissioner, Adrian Benepe, said ...

"I think a lot of people now realize no matter how nice Hudson River Park is, it would have been nicer if Westway had been built in some configuration," he said. "The highway would have been underground, we would have had a much larger park and a much better connection from the community to the park."

Oy -- Revisionism :( :mad: :( :mad:

Sure, Mr. Benepe, spend the billions that come out of the taxpayer's pockets.

Did Benepe ever meet a developer he DIDN'T like?

finnman69
June 28th, 2006, 04:14 PM
The Surprise in This Box?
A Highway, Some Assembly Required

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/06/23/nyregion/0623-met-webBOX.jpghttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif

By JAMES BARRON
June 23, 2006
NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/nyregion/23box.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Quietly, if the arrival of a wheezing, chugging pile driver can be described that way, a construction crew is beginning to build a highway in a box on the West Side of Manhattan.

Or, more precisely, a box for a highway.

Maybe, years from now, the highway will be routed through the box. Maybe.

The road is the West Side Highway, which between West 59th and West 72nd Streets runs on a viaduct. For generations the ground below the viaduct was a no-man's land of railroad tracks. But as apartment buildings began to rise above it, on the eastern edge of the 13-block-long parcel in the 1990's, the lower western edge was transformed into a 23-acre park.

Now, as work begins on four more apartment buildings in the planned 17-building community, the highway-in-a-box crew will build the structure to contain the West Side Highway between 59th and 72nd Streets when the viaduct is no longer viable. Because the viaduct is less than 15 years old — still fairly young for a viaduct — no one expects the city to consider routing the road through the box for at least 10 to 15 years.

Michael W. Bradley, who has played a major role in getting the highway-in-a-box going, is careful to say what the project is not. It is not Westway, the underground road that residents waged war on and that the city abandoned in the 1980's. It is nothing like the Big Dig, Boston's leak-prone tunnel project, and its $180 million price tag is nowhere near the Big Dig's $14.6 billion.

"It's all relatively simple construction," said Mr. Bradley, the executive director of Riverside South Planning Corporation, a nonprofit organization formed by five civic groups and Donald J. Trump (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/donald_j_trump/index.html?inline=nyt-per), when he was the developer for the buildings at the edge of the site. "You don't have to excavate and relocate the utilities and shore everything up."

Unless the utilities and the buildings to which they are connected have already been built.

That is why the four new buildings created an opportunity for Mr. Bradley's group to start on the box, as well as what he called "Rubik's Cube of construction" — the work on the box would have to be coordinated with work on the four new buildings.

The first step in building the box is to place steel support columns — hence the pile driver — between 65th and 64th Streets.

"If this is done now, you save a ton of money and heartaches," Mr. Bradley said. He estimated that the savings would total "at least $40 million."

But with the box ready when the viaduct needs to be replaced, the cost of rerouting the highway could be about the same as building a new viaduct.

Some excavation would still be necessary, because the space for the box between 65th and 69th Streets was filled in when the first of the apartment buildings was being built. The box was suggested in the city's 1992 agreement that allowed Riverside South to be built, and the responsibility for building it was the developer's.

For years the developer was Mr. Trump, who Mr. Bradley acknowledged was a "lightning rod" for opponents. "Just by his presence," Mr. Bradley said, "there were people who might have seen the merits of the project but were either turned off or scared."

But Mr. Trump's Hong Kong partners sold the Riverside project last year for $1.76 billion. And now Jerrold L. Nadler, who represented the Upper West Side in the New York State Assembly and now represents it in Congress, says that "their obligation was to build the box at their expense — Trump, Riverside South, whoever's building it."

By Riverside South's calculations, $30 million in private money will be spent on the box project, along with $150 million in city, state and federal transportation money. The state is committed to building the southbound section of the box between 65th and 62nd Streets, Riverside South says.

But Mr. Nadler took issue with using city or state money to excavate filled-in stretch between 65th and 69th Streets. "They're going to say, 'We have to remove the landfill and build the box at public expense,' " Mr. Nadler said.

"That's wrong. If and when there's an agreement that we ought to move the highway, then the box ought to be there, built at their expense, not at public expense."

Mr. Bradley said that by the time the environmental impact statement on the highway-in-a-box concept was finally completed in 2001, there was a consensus that "it doesn't make any sense to do this now, but maybe we'll get back to this" when the existing elevated road is showing its age.

Some longtime opponents of the Westway are equally unhappy about the box project. "It is absolutely the wrong thing to do," said Olive Freud, an organizer of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development.

"If they wanted to do something for the people in the neighborhood, they'd complete Riverside Boulevard and forget about the highway," she said. The boulevard was created to run in front of the new apartment buildings.

But the parks commissioner, Adrian Benepe, said the park "will be a better park if the highway is underground and the park's on top."

"It really makes a lot of sense," he added. He called Carl Schurz Park, on the Upper East Side next to Gracie Mansion, "a much better park because the highway is underneath it, not next to it or on top of it."

"I think a lot of people now realize no matter how nice Hudson River Park is, it would have been nicer if Westway had been built in some configuration," he said. "The highway would have been underground, we would have had a much larger park and a much better connection from the community to the park."

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company


This is such a no brainer to create a great park and bury an ugly highway. Creative use of construction and site planning. I had been wondering why they sank all those pilings and poured a concrete mat foundation for a bermed hill. It's actually for a future rerouting of the West Side highway. Brilliant.

antinimby
June 28th, 2006, 04:57 PM
This is such a no brainer to create a great park and bury an ugly highway. Creative use of construction and site planning. I had been wondering why they sank all those pilings and poured a concrete mat foundation for a bermed hill. It's actually for a future rerouting of the West Side highway. Brilliant.Yes, but apparently some people will always complain:


Some longtime opponents of the Westway are equally unhappy about the box project. "It is absolutely the wrong thing to do," said Olive Freud, an organizer of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development.

lofter1
June 28th, 2006, 05:24 PM
It really comes down to who will pay for it. Does the cost have enough benefit to justify it??

antinimby
June 28th, 2006, 05:31 PM
If you want to improve anything, it's going to cost money.
Better now than later on, when the costs will only increase.
Like finnman said, this is a no brainer, they gotta do it.

lofter1
June 28th, 2006, 05:41 PM
No -- they don't.

There are better more immediate uses of the limited amounts of OUR taxpayer dollars.

ablarc
June 28th, 2006, 05:52 PM
...this is a no brainer, they gotta do it.
I'm with antinimby on this one. An elevated highway is no asset to a park.

antinimby
June 28th, 2006, 05:54 PM
lofter, there always is but that doesn't mean you ignore other things because they don't seem too important or urgent now. If you wait until things fall apart to worry about them, then you are not running a city wisely.

antinimby
June 28th, 2006, 05:57 PM
I'm with antinimby on this one. An elevated highway is no asset to a park.No ablarc, it's not only about the park. When that highway needs replacing (and eventually you know it will) they'd have this ready to go. They need to do it now because they are building in the area and working it in now is much easier than having to tear up and redo everything later on. That's the idea.

ZippyTheChimp
June 28th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Building the box now is a good idea.

Replacing the highway while it is still in good condition is a waste of public money.

lofter1
June 28th, 2006, 06:17 PM
Exactly ^^ just rebuilt ~ 10 years ago.

BPC
June 29th, 2006, 01:45 AM
Building the box now is a good idea.

Replacing the highway while it is still in good condition is a waste of public money.

Agreed. Eventually, decades from now, the higway will need replacing, and then that generation can decide how best to do the job. OUR generation is now facing that decision with the Gowanus, which (unlike the Upper West Side, which is already fully developed) presents an ENORMOUS development opportunity if the viaduct is torn down. As for the West Side Highway, the architects behind the East River park plan presented some nifty ideas for how to make an underpass into a pedestrian-pleasing experience. They should be called upon to design the West Side Highway underpass as well. If nothing else, the example of Grand Central and Park Avenue should teach us that an elevated viaduct need not be a blight on its surroundings.

ZippyTheChimp
June 29th, 2006, 08:17 AM
Let's not forget the BQE.

The generally accepted life span for an elevated highway in the Northeast environment is 50 years. The BQE is approaching 70.

Rebuilding in place is a very slow and expensive process, and you're left with another 50 year roadway. The best solution is a tunnel, which can be built without disrupting the existing El, is easier to maintain, and improves the landscape.

It is being done in Europe
http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/a86/

TREPYE
June 29th, 2006, 11:23 AM
If they are ever going to put the BQE underground its a hell of a lot of subway tunnels that they are going to have to work around.

krulltime
June 29th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Yes... just imagine all the exits they have to make coming out of those tunnels.

SilentPandaesq
June 29th, 2006, 02:56 PM
To bury the BQE... you would need MASSIVE TBMs, working round the clock and deep underground to do it in any reasonable time frame. Watch "I, Robot" and think that this is the level of deep under ground and complexity required. On and off ramps would be underground spiraled nightmares....


Although, would be pretty cool to see the DOT come up with a plan like that.

ZippyTheChimp
June 29th, 2006, 08:46 PM
If they are ever going to put the BQE underground its a hell of a lot of subway tunnels that they are going to have to work around.The only place that there are a lot of tunnels is the section at Brooklyn Heights, where you wouldn't have to bury the roadway at all. Three sides are already enclosed; all is needed is a non-load bearing wall.


To bury the BQE... you would need MASSIVE TBMs, working round the clock and deep underground to do it in any reasonable time frame. Watch "I, Robot" and think that this is the level of deep under ground and complexity required. On and off ramps would be underground spiraled nightmares....Those TBMS are already in existence and being used worldwide. A tunnel is now the preferred alternative for the Gowanus replacement.

http://www.dot.state.ny.us/reg/r11/gowanus/index.html

antinimby
June 30th, 2006, 12:47 AM
Ah yes, the BQE-Gowanus Expressway project.
Est. completion date: 2300 A.D.

lofter1
June 30th, 2006, 07:25 AM
Does that date ^ apply even after portions of the Gowanus come crashing down?

finnman69
July 25th, 2006, 12:21 PM
They started foundation work for extending Riverside Boulevard and 64th st to the Blvd.

The Avery is up to the second floor.

the Rushmore
piling work is beginning

Derek2k3
July 26th, 2006, 02:08 AM
Went by Trump Place on Sunday and took some pics...damn this 10 image limit.

A lil intro.
http://static.flickr.com/59/198577970_96375fd3c7_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/76/198568671_a88281f6ba_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/76/198569430_e05f045e7a_o.jpg
Costas Kondylis & Partners (http://www.kondylis.com/)


Some of the old proposals
http://static.flickr.com/69/198568669_06de77718d_o.jpg
Lincoln West Master Plan (1985)
Commercial, Master Planning, Mixed Use, Residential
Rafael Vinoly Architects (http://www.rvapc.com)


http://static.flickr.com/71/198571332_9ded66a0fa_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/69/198571330_a4e0eed66d.jpg
Television City (1987)


http://static.flickr.com/59/198568670_82b01bc83e_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/62/198569431_0e084f587a_o.jpg
Riverside South; SOM (1992)
Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill (http://www.som.com)

Derek2k3
July 26th, 2006, 02:08 AM
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8614/img0204io7.th.jpg (http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0204io7.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7968/img0215wo7.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0215wo7.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6185/img0211pb6.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0211pb6.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1920/img0216fv2.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0216fv2.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8141/img0218hj2.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0218hj2.jpg)
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7118/img0225bx2.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0225bx2.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/8300/img0235hz8.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0235hz8.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/382/img0228lg2.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0228lg2.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2708/img0226qm0.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0226qm0.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9664/img0224db1.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0224db1.jpg)

Derek2k3
July 26th, 2006, 02:09 AM
http://static.flickr.com/60/198568665_a6828fb9bb_m.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2091/img0212kl7.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0212kl7.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7747/img0209xk9.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0209xk9.jpg)
The Heritage at Trump Place
240 Riverside Boulevard/ Riverside South Building A
31 stories 362 feet
Costas Kondylis & Partners
Dev-Hudson Waterfront Associates/ Trump New World Project Management
Residential Condominium
174 units 368,150
Completed 2002-2005
$125,000,000



http://static.flickr.com/77/198567211_5ec4fa8f82_m.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3955/img0214ei6.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0214ei6.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6981/img0213uz8.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0213uz8.jpg)
220 Riverside Boulevard
220 Riverside Boulevard & Between West 70th Street & West 71st Street Trump Place/ Riverside South Building B
542 feet 48 stories
Costas Kondylis & Partners LLP Architects
Dev-Hudson Waterfront Associates/ Trump New World Project Management
Residential Condominium
441 units 784,747 Sq. Ft.
Completed 2001-April 2003



http://static.flickr.com/67/198567210_a5e3a1048c_m.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5784/img0217qj9.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0217qj9.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/790/img0222mn7.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0222mn7.jpg)
200 Riverside Boulevard
423-463 West 69th Street/ 422-444 West 70th Street
Riverside South Building C
46 stories 491 feet
Costas Kondylis & Partners/ Philip Johnson Alan Ritchie Architects
Dev-Hudson Waterfront Associates/ Trump New World Project Management
Residential Condominium
562,910 Sq. Ft./ 643,000 Sq. Ft. 374 units
Completed 1999/2000

Derek2k3
July 26th, 2006, 02:15 AM
http://static.flickr.com/70/198567208_158a702b66_m.jpg http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5927/img0238ii5.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0238ii5.jpg)
180 Riverside Boulevard
455 West 68th Street/ 428-488 West 69th Street/ 185-199 Freedom Place/ Riverside South Building D
40 stories 422 feet
Costas Kondylis & Partners/Philip Johnson Alan Ritchie Architects
Dev-Hudson Waterfront Associates/ Trump New World Project Management
Residential Rental
514 units 558,086 Sq. Ft.
Completed 1999



http://static.flickr.com/61/198567206_b3e8ebfa9c_m.jpg http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9320/img0239tm0.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0239tm0.jpg)
160 Riverside Boulevard
423-443 West 67th Street/444 West 68th Street/ 161-177 Freedom Place/ Riverside South Building E
33 stories 354 ft
Costas Kondylis & Partners/Philip Johnson Alan Ritchie Architects
Dev-160 Riverside D L.L.C./ Hudson Waterfront Associates/ Trump New World Project Management
Residential Rental
438 units 539,940 Sq. Ft.
Completed 2001



http://static.flickr.com/58/198567205_b137122d0a_m.jpg http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3805/img0240xp4.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0240xp4.jpg)
140 Riverside Boulevard
143-157 Freedom Place, 433 West 66th Street/ 434 West 67th Street
Riverside South Building F
27 stories 338 feet
SLCE/ Costas Kondylis & Partners/ Philip Johnson Alan Ritchie Architects
Dev-Hudson Waterfront Associates/ Trump New World Project Management
Residential Rental
354 units 355,600 Sq. Ft.
Completed October 2001-2003



http://static.flickr.com/57/198567204_b3e8ebfa9c_m.jpg

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6720/img0241hi3.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0241hi3.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4810/img0250tp2.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0250tp2.jpg)
120 Riverside Boulevard
West 65th and 66th and Riverside Boulevard Riverside South Building G
18 stories 230/234 feet
Philip Johnson/Alan Ritchie Costas Kondylis & Partners, LLP/ SLCE
Dev-Hudson Waterfront Associates/ Trump New World Project Management
Residential Rental
272 units 389,568 Sq. Ft.
Completed 2003-2005



http://static.flickr.com/73/198568667_bd52cebf82_m.jpg
One West End Avenue (O-2)
1-29 West End Avenue
25 stories 293 feet (DOB)
Costas Kondylis & Partners
Dev-Atlantic Development Group
Residential Rental
211 units 198,000 ft² Sq. Ft. 284,074 Sq. Ft. (Total)
Under Construction 2005-Late 2006


33 West End Avenue
Riverside South O-1
14 stories 135 feet
Costas Kondylis & Partners
Dev-Atlantic Development Group (Senior Living Options,Inc.)
Residential Rental
120 units 85,000 Sq. Ft. 284,074 Sq. Ft. (Total)
Under Construction 2005-Summer 2006

Derek2k3
July 26th, 2006, 02:16 AM
(Continued from the previous page)


http://static.flickr.com/69/198568668_6654dca0da_m.jpg
Avery Riverside
100 Riverside Boulevard/ Riverside South Building H
30 stories 344 feet
SLCE Architects
Dev-Extell Parcel H, L.P. (Extell Development Corporation)
Residential Rental
271/274 units 480,000 Sq. Ft.
Under Construction 2005-Fall 2007


http://static.flickr.com/61/198571329_a8752e29db_m.jpg
The Rushmore
80 Riverside Boulevard
80 Riverside Boulevard btwn. W. 64th and W. 63rd St/ 900 Riverside Drive South
Riverside South Building I
41/43 stories 485 feet
Costas Kondylis & Partners
Dev-Extell Parcel I, L.P. (Extell Development Corporation)
Residential Condominium
497 units 429,140 Sq. Ft. (DOB: 650,330 Sq. Ft. 289 units) (274 units)
Proposed


60 Riverside Boulevard I
Riverside South Building J1/ Between West 62nd & West 63rd Street
38 stories
Dev-Extell Development Corporation
Residential Condominium
425 units
225 Parking Spaces
Proposed


60 Riverside Boulevard II
Riverside South Building J2/ Between West 62nd & West 63rd Street
28 stories
Dev-Extell Development Corporation
Residential Condominium
247 units 269,800 Sq. Ft.
225 Parking Spaces
Proposed


40 Riverside Boulevard I
Riverside South Building K2/ Between West 61st & West 62nd Street
33 stories
Dev-Extell Development Corporation
Residential Condominiums
354 units 411,400 Sq. Ft.
256 Car Parking Lot


40 Riverside Boulevard II
Btwn West 61st & West 62nd Street/Riverside South Building K2
28 stories
Extell Development Corporation
Residential Condominium
247 units 265,900 sq. ft
Proposed


http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/1559/img0227kf4.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0227kf4.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4724/img0261jd5.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0261jd5.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3959/img0254su0.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0254su0.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4261/img0232kz9.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0232kz9.jpg)

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/7417/img0249pb5.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0249pb5.jpg) http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2650/img0247lg5.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0247lg5.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5938/img0219ai6.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0219ai6.jpg) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9335/img0220eb4.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0220eb4.jpg)

krulltime
July 27th, 2006, 04:39 PM
Wow Derek2k3 thanks alot for the update!

So the Rushmore is the tallest of the whole Extel Development. Then it goes down hill (in terms of floors) from there.

NYguy
July 27th, 2006, 05:02 PM
http://static.flickr.com/71/198571332_9ded66a0fa_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/69/198571330_a4e0eed66d.jpg
Television City (1987)


I remember this one very well (1,670 ft - 1,910 ft antenna). I used to get pictures and renderings from the Trump Organization, including later revised designs. I'm sure Trump will dust off one of his old proposals now that his Chicago tower is going up.

pianoman11686
July 27th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Bring it down to Hudson Yards, and make it mainly commercial/hotel.

SilentPandaesq
July 27th, 2006, 05:46 PM
Oh, I loved that one.... NYguy, anything other than specualtion on Trump dusting off old plans? Dont' give me hope....I have been hurt too many times.

NYguy
July 27th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Oh, I loved that one.... NYguy, anything other than specualtion on Trump dusting off old plans? Dont' give me hope....I have been hurt too many times.

Sorry, nothing concrete. Just the fact that Trump never goes away, and you know he's just waiting to finally get his Manhattan supertall built. It will be his crowning achievement (assuming it gets done of course).

I think if a proposal of that scale does come from Trump, it will again be mostly residential, and be located on the Westside, where zoning will allow him to tune out the NIMBYs (as he did to the eastside NIMBYs with Trump World Tower).

SilentPandaesq
July 27th, 2006, 06:38 PM
^^ True enough. Hudson Yards is turning out to be the place to pin hopes on new supertalls. Not nearly as many rich NIMBYs in the area.

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 01:08 AM
In Hudson Yards does zoning allow for super-height if a developer puts together the right sized parcel?

pianoman11686
July 28th, 2006, 01:19 AM
I would think so. Many parcels are already prezoned for 60 stories, with a few as high as 80 stories, if memory serves me right. If a 30-story building only uses up half of its air rights, I don't see why a developer wouldn't be able to purchase and transfer those air rights to make his own building 90 stories instead of 60.

stache
July 28th, 2006, 04:48 AM
I think they would be pretty leery of doing that since Nadler was so successful at scaling back the original project.

ablarc
July 28th, 2006, 08:12 AM
^ Nadler the Nimby?

pianoman11686
July 28th, 2006, 10:35 AM
Is Hudson Yards even in Nadler's district? And if it is, do you honestly expect there to be enough opposition to building highrise office towers that they would get scaled down? Anyone who's ever heard of Hudson Yards knows what's planned for the area: an extension of Midtown.

stache
July 28th, 2006, 11:16 AM
What is there now is a scaled down version of the original plan due to intervention by Nadler. Any further construction plans will be closely watched.

finnman69
July 28th, 2006, 11:19 AM
^ Nadler the Nimby?


Best Trump line ever was when he called Nadler a gnat, "a very fat gnat"

JMGarcia
July 28th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Best Trump line ever was when he called Nadler a gnat, "a very fat gnat"

...and because of that line Nadler cut the federal funding to depress the highway through the area so now we have a lovely elevated highway above the park.

pianoman11686
July 28th, 2006, 12:00 PM
What is there now is a scaled down version of the original plan due to intervention by Nadler. Any further construction plans will be closely watched.

I know all of that. The new buildings going up in that area are at the most, 400-500 feet tall. I'm talking about Hudson Yards, which is a completely different area 40 blocks to the south. Have you not figured that out yet?

stache
July 28th, 2006, 01:26 PM
Piano I don't understand why you're so crabby lately. Look at the title of this thread and please post about Hudson Yards somewhere else. Thanks.

pianoman11686
July 28th, 2006, 01:46 PM
What is that supposed to mean? Crabby? All I was doing is trying to make sure that you knew what I was talking about. The prospect of a Television City-style, Trump development in Hudson Yards was brought up, and all you're talking about is how Nadler doomed the project in the Upper West Side.

Good job, by the way, at pointing out that the thread isn't about Hudson Yards. I'm sure you never post anything off-topic. And it's not as if I was the only one raising the issue: lofter, SilentPandaesq, and NYGuy all referenced it in some way.

But, as you wish, this will be my last post about Hudson Yards in this thread. You're welcome.

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 02:30 PM
I take some of the blame for that ^^ as I asked a specific question here about height in Hudson Yards ...

Often cross-informational posts are both beneficial and unavoidable as various areas / buildings do relate to each other.

ablarc
July 28th, 2006, 02:41 PM
Crabby is as crabby does.

finnman69
August 22nd, 2006, 03:46 PM
...and because of that line Nadler cut the federal funding to depress the highway through the area so now we have a lovely elevated highway above the park.

too bad he wont ever be voted out

Building 'I' foundation work started. Pile driving mania! Additionally, excavation for the through street connector at 64th street from West end has also begun.

virtualchoirboy
August 22nd, 2006, 07:07 PM
Im happy Nadler didnt approve it. The highway was there first.

finnman69
September 14th, 2006, 05:41 PM
http://www.archpaper.com/images/features/feature2006_13/d13_Rushmore.jpg
Location:80 Riverside Boulevard
Developer:Extell Development Corporation
Architect(s):Costas Kondylis and Partners
Consultant(s):Unavailable
Size: 41 floors, 289 units, 657,000 sq. ft
Completion (est.): 2008

Initially part of the massive Trump Place complex along Riverside Boulevard, the Rushmore was sold to Extell, which modified some of the floor plans to create larger units. Rising from a massive, block-long base, the Rushmore’s twin towers echo a popular Upper West Side design motif, seen most recently at the Time Warner Center.

ablarc
September 14th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Another OK addition to Riverside Boulevard, where Costas rises to high-mediocre. Why does this development get such bad reviews on this forum? Is it because the ground floors are sterile? At least they're not bland slabs in a park like their neighbors.

pianoman11686
September 20th, 2006, 02:59 PM
From http://cityrealty.com/new_developments:

Marketing starts for the Rushmore at 80 Riverside Boulevard 19-SEP-06

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1158683079_rushmoreb.jpg

Marketing has begun for The Rushmore, the 41-story, twin-towered residential condominium development at 80 Riverside Boulevard that occupies the blockfront between 64th and 63rdth Streets.

It is across 64th Street from The Avery, a 30-story condominium development and both are projects of the Extell Development Corporation on land it acquired from Donald Trump, who has developed several residential towers just to the north.

The Rushmore has been designed by Costas Kondylis and Partners, the architectural firm that has also designed the Avery and many of Mr. Trump’s projects.

The Rushmore has a 16-story base with corner windows at the north and south and a setback at the 4th floor in the center of the blockfront. The twin towers are setback and are joined at the lower three floors.

Mr. Kondylis has borrowed a stylistic treatment of the towers from Cesar Pelli’s World Financial Center at Battery Park City where the upper part of the towers have slightly protruding sections with different fenestration patterns.

Mr. Kondylis has kept his towers symmetrical and the protruding sections stop at the 34th story and the top five floors have a banded fenestration pattern reflecting the fact that are “penthouse” units.

A recent advertisement for the building showed the floor plan of the full-floor Penthouse A that is priced at $6,525,000 and it indicated that the apartment has an entrance gallery that leads to a very large living and dining room space with a fireplace and also has four bedrooms and a large family room and kitchen area facing the Hudson River.

The 425-foot-high Rushmore will have 289 one- to five-bedroom apartments priced from $1,000,000 to more than $7,000,000. Completion is planned for 2008.

The building will have 6 duplex apartments entered on the ground floor. Floors 2 and 3 will have 22 apartments. Floors 4, 5 and 6 will have 18 apartments. Floors 7 through 14 will have 10 apartments. Floors 15 through 17 will have 6 apartments. Floors 18 through 36 in each tower will have 2 apartments. Floors 37 through 41 in each tower will have one apartment.

The building will have a swimming pool, La Palestrina Fitness and Wellness Services, a 185-car garage, a children’s playroom designed by Kidville, NY, a billiards room, Abigail Michaels concierge, a bicycle room, and a theater and entertainment suite.

Residents will be offered a choice of three kitchen designs with fixtures by Sub-Zero, Viking, Miele and bathrooms will have fixtures by Kohler and Waterworks.

lofter1
October 9th, 2006, 10:20 AM
Re: Riverside South Park



The section just south of the last finished section is sort of like that - natural trees and plants, and rocks right down to the water. Is this a future part of the park, anyone? There is nothing but creepy camp sites and litter there now.

The entire southernmost section of Riverside South Park (Phase 4) is now closed off to access and has been cleared of all trees / shrubs. The pathway has been moved inland, now running under the elevated roadway almost all the way down to 59th Street.

New dirt has been loaded into that area and work on the bulkhead / piers has begun.

The plan for Phase 4 ( nycgovparks.org / newsroom (http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_newsroom/daily_plants/daily_plant_main.php?id=19635) ):

... plans for the fourth phase of the park, which will include the installation of a restored 1940’s Alco S-1 switcher, donated by the New York Cross Harbor Railroad.This part of the park’s new design is slated to begin in late 2006, and will also include the construction of the Maritime Café on the 70th Street plaza and the restoration of the historic West 69th Street transfer bridge into a public pier and ferry landing.

This rail car has been loaded onto the site and is sitting on a short set of track surrounded by a cyclone fence ... painted a deep green ( British Racing Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_racing_green) ?) with bright yellow trim, kids of all ages are going to love this.

The US Army version (not the one in the park) of the Alco S-1 switcher:

http://i17.ebayimg.com/01/i/08/8d/13/88_1.JPG

lofter1
October 9th, 2006, 10:40 AM
The Alco S-1 Switcher was donated by New York Cross Harbor Railroad (http://www2pb.ip-soft.net/railinfo/car-floats/new-york-cross-harbor.html)

http://www2pb.ip-soft.net/railinfo/gifs/SBK-NYCH-Slides/NYCH-25-1st.JPEG

http://64.246.11.82/images/d/DSC_0413.JPG.73299.jpg

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?locomotive=Alco%20S-1

Derek2k3
November 3rd, 2006, 08:12 PM
According to their website, Christian de Portzamparc has been commisioned for 1MSF of developement in Riverside South. Christian de Portzamparc has had some tough luck here since LVMH, just check out all their canceled/postponed projects.

Christian de Portzamparc
http://www.chdeportzamparc.com/

antinimby
November 4th, 2006, 03:11 AM
That is good news.

Portzamparc's works are beautiful and eyecatching, something New York lacks but desperately needs more of.

Who did the commissioning btw?

Citytect
November 4th, 2006, 03:24 PM
Interesting. I think one "signature" building could be what this development needs. A focal point. The buildings built so far aren't bad residential buildings, but, as it has been widely noted, the overall appearance of Riverside South seems too uniform.

However, "signature" should be relative to the surroundings. It's not Shanghai. I don't think something really bold would work here. Christian de Portzamparc seems like a good choice.

TREPYE
November 4th, 2006, 03:26 PM
the overall appearance of Riverside South seems too uniform.

Yeah, uniform like NYC housing projects.

Eugenious
November 4th, 2006, 03:30 PM
Yeah, uniform like NYC housing projects.

WHy cant Trump build quality buildings in NY? Because he's a ego obsessed scruge who only cares about looking upscale and has absolutely ZERO taste or any architectural vision. Every time I drive by the riverside development I cringe at the absolute uglyness of this monstrocity.

TREPYE
November 4th, 2006, 03:33 PM
^ Yeah dude, that manure stack is offensive. A typical Trump Dump.

Citytect
November 4th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Luckily he isn't finishing the developement.

ablarc
November 4th, 2006, 03:57 PM
Aw, it's not so bad --certainly not more uniform than West End Avenue. Krulltime lives there, I believe. What do you think of it, krull?

antinimby
November 4th, 2006, 04:39 PM
WHy cant Trump build quality buildings in NY? Because he's a ego obsessed scruge who only cares about looking upscale and has absolutely ZERO taste or any architectural vision. Every time I drive by the riverside development I cringe at the absolute uglyness of this monstrocity.To his defense, he was quoted as saying that his hands were tied as far as design of the Riverside buildings were concerned.

If you remember the early history of this development, you'll recall that NIMBY groups like the Coalition for a Livable Westside were fighting to prevent him from building highrises in the area.

After compromising with Trump, they further pressured him to make the buildings more conservative.

Therefore he went with the safe but boring choice of Kondylis with probably instructions to make them "contextual."

Don't vilify the man too much, at least not here.

Derek2k3
November 4th, 2006, 04:49 PM
That is good news.

Portzamparc's works are beautiful and eyecatching, something New York lacks but desperately needs more of.

Who did the commissioning btw?
The developers, Extell.
They're becoming one of my favorite residential developers, they hire a range of decent architects.
Here's the clipping from Portzamparc's website.

ablarc
November 4th, 2006, 05:24 PM
The developers, Extell.
They're becoming one of my favorite residential developers, they hire a range of decent architects.
They didn't exactly cover themselves with glory at Atlantic Yards, however. And what do you think of Ariel West and East?

Derek2k3
November 4th, 2006, 06:20 PM
Yea, all thier new buildings so far have been somewhat mediocre. I like them because they don't hire Kondylis or SLCE, whose stuff is so repetitive. If we're going to build cheap and ugly, have it packaged by different people. 75+ percent of residential high-rises built in the last 10 years were designed by those hacks.

Eugenious
November 4th, 2006, 06:43 PM
To his defense, he was quoted as saying that his hands were tied as far as design of the Riverside buildings were concerned.

If you remember the early history of this development, you'll recall that NIMBY groups like the Coalition for a Livable Westside were fighting to prevent him from building highrises in the area.

After compromising with Trump, they further pressured him to make the buildings more conservative.

Therefore he went with the safe but boring choice of Kondylis with probably instructions to make them "contextual."

Don't vilify the man too much, at least not here.

Phoeiy, a great developer needs to have a VISION. Architecture requires responsibility. A client may seek to economise but not see the implications - the architect's job includes ensuring that the client does not compromise the success of his own building. If a building has a specific purpose, then it must fulfill that purpose properly. If it does not, then the architect has not merely failed, but the purpose of their involvement in the project is open to question. The same problem can be seen in the relationship of a particular building to its urban surroundings.

antinimby
November 4th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Why do you not believe it?

I am telling you that's what happened. There was a time when Trump had a rep for doing over-the-top buildings (at least according to NIMBY tastes) and the community groups were fearful of that. At a certain point, Trump wanted to get the place built so he conceded that (and reduction in height) to them so he can get started with construction.

If I remember right, some very powerful New York Representative got involved on behalf of the community as well, I think it was Nadler.

Kondylis is not very good to begin with and when instructed to tone it down, you can see what we got.

ablarc
November 4th, 2006, 07:20 PM
the architect's job includes ensuring that the client does not compromise the success of his own building.
I wish I had you to tell that to my clients. ;)

(In truth, the best 10% actually know this.)

finnman69
November 9th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Interesting. I think one "signature" building could be what this development needs. A focal point. The buildings built so far aren't bad residential buildings, but, as it has been widely noted, the overall appearance of Riverside South seems too uniform.

However, "signature" should be relative to the surroundings. It's not Shanghai. I don't think something really bold would work here. Christian de Portzamparc seems like a good choice.


the area is currently a crappy expansive parking lot backed up against the blah Brodsky towers, bordered to the west by the Henry hudson freeway, and to the South by the Con ed plant.

antinimby
November 9th, 2006, 07:34 PM
This wouldn't be the parking lot just across from (west of) 10 West End Ave. (http://www.10wea.com/), would it?

londonlawyer
November 9th, 2006, 07:56 PM
According to their website, Christian de Portzamparc has been commisioned for 1MSF of developement in Riverside South. Christian de Portzamparc has had some tough luck here since LVMH, just check out all their canceled/postponed projects.

Christian de Portzamparc
http://www.chdeportzamparc.com/

I hope that 398 Park Ave. South is not listed as cancelled. Is it? I couldn't access the site.

krulltime
November 15th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Manhattan Tunnel Structure Is Built for the Long Term


http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/11/061113-17.jpg
Tunnel being built now may someday replace
viaduct but it will be years.


By Aileen Cho
11/13/06

Wedged up against high-end, unfinished buildings on New York City’s west side, crews are building the northern half of a “tunnel to nowhere.” But private advocates are betting that by building the 0.8- mile-long box structure now, the city will benefit in the long run.

The goal of this tunnel, which represents the 15-year-old efforts of the Riverside South Planning Corp., is to someday replace the Miller Highway viaduct along the Hudson River. Along this stretch of waterfront, private developers Extell Development Co. and the Carlyle Group are constructing a 77-acre complex of office buildings and condominiums. They acquired the land from Donald Trump and his Hong Kong partners last year. Two buildings are under construction and eight are completed.

Because of RSPC’s successful arguments, the city asked Extell in 2004 to take advantage of existing excavation for tower foundations to build the tunnel structure’s northbound half. The original plan had been to build a support structure for a future 28-acre park and new Riverside Boulevard. But by building the box structure instead, builders won’t have to rip up the park atop it later in order to relocate the highway. Michael Bradley, RSPC’s executive director, says this will save at least $25 million. The viaduct would have had to be rehabilitated again someday, but by building the tunnel box now, the city can reroute traffic to it when that day comes, he points out.

Highway relocation had not been a top priority for the developer or city. The city spent $89 million in the early 1990s to rehabilitate the viaduct. “It was an example of making an investment without foresight,” says Alex Garvin, former New York City Planning Commissioner. “If in the future, money is available to rebuild the highway, it can go underground and the money will have been spent well. The quality of life will be enormously improved.”

Samson Construction Co., Hicksville, N.Y., is working on the $12-million first phase of the northbound box structure, about 250 ft long, 45 ft wide and with a 30-ft elevation.

Samson will complete the job by spring 2007, says Joe Montano, Extell’s director of construction. It required steel piles to be driven as deep as 60 ft into bedrock, says Montano. The concrete walls, up to 3 ft thick, were built to two-thirds the total elevation. Samson now is building customized formwork to pour the top third of the walls and the ceiling monolithically, says Joe Cursio, Samson’s chief operating officer.

Crews have only 20 ft between the tunnel wall and new buildings to work with as they relocate scores of utilities, including a 20-in. water main, a 48-in. storm sewer and future conduits for future buildings. Because of work done to build tower foundations, Samson only had to excavate about 10 ft for the box.

Before the end of this year, Extell will begin soliciting bids for the rest of the northbound tunnel, to be done in phases. One block-long segment will be done in late 2007, the next by late 2008 and the last in 2009. The total cost of the northbound half is estimated at $30 million.

The state Dept. of Transportation, using $15 million in federal earmarks, will build the southbound half once Extell is done. However, it is still awaiting federal approval of the financial plan and does not know when that will occur, due to the possible reactivation of a 2002 lawsuit contesting the environmental impact statement for the tunnel project, says a state DOT spokesperson.


http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/11/061113-18A.jpg
http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/11/061113-18B.jpg
Advocates hope viaduct along Hudosn will be replaced by tunnel built underneath park.


© 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

BrooklynRider
November 16th, 2006, 12:20 AM
Wait a minute! The article above implies foresight. How dare they! <<implied sarcasm>>

It's kind of subversive, yet we all know the plans had to be submitted. But, it allows stromger arguments to be made for funding the larger project going forward. NY Congressional leaders chair important committees for the next two years. Maybe we'll see some major transportation and urban funding allow these common-sense, pedestrian/mass transit projects to go forward.

pianoman11686
November 26th, 2006, 04:16 PM
November 24, 2006

Breaking Ground

The Rushmore

By NICK KAYE

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/23/realestate/greathomes/24break_large.jpg
An artist's rendering of The Rushmore, a building with
two 43-story towers, which is expected to open in
Manhattan in winter 2008.

WHAT Residential building.

WHERE New York.

AMENITIES A swimming pool, a playground and a spa and fitness center, among others.

PRICES One- to five-bedroom units range from about $1 million to $7 million.

STATUS Construction is under way, and the building is expected to open in winter 2008.

DEVELOPER Extell Development Company.

CONTACT (212) 496-1400 or www.therushmoreriverside.com.

DETAILS In Manhattan at the western end of 64th Street, this project consists of a building with two 43-story towers rising from a 16-story base. It will have 289 units ranging from 717 to 3,072 square feet. Some of the properties will have large terraces. The project borders Riverside Park, which has biking and walking paths. The building will have a landscaped deck as well as a garden atrium with a library. The swimming pool will be 50 feet long and indoors. There will also be a billiards room and doorman and concierge services. Additionally, access will be granted to a nearby children’s club that will design the playground at the development.

TREPYE
November 26th, 2006, 04:32 PM
November 24, 2006

Breaking Ground

The Rushmore

By NICK KAYE

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/23/realestate/greathomes/24break_large.jpg
An artist's rendering of The Rushmore, a building with
two 43-story towers, which is expected to open in
Manhattan in winter 2008.



The bland flatness of the TWC' twins wasn't good enough? They had to come up with a cheap imitation no less.

stache
November 26th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Could use a couple of spires -

ablarc
November 27th, 2006, 08:54 AM
The bland flatness of the TWC' twins wasn't good enough? They had to come up with a cheap imitation no less.
The stuff Kondylis designed for Trump was better, because more deco. Now he's going flatter and more modernist. Influence of the client, probably. Kondylis is a tabula rasa.

TREPYE
November 27th, 2006, 12:28 PM
The stuff Kondylis designed for Trump was better

I prefer the term "less uglier".

aprokos
February 25th, 2007, 01:14 PM
Here's a shot of Trump's West Side towers as seen from the Hudson River. (http://andrewprokos.com/photos/cityscapes-skylines/manhattan-west-trump-view/) I think they could be a lot worse actually

macreator
February 25th, 2007, 06:36 PM
It's still pretty depressing.

ablarc
February 25th, 2007, 08:02 PM
I think they could be a lot worse actually
Agreed.

antinimby
March 16th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Riverside South Goes French


Posted by The Real Estate on March 15, 2007 (http://therealestate.observer.com/2007/03/riverside-south-goes-french.html) 6:09 PM

After years in which one architect--Costas Kondylis--has dominated the 13-block-long Riverside South development, the new kid in town, Gary Barnett (Extell Development), has commissioned the Pritzker Prize-winning French architect Christian de Portzamparc to design the next three buildings, according to George Arzt, a spokesman for the developer.

Monsieur de Portzamparc's Web site says the program consists of three buildings with 3.2 million square feet of office, hotel and residential space between 59th Street and 61st Street. Well, that's the proposal. Mr. Arzt says a rezoning proposal will go to the Department of City Planning in a few weeks--and it doesn't sound like it will be the easiest rezoning.

According to figures from the Coalition for a Livable West Side, that amount would represent about 35 percent more built space than that envisioned under the original Riverside South master plan.

- Matthew Schuerman

copyright © 2006 the new york observer, L.P.

Fahzee
March 16th, 2007, 06:00 PM
oh la la!

krulltime
March 16th, 2007, 06:08 PM
Sounds good to me.

antinimby
March 16th, 2007, 06:19 PM
Yes, let's hope "the Coalition" doesn't squash this proposal nor demand a contextual design or else we'll end up seeing more of this instead:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/56319805.IMG_7552.jpg

lofter1
March 16th, 2007, 07:20 PM
What's that one with the, uh ... interesting color combo of brick ^^^ called?

Poo-n-Doo???

ablarc
March 16th, 2007, 10:23 PM
Gauche.

Scraperfannyc
March 18th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Riverside South Goes French


Posted by The Real Estate on March 15, 2007 (http://therealestate.observer.com/2007/03/riverside-south-goes-french.html) 6:09 PM

After years in which one architect--Costas Kondylis--has dominated the 13-block-long Riverside South development, the new kid in town, Gary Barnett (Extell Development), has commissioned the Pritzker Prize-winning French architect Christian de Portzamparc to design the next three buildings, according to George Arzt, a spokesman for the developer.

Monsieur de Portzamparc's Web site says the program consists of three buildings with 3.2 million square feet of office, hotel and residential space between 59th Street and 61st Street. Well, that's the proposal. Mr. Arzt says a rezoning proposal will go to the Department of City Planning in a few weeks--and it doesn't sound like it will be the easiest rezoning.

According to figures from the Coalition for a Livable West Side, that amount would represent about 35 percent more built space than that envisioned under the original Riverside South master plan.

- Matthew Schuerman

copyright © 2006 the new york observer, L.P.

Great news! I think this strip on the West Side can use a little French arhitecture to add some eye appeal. There is one building (the shortest one) which is so ugly. I really wish they would demolish it.

antinimby
March 18th, 2007, 04:26 PM
I wouldn't get too excited just yet. In this city, good news like that are almost always followed by bad news.

Don't be surprised to hear not too far from now when they present this plan to the Community Board that it is rejected.

I can just see a public meeting with people shouting down the developers saying how the size would overwhelm the area and how Portzamparc's designs would be totally inappropriate to the surrounding and on and on...

:rolleyes:

lofter1
March 19th, 2007, 12:15 AM
That ^^^ would be more than ironic in this area -- which aside from the new buildings at Riverside South and other new residential buildings near WEA / 59th has very few residential buildings within a few blocks as it was a manufacturing / industrial zone.

I might just have to go to one of those CB meetings, just in case -- and if folks start doing that "too tall" song and dance" tell them to stuff it and join the 21st Century ;)

Tall Guy
March 20th, 2007, 07:56 PM
Riverside South Goes French


Posted by The Real Estate on March 15, 2007 (http://therealestate.observer.com/2007/03/riverside-south-goes-french.html) 6:09 PM

After years in which one architect--Costas Kondylis--has dominated the 13-block-long Riverside South development, the new kid in town, Gary Barnett (Extell Development), has commissioned the Pritzker Prize-winning French architect Christian de Portzamparc to design the next three buildings, according to George Arzt, a spokesman for the developer.

Monsieur de Portzamparc's Web site says the program consists of three buildings with 3.2 million square feet of office, hotel and residential space between 59th Street and 61st Street. Well, that's the proposal. Mr. Arzt says a rezoning proposal will go to the Department of City Planning in a few weeks--and it doesn't sound like it will be the easiest rezoning.

According to figures from the Coalition for a Livable West Side, that amount would represent about 35 percent more built space than that envisioned under the original Riverside South master plan.

- Matthew Schuerman

copyright © 2006 the new york observer, L.P.

I know that this is self-serving, but having just signed a contract to buy in the Avery, I cannot help but to wonder what the impact will be on the value of my new place, IF (a big if) this were to happen:rolleyes:

lofter1
March 21st, 2007, 12:07 AM
'What?! More people using OUR services and transportation.

Ha ha -- what transportation way over there :confused: :p

NYguy
April 25th, 2007, 05:31 PM
NY1

Manhattan, Then & Now: 15 Years Later, Trump Place Still Faces Opposition On West Side

April 25, 2007

It took Donald Trump years to win approval to build Trump Place on Manhattan's West Side. As NY1’s week-long series Manhattan, Then & Now continues, Rebecca Spitz talks to Trump about how the project changed the community and the opposition he is still facing.


In the early '90's, boaters on the west side of Manhattan saw nothing but the derelict Penn Rail Yards.

Back then, a string of luxury buildings was little more than a glimmer in Donald Trump's eye, but it wasn't long before that idea started its slow march to reality.

“The community loves what we've done,” says Trump. “In 1992, that's when it all came together, because that's when government gave us the approvals to go forward.”

But building on prime waterfront access was an uphill battle, even though developers didn't have to move anyone or really, anything.

Neighborhood residents railed against everything from the size of the proposed project to Trump's uncertain fiscal future.

Community opposition delayed construction until 1997, but today there are more than a dozen apartment buildings stretching from 59th Street to 72nd Street, collectively called – Trump Place.

“It was a big job,” says Trump. “It was a very, very powerful job from the standpoint of what it represented to the community, and I'm so happy to say that people who opposed the job initially ultimately joined with us and they really supported the job."

But just because Trump thinks the opposition has disappeared doesn't mean it that it has. Neighborhood resident and former City Councilwoman Ronnie Eldridge says she’s been against the project for 15 years.

“He doesn't really care,” says Eldridge. “He sees large buildings, and he likes that because it matches his ego.”

Eldridge was part of a coalition of opposition made up of area residents, civic groups and politicians, including Congressman Jerrold Nadler and former Mayor Ed Koch.

One of the things that Eldridge is still bothered by is the apparent separation between Trump Place and the rest of the west side.

“This is a wall. It's more than just views. It's more than one building,” she says. “It's the whole stream of buildings, and it's taking the whole waterfront and moving it further west.”

But what's an issue for some doesn't really matter to others.

“We love the location,” says a resident. “It's far enough west to where it's really quiet, not too much going on."

Trump fought for and lost a battle to close an exit off the West Side Highway at 72nd Street, and he has yet to find a friendly ear to go along with his wishes to sink that highway and give the development access to the water. And he admits, with just one bus line – the M72 – transportation there could be improved but overall, he's still pleased with the project.

And typical Trump, he has to have the last word.

“New York City can't be stagnant, we can never let that happen,” he says. “If that happens, you might as well give it up and move, go someplace else."

- Rebecca Spitz

Adyton
April 25th, 2007, 06:36 PM
Extell's development using Christian de Portzamparc is GREAT news!!! de Portzamparc is one of THE best "underated" starchitects in the world today!

Any development on a LARGE scale, using Christian, will definitely INCREASE values of all other properties nearby. ANYONE would be lucky to live or work in or near one or more of his buildings.:D

NYguy
April 26th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Extell's development using Christian de Portzamparc is GREAT news!!! de Portzamparc is one of THE best "underated" starchitects in the world today!

Any development on a LARGE scale, using Christian, will definitely INCREASE values of all other properties nearby. ANYONE would be lucky to live or work in or near one or more of his buildings.:D

Another one I would love to have a rendering of.

krulltime
June 5th, 2007, 09:22 PM
I found this on the rushmore website. An Idea of what the rest will look like. Well what can you expect...


http://www.pbase.com/image/80049725.jpg

http://www.therushmoreriverside.com/

sfenn1117
June 5th, 2007, 09:37 PM
^Hopefully those were the plans before Extell brought Potzamparc in.

The UWS nimby's are prepared to go all out on it too, since Extell is asking for an increase in square footage.

krulltime
June 5th, 2007, 09:50 PM
Yeah you are probably right that those are old renderings. I dont think they have the new ones available so fast and place them on the Rushmore website.

Derek2k3
July 27th, 2008, 04:59 PM
Extell Eyeing Costco For Giant Upper West Side Development
by Eliot Brown | July 25, 2008 |

http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/extell-eyeing-costco-base-giant-upper-west-side-development%20

Extell Development is in talks with discount bulk retailer Costco to occupy a large underground store as part of a new 3.3 million-square-foot development of mostly residential buildings on the Upper West Side.

Extell, led by Gary Barnett, is seeking to move forward on developing the last parcels of Riverside South, the 55-acre swath of Upper West Side land known as Trump City when Donald Trump first started planning the complex in the 1980s. The company's plans for the final parcels between 59th and 61st streets would need approval of the City Council and City Planning Commission, as the firm is seeking to change the initial restrictions to allow for more density and different uses (the original development planned for a commercial tower for NBC at the site).

As a national big-box retailer with no stores in Manhattan, the prospect of a Costco at the development--which would take up about 150,000 square feet--seems prone to controversy, and indeed it was discussed at length at a meeting between Extell (and a string of consultants and lobbyists) and members of the local community board Wednesday night. Extell also wanted 2,300 parking spaces in the complex.

"The community will be greatly affected by a placement of a Costco," said Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who represents the area. "I'm afraid it's going to bring a lot of increased vehicular traffic."

And while Ms. Rosenthal said she had yet to take a firm position on the prospect of a big-box retailer, another area elected official was more direct:

"I certainly do not support the Costco or anything like it," said Councilwoman Gale Brewer in a phone message.

A spokesman for Extell, George Arzt, said that the plan for the site was still "a work in progress. "We want to work with the community board and the neighborhood," he said.

The planned Christian de Portzamparc-designed development will likely heat up in coming months as Extell hopes to start early stages of the public review in the fall. For now, the developer has been meeting occasionally with a community board committee on the topic.

Though, at least for the meeting Wednesday, the community board--which holds public meetings, many of which are subject to the Open Meetings Law--did not announce the event on its Web site or to the public. This lack of a notice drew ire from the elected officials representing the area, who found out about the meeting at the last minute.

"Basically, I expect all the meetings the community board would hold to be on the Web site," Ms. Rosenthal said. "All of these kinds of bodies' meetings are open to the public, so if the public doesn't know abut them, they can't attend."

Community Board 7 chairwoman Helen Rosenthal (no relation), who co-chairs the committee on Riverside South, said that the meetings now are generally aimed at informing members of the community board about the project before the public review begins in the fall.

"The purpose of the meeting was for the working group, that is just trying to understand what the issues are, to wrap our arms around that," she said. "We will be having public hearings about this in the fall, and we're anxious to hear from the community as to what their feelings are."

antinimby
July 27th, 2008, 07:31 PM
Don't care for a Costco, a suburban big box store in Manhattan, underground or not.

Anyway, let's see how these people will screw up the Portzamparc project. Screw up odds is high with that Gale Brewer and the CB involved.

stache
July 27th, 2008, 10:07 PM
Speaking for myself, I think this would be a great location for a Costco. It's extremely out of the way, yet close to midtown.

antinimby
July 27th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Since when did having a Costco close to Midtown a necessity?

stache
July 27th, 2008, 10:53 PM
More people would shop there.

londonlawyer
July 28th, 2008, 10:50 AM
I don't know who that could afford a multi-million dollar apartment would shop at Costco.

lofter1
July 28th, 2008, 01:52 PM
Come 2009 / 2010 when they start paying off that mortgage Costco might be the wisest choice.

stache
July 28th, 2008, 02:39 PM
Or their assistants would do the shopping online.

BrooklynLove
July 28th, 2008, 04:46 PM
I don't know who that could afford a multi-million dollar apartment would shop at Costco.

I know plenty in NYC who do. Many Park Slope families who've dropped 3+ on a brownstone frequent the Costco at 3rd Ave.

brianac
August 6th, 2008, 06:09 AM
Remember Trump City?

Koch era battle over that mega-plan may be nothing compared to one looming on the same land

by Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/2007/author/eliot-brown) | August 5, 2008
This article was published in the August 11, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.

http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/article/files/browntrumpcity.jpg Michael Nagle
Gary Barnett.

It’s been 23 years since the Upper West Side first gasped at Donald Trump’s plans for a series of soaring towers that would contain 7,600 apartments and a 150-story headquarters for NBC on the 75-acre Penn Central rail yards.


The battle that followed was an epic one—Mr. Trump this week recalled it as a “war to the death”—with politicians making and breaking careers on the issue. The project, first dubbed Television City, then Trump City, and ultimately Riverside South, underwent a series of permutations and eventually was scaled back and approved, gradually rising in an undulating row of apartment towers just east of the West Side Highway.


Now, nearly a quarter-century later, with the site still not fully built out, a new developer is seeking to reopen a can of worms that was sealed shut 16 years ago, with plans to fidget with the hard-fought development restrictions approved in 1992. That developer, Gary Barnett of Extell Development, is calling for more development rights to allow a series of five mostly residential towers to rise on the large southernmost parcel of the site, a complex that would mark the final chapter of the storied West Side fight that began a generation ago.


Expect resistance. While Extell’s plans do not seem to be the hornet’s nest that marked Trump’s early proposals, the local community board is skeptical of a host of issues, and area politicians are cool to the idea of added density and a potential Costco that Extell has proposed.


Extell has been meeting with the community on and off since acquiring the site in 2005, and now is hoping to kick off the project in the fall with a preliminary scoping hearing at the Department of City Planning. Some time later—likely, at least a few months—the proposal would start its journey through the city’s seven-month public approval process, which requires a thumbs up from both the City Planning Commission and the City Council.



Certainly, Mr. Barnett is not looking to follow the long, winding road to approval taken by his predecessor at the site, which runs in its entirety from 59th to 72nd streets just east of the West Side Highway. (The southernmost parcel in question runs from 59th to 61st streets.)
From almost the minute Mr. Trump began boasting about his proposed Television City, the community was in an uproar, with a constant stream of media attention focused on the mogul and his grandiose plans. The resistance ultimately scared away anchor tenant NBC, leading to a revised plan that the community and the elected officials still opposed.


“That was a war to the death—with everybody,” Mr. Trump said this week.


A war, indeed: At one point in the talks with Mr. Trump, Mayor Ed Koch issued a statement saying the developer was “squealing like a stuck pig,” and the community was ever defiant. But, ultimately, approval, via a “restrictive declaration” defining what could be built on each of the parcels, came in late 1992 after Mr. Trump struck a compromise deal with a set of civic groups. With support of the civics, he won over key elected officials, including then Borough President Ruth Messinger, whose vote of support ultimately wounded her politically, given the bitter taste it left with her Upper West Side base constituency.


“I got Ruth Messinger on board—I got everybody on board,” Mr. Trump said. “And, frankly, once I got the civics’ involvement, there was very little opposition, and we ended up getting 6,000 units plus commercial space.”


Financial troubles then hit the project—Mr. Trump sold off much of his stake in the mid-1990s to a group of investors from Hong Kong—and the first building permit was not issued until 1997, slowly advancing from north to south.


In mid-2005, Extell and the Carlyle Group bought the remaining property for $1.76 billion, though Mr. Trump later filed a lawsuit claiming his Hong Kong investors could have gotten a higher price.



Now, Extell has set its sights on the final three lots at the southern base of the development, known as lots L, M and N; and with no desire to build the 1.7 million square feet of predominantly television studio space that the 1992 agreement stipulates, the developer wants public approval to allow for a giant complex of residential buildings in its place.


The proposal, shown to members of the community boards and representatives of elected officials, calls for five mostly residential towers on the large two-block site, with one on each corner and another near the middle. Extell has brought on Pritzker Prize-winning architect Christian de Portzamparc to design the towers, one of which would rise to 594 feet, as currently envisioned. Such a design would likely mark a distinct change from the relatively bland buildings throughout the rest of the site. (Extell declined to share its renderings of the proposed towers with The Observer.)


The scale being proposed is significantly greater than what was initially planned for the site. According to figures Extell presented to members of the community board, the complex would be about 3 million square feet in size, with perhaps 2,500 apartments, well above the approximately 2.4 million square feet that remains under the development rights allowed by the restrictive declaration. In addition, Extell wants about 280,000 square feet of below-ground retail space—roughly half of which would go to Costco, should Extell ultimately win the company as a tenant—accompanied by 2,300 parking spaces, up from about 780 in the restrictive declaration (below-grade space is not counted in the zoning measurements).


George Arzt, an Extell spokesman, said the additional density is desired in order to provide larger apartments, to build more affordable units, to create more varied retail and to allow for better architecture. Still, he noted that plans were far from final.


“The only thing that’s constant is change, and this is just at the beginning, so there will be a lot of change going on,” he said.


Requests for more density are not viewed kindly by many West Side activists. They were against the bulk proposed in the 1990s and have little tolerance for more today, especially given the effort put into the restrictive declaration of 1992, which superseded the underlying zoning.


“We’re talking about an absolute nightmare—an absolute nightmare,” said Batya Lewton, vice president of the Coalition for a Livable West Side, a community group formed in 1981 to oppose a large planned project that preceded Television City. “They’re asking for, unbelievably, 2,300 more parking spaces in an area that is just so overwhelmed with traffic.”
The plans have also provoked a less than laudatory response from U.S.


Representative Jerrold Nadler, who for years battled Mr. Trump in an effort to block the project. “The entire site is too high,” he said, “and what they’re asking is for an even higher density, and obviously it’s going to have to be scaled back.”


As was the case in the 1990s, the area’s politicians will play a major role, particularly the local council member. Until the end of 2009, that’s Gale Brewer, who is anti-Costco and pushing for a commitment to build a school on the site, among other issues.


However, that dynamic could change depending on the timing of the public approval process. Should the project come before a Council vote after Dec. 31, 2009, when Ms. Brewer will be cast from her seat by term limits, a new politician will take her place, and presumably have his or her own feelings about the Extell proposals.


Already two potential successors are rather involved: Helen Rosenthal, chair of Community Board 7, is considering a run for Ms. Brewer’s seat, as is Micah Lasher, Mr. Nadler’s aide and point person on the Extell plan.


ebrown@observer.com


http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/remember-trump-city


© 2008 Observer Media Group

Tectonic
August 6th, 2008, 08:00 AM
How about a 'great lawn' instead hmmm....

SlavMan1
October 28th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Costco is DOA. Next topic.

londonlawyer
October 31st, 2008, 12:57 PM
This will be amazing.

Extell Steaming Ahead on Giant 'Riverside Center' Amid Early Dissent
by Eliot Brown | October 31, 2008 | Tags: Real EstateExtell Development Co.Gary Barnett

Michael Nagle.
Gary Barnett.


Gary Barnett and his Extell Development Co. are plowing forward with their plans for five new glass towers at the base of the Riverside South mega-development on the Upper West Side, and the company now says it plans to kick off early public review in December.

The plan, presented at an Upper West Side community meeting last night by Mr. Barnett himself, calls for four residential towers and one mixed-use tower totaling 3.1 million square feet on an eight-acre site between 59th and 61st streets along the West Side Highway.

Already, if last night's meeting is any guide, there are many unpleased Upper West Side residents. While the elected officials seem mostly concerned about density, the level of affordable housing and the inclusion of a school, many in attendance were a bit more eager to see the plan ditched entirely.

A sampling of the dissidents' denigrations: "The developer is putting lipstick on a pig;" the plan is "a crushing, greedy project;" residents were "aghast" when the plans were revealed; a woman declared, "I just don't see why we should be seeing any new units on the Upper West Side," at all; and one group said Extell should scale back their plans by 700,000 square feet, and they would still make between $2.2 billion and $3.8 billion in profit.

Mr. Barnett, the former diamond trader who rocketed into the top ranks of the city's development scene this (now) past boom cycle, sat slouched in a chair in the corner of the St. Jude Children's Hospital conference room as he watched each speaker give their two cents, staying mum after his opening remarks. Joining him was a healthy parade of consultants, including his two land-use lawyer teams (Kramer Levin AND Bryan Cave), two other lobbyists (George Arzt and Brenda Levin), and a set of architects.

Extell has been meeting from time to time with the community, and recently backed off its proposal to build a big box store, perhaps a Costco, at the site, after it became a bit of a controversy magnet.

Some details of Extell's Christian de Portzamparc-designed project, being called "Riverside Center" [Much more on the project here, a feature we did in September on the history and new plans]:

Five proposed glass towers including a 53-story residential tower on the northwest corner; a 42-story residential tower on the northeast corner; a 39-story mixed-use tower on the southeast corner; a 35-story residential tower on the south; and a 50-story tower on the southwest corner.
3.2 acres of open space on the 8.2-acre site
Office, retail and hotel totaling about 400,000 square feet, including a possible cinema
The street grid would be restored to part of the superblock, and 60th Street would run about halfway through from the east. It would continue along to the development's western edge, not as a street, but as a "scrim of water," lined by trees.
Everything to be built by 2018
1,800 parking spaces
Extell may want an auto showroom of 168,000 square feet
The displeasure on the part of some stems from the history surrounding the site, which is part of the larger 75-acre Riverside South development originally started by Donald Trump. Back in 1992, after a long battle, the site was rezoned with the consent of many of the local elected officials at the time, with a "restrictive declaration" that clearly spelled out a plan for all of Riverside South. At the parcel in question, Mr. Trump envisioned a 150-story world headquarters for NBC (these days NBC's aims are a bit more modest ... they've considered taking a few floors in 7 World Trade Center or Worldwide Plaza).

With no market for them, Mr. Barnett doesn't want to build television studios, so instead he wants to change the restrictive declaration and build a residential complex. But while you're fiddling with one thing, why not change a whole bunch of stuff, right? Accordingly, Extell wants to boost the density by about 700,000 square feet and add parking. Notably, Rob Pirani, a planner at the Regional Plan Association, said the group was against changing the restrictive declaration, as was the Riverside South Planning Corporation, which brokered the final compromise plan in the Trump days.

The project is still in its very early stages of review. In December, Extell expects to start the "scoping," a seemingly inane step that allows lengthy public comment on what the draft environmental impact statement should contain. That clears the way for the project, some months later, to go through the city's seven-month approval process for a rezoning, which will be the last major hurdle.

Tectonic
October 31st, 2008, 07:16 PM
"I just don't see why we should be seeing any new units on the Upper West Side,"

Its interesting how some people want to live a huge city like this by themselves.

antinimby
October 31st, 2008, 08:25 PM
While the elected officials seem mostly concerned about density, the level of affordable housing and the inclusion of a school, many in attendance were a bit more eager to see the plan ditched entirely.

A sampling of the dissidents' denigrations: "The developer is putting lipstick on a pig;" the plan is "a crushing, greedy project;" residents were "aghast" when the plans were revealed; a woman declared, "I just don't see why we should be seeing any new units on the Upper West Side," at all; and one group said Extell should scale back their plans by 700,000 square feet,Okay, let's see...so they should build less on what essentially are vacant lots so that future housing needs in the UWS would have to be met by tearing down more older buildings and rebuilding.

Yeah, that's really smart.

Isn't it amazing how stupid New Yorkers (eventhough theoretically, they should be the most sophisticated in the country being from a big city with a long history that has seen it all and should have learned lessons from past and ongoing mistakes) can be?

And how come the most stupidest bunch of them are usually the ones that put their voice in determining these important issues for the city?

It really is amazing.

Derek2k3
October 31st, 2008, 09:11 PM
I think the city also unfairly overburdens these neighborhoods. The city seems to think, because the Upper East and West Sides already have high-rises, they should endlessly accommodate them without updating their infrastructure.

Meanwhile, neighborhoods with great transportation to Manhattan such as Long Island City and Greenpoint are kept relatively low-scale because their current building stock is low. Being historic is one thing but this doesn't make sense.

Unless historic, zone the city on what it can handle, not on what already exists. If they planned the city now, I bet it would look like Staten Island or the rest of the country-afraid to break the context.

NYC4Life
November 3rd, 2008, 05:31 PM
Updated On 11/03/08 at 11:09AM

Trump accuses Extell, others of fraud

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/images/1986/trump4_articlebox.gif (http://ny.therealdeal.com/assets/1986)
Donald Trump

By Adam Pincus

Real estate mogul Donald Trump is accusing the Extell Development Company and the private equity firm the Carlyle Group of orchestrating an unlawful purchase of his 77-acre site on the Upper West Side.

Trump filed papers in Manhattan State Supreme Court last week, and in vaguely-worded language he accuses Extell and Carlyle of being involved in the wiring of money to illegally influence his partner the Cheng Group in the sale of the Upper West Side parcel in 2005.

The court documents -- which were filed October 28 just days before Extell revealed updated plans for the site, dubbed Riverside South -- accuse Extell, Carlyle and others of setting up a $16.5 million payment to influence the $1.76 billion purchase of the property.

While the court papers do not identify who sent the money or who received it, they suggest the money was used to illegally influence the Cheng Group in connection with the sale.

This is Trump's third legal challenge to the $1.76 billion purchase (http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/will-18b-parcel-on-uws-trump-hudson-yards) by Extell and the Carlyle Group of the former Penn Central rail yards. The parcel extends from 59th Street to 72nd Street east of the West Side Highway.

In August 2005, before the November 3 sale was finalized, Trump sued for $1 billion in a 20-count complaint, claiming the Cheng Group -- which owned a controlling 70 percent interest in the 77-acre parcel while Trump owned 30 percent -- sold the property for approximately $1 billion less than what it could have obtained. Trump filed a similar complaint in federal court in 2005, but withdrew it the same year.

Most of the 2005 complaint was thrown out, allowing the sale to progress. Of the 20 counts, just one is still pending. The remaining item would give Trump the right to review Cheng Group records related to the sale.

Trump's latest filings -- which are referred to as a summons and notice on court papers -- says Extell and Carlyle conspired against him through a wire transfer in late 2005. But the papers do not specify who made the transfer and who received it. They simply say the transfer was in the amount of "$16.5 million to the BNP Paribas Bank of London for the purpose of obtaining an unlawful advantage with respect to the purchase" of the Riverside South property.

The court papers further accuse the defendants of causing fiduciary fraud and interfering in contracts, which is known as tortious interference. The documents were filed a week before the three-year statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim expires. It was likely done to preserve the right to pursue a legal claim, said Terrence Oved of Oved and Oved, who is not involved in the case.

The Trump Organization and the Carlyle Group declined to comment. Extell did not respond to a request for comment, and the Cheng Group could not be reached for comment.

Extell presented plans Thursday night for four residential and one mixed-use building (http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/extell-moving-forward-giant-riverside-center-amid-early-dissent) on an eight-acre site between 59th and 61st streets, the Observer reported.

antinimby
November 3rd, 2008, 06:43 PM
Extell presents its Portzamparc towers to Community Board 7

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1225483388_riversidecen5.jpg


31-OCT-08

Extell Development gave a presentation last night to Riverside South Task Force Committee of Community Board 7 of its plans to develop the southern end of the 56-acre, Riverside South project that Donald Trump got rezoned from manufacturing to residential and commercial uses in 1992.

Extell and its partners bought the southern half of the site that overlooks the Hudson River from Mr. Trump and his partners a few years ago and has completed two new residential condominium buildings, the Avery and the Rushmore, and is nearing completion of two new rental buildings, all under a 1993 Large Scale Development Special Permit whose "restrictive declaration" permited Extell's southernmost "superblock" to have 2.3 million square feet of development.

The presentation last night was about the "superblock" between West End Avenue and the Hudson River and 59th and 61st Streets just to the north of the enormous power plant designed by Stanford White of McKim, Mead & White in 1904 to house coal furnaces for the Interborough Rapid Transit Company. That building still retails two of its original six smokestacks.

The two-block Extell parcel is now called Riverside Center and it has been designed by Christian de Portzamparc, a French architect. The Portzamparc plans call for a 53-story tower on the northwest corner of the site, which would be the third to be built, a 50-story tower on its southwest site, which would be the last to be built, a 42-story tower on its northeast corner, which would be the first to be built, a 39-story tower on its southeast corner, which would be the second to be built, and a 35-story, mid-block tower on its south side, which would be the fourth to be built. Most of the towers will have slanted tops and angled sides and would be clustered around a central plaza that aligns with 60th Street.

The original plans by Mr. Trump for this parcel included a large studio facility for NBC-TV and Mr. Trump also had commissioned Helmut Jahn to design the world's tallest building further north on the rail-yards site. Mr. Trump subsequently hired Cooper-Robertson, and eventually agreed to the existing compromise plan that extended the undulations of Riverside Drive north of 72nd Street and called for several twin-towered buildings reminiscent of some on Central Park West.

Those plans also called for the demolition of the elevated Miller Highway and its replacement with a tunnel. The highway still exists on the site and partially blocks vistas from the new buildings of the river.

Gary Barnett, the president of Extell, told the community board meeting that a "scoping" session for the project's environmental studies is likely to occur in December. After environmental reviews, the project has to go through the city's Uniform Land Use Review Process, which involves public hearings by the community board, the borough president's office, the City Planning Commission and the City Council.

Mr. Barnett also said that plans announced earlier in the year to include a Costco at the site have since been abandoned but that it is still seeking to increase the total square footage of the southernmost site from 2.37 million square feet with 572,192 square feet of residential space to 3.1 million square feet with 2.55 million square feet of residential space. Extell's new plans also call for a 97,000-square-foot public school, a 240,000-square-foot hotel, a 44,000-square-foot cinema facility, 138,000-square feet of publicly accessible open space and an increase from 743 to 1,800 parking spaces.

The present plan and 1993 agreement calls for 12 percent of the residential units to be "affordable."

Mr. Barnett told the meeting that "it's a very difficult time" and "increased density" is needed for the project to proceed, adding that co-generation of energy is an idea his group will study and it strongly felt it did not want to wall off the river from the inland community.

Copyright © 1994-2008 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

Tectonic
November 11th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Trump is spending a lot of time in legal wranglings lately.

ItstheBeat
November 13th, 2008, 05:07 AM
Can we get a better render of the site plan please?

brianac
November 29th, 2008, 08:53 PM
Now Showing! Extell’s Portzamparc-Designed Riverside Center

by Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/2007/author/eliot-brown)
1:46 PM November 25, 2008

http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/article/files/sdeis%20aerial.JPG Extell via NYC DCP.
Extell's proposed Riverside Center, between 59th and 61st streets, along the West Side Highway.

Long in the planning stages, Gary Barnett and his Extell Development Co. have finally let loose images of Riverside Center, their planned 3.3 million-square-foot mostly residential complex at the base of the West Side development once known as Trump City. The Department of City Planning put on its Web site today (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/scope.shtml) an environmental review document for the project, a draft scope, which outlined the specifics of what Extell wants to put on the site, currently a series of parking lots.

The plan calls for five buildings, designed by Pritzker-winning Christian de Portzamparc, each a skinny tower that would run east-west on the two-block superblock [more details from a prior community presentation here (http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/extell-moving-forward-giant-riverside-center-amid-early-dissent)].
In all, the complex would have 2.75 million square feet of residential, 209,000 square feet of retail, and 239,000 square feet of hotel space, along with a few other uses.

The plan will ultimately need approval of the City Council and City Planning Commission, and there certainly is some strong resistance so far (http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/remember-trump-city) among West Side residents and elected officials. Extell is reopening a development agreement from the 1990s crafted after a multi-year battle between the site owner at the time, Donald Trump, and a set of civic groups and elected officials.

Mr. Barnett says the zoning, which was intended for a 150-story NBC world headquarters tower, is no longer relevant, and thus he wants to change it to residential. However, he also wants to increase the amount of density he can build on the site by about 700,000 square feet, an ambitious request that will likely be strongly contested.

In any event, the scoping document is an early first step in the public approval process. A hearing on the document is slated for Jan. 8. The formal seven-month approval process typically begins several months after that.

More images from the scope:

The view from the Hudson
http://www.observer.com/files/sdeis%20cross%20section.JPG

Looking from overhead:
http://www.observer.com/files/sdeis%20layout.JPG

Looking from Jersey
http://www.observer.com/files/sdeis%20aerial%202.JPG


http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/now-showing-extell-s-portzamparc-designed-riverside-center

© 2008 Observer Media Group,

Alonzo-ny
November 29th, 2008, 09:18 PM
They dont look very interesting.

STEAMWORKSNYC
November 29th, 2008, 09:52 PM
They kind of resemble the proposed buildings for the Con Ed site on the Eastside.Too bad nobody is following Moma's lead on unique designs.

londonlawyer
November 29th, 2008, 10:20 PM
Buildings 3 and 4 look really nice to me.

Eugenious
November 29th, 2008, 11:18 PM
Buildings 3 and 4 look really nice to me.

cocaine is a helluva drug

Tectonic
November 30th, 2008, 07:19 AM
cocaine is a helluva drug

LOL!! This is like 6 new buildings if you count the two to the north. We may need another rail line on the west side soon.

futurecity
November 30th, 2008, 03:37 PM
I agree - #4 looks like a chiseled diamond, nice. I would say that it makes a nice contrast to the brick buildings nearby.

ablarc
November 30th, 2008, 05:43 PM
Towers in a park.

Why is this good?

NYC4Life
November 30th, 2008, 05:51 PM
Rather than spectacular, the proposal only adds density.

lofter1
November 30th, 2008, 06:28 PM
It seems this plan is an improvement over the blocks to the north which, in an effort to avoid the dreaded "Towers in the Park" by leaving no space around the new buildings but instead building right to the sidewalk, have nevertheless created a veritable dead zone at street level.

The large open space shown in the rendering very logically opens up to the new Riverside South Park just to the west.

Alonzo-ny
November 30th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Why does it need to open up if there is park next to it, never mind the huge open space that is the river.

meesalikeu
November 30th, 2008, 08:39 PM
at a glance i'm more dismayed at 'the tower in the park' settings than the aesthetics of the buildings themselves (those are placeholders). i mean will ya look at that overhead view? it's useless and custom built for winter wind to whip around in. i cant even tell if the street view goes though to the river? looks like no :confused:

londonlawyer
November 30th, 2008, 10:21 PM
I agree - #4 looks like a chiseled diamond, nice. I would say that it makes a nice contrast to the brick buildings nearby.

Also, check out the wavy, north facade on building 3. It looks great.

lofter1
November 30th, 2008, 10:54 PM
I don't understand how folks can scream about buildings that are too fat & squat rather than tall & towering, but in the same breath those same folks complain if a building doesn't fill up the entire footprint of the buildable lot.

FAR rules, and if you use the square footage down low to hit the street wall then you've got to give away sf for what could be built higher up.

Alonzo-ny
December 1st, 2008, 05:57 AM
Id rather they were a little shorter with setbacks, or even sacrifice the open space and continue the street through if possible.

ablarc
December 1st, 2008, 07:26 AM
It seems this plan is an improvement over the blocks to the north which, in an effort to avoid the dreaded "Towers in the Park" by leaving no space around the new buildings but instead building right to the sidewalk, have nevertheless created a veritable dead zone at street level.
Seems to me the problem is there's nothing going on at sidewalk level, i.e. no shops. Isn't that because the zoning forbids it?

Isn't the zoning what it is because the residents want it that way? Don't they think shops attract riff-raff and traffic?

So you can have your choice of dead ground floors opening to lifeless sidewalk, or dead ground floors opening to lifeless (or menacing) parkland.

ZippyTheChimp
December 1st, 2008, 09:02 AM
It seems this plan is an improvement over the blocks to the north which, in an effort to avoid the dreaded "Towers in the Park" by leaving no space around the new buildings but instead building right to the sidewalk, have nevertheless created a veritable dead zone at street level.I don't think the choice of development style had much to do with the north neighborhood becoming a dead zone; it is more the existing geography.

Given the teardrop shape of the entire site, the north neighborhood is only 250 feet wide, and blocked on the east by the four block long Lincoln Towers. The area isn't attractive for retailers other than those that provide building services, such as a dry-cleaner. The only area that provides a sense of community is the park itself.

The southern neighborhood expands to about 800 feet, and will be fully connected to West End Ave. While retail is permitted in the R zone to the north, this site is zoned C4-7. It's the best opportunity to create a commercial focus for the entire neighborhood, and the present proposal misses it entirely.

ablarc
December 1st, 2008, 10:22 AM
It's the best opportunity to create a commercial focus for the entire neighborhood, and the present proposal misses it entirely.
I bet the "community" is against shops.

Suburban thinking in midtown Manhattan.

NYguy
December 1st, 2008, 11:40 AM
Another look at the renderings...

1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/106407388/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/106407402/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/106407390/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/106407397/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/106407413/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/106407401/large.jpg

7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/106407435/large.jpg

Alonzo-ny
December 1st, 2008, 01:16 PM
I dont see much design intent in these buildings. I cant believe Pontzamparc designed them.

NoyokA
December 1st, 2008, 01:32 PM
I like tower 4. The rest are pretty boring but I believe all the towers might be placeholders. I don't like the Towers in the Park design and would it kill them to build to the street wall and unlike the rest of Riverside South actually include some retail and cultural venues.

avngingandbright
December 1st, 2008, 01:45 PM
How to you mean, placeholders?

Jasonik
December 1st, 2008, 01:49 PM
I understand the need to keep the axial sight-line corridor free and wanting to bring in green space for a great common 'lawn' looking out to the river, but this plan is as incoherent as the (placeholder) buildings are middling. (What, no balconies overlooking the Hudson?!)

http://www.observer.com/files/sdeis%20layout.JPG

Marlowe
December 1st, 2008, 02:22 PM
I like the layout. I think Potz is right on with this.

Stroika
December 1st, 2008, 03:00 PM
Blech. The only attractive aspect of these buildings is that they'll be new when they open. Their fundamentals -- namely, the fact that they are "towers in the park" -- are abysmal. These buildings may create hype and their units may command high selling prices, but only because of their novelty. In 20 years, we'll all think "what a mistake" when looking at this dross. Then we'll wait another 50 years while they decay, wanting to rip them down but unable because they're so goddamn big. Maybe by 2100 we'll have techniques to easily and safely tear down obsolete skyscrapers (in the park).

ASchwarz
December 1st, 2008, 05:03 PM
They're placeholders, not designs.

I think people are commenting on (nonexistent or presently unreleased) designs.

Shadly
December 1st, 2008, 05:34 PM
They're placeholders, not designs.

I think people are commenting on (nonexistent or presently unreleased) designs.

Yeah, they want to leave enough open space so they can build the "Plaxico Burress Memorial Shooting Range and Convention Center" at a later date. It's a multi-use recreation center after all.

futurecity
December 1st, 2008, 08:26 PM
I don't see the problem with a little open green space around the towers. In fact, I think it would enhance them... manhattan needs all the concrete-free spacit can get. Unlike many, I don't spring to a negative conclusion if a tower does not abut the street directly or has a plaza or park in between - but then I admire cities that place open space (plazas, parks) as a top priority.

Stroika
December 1st, 2008, 10:16 PM
Plazas and parks can bring lifeblood to a city when well done. Bryant Park is fantastic. Union Square is a great place. But this suburban lawn is not either of those. I can't see the future, but I am 100% certain this "open space" will be much more like that at the nearby housing projects, or in any other NYC housing project. Because it's the same idea as those grassy areas -- and in no way similar to a Central Park or Times Square.

futurecity
December 1st, 2008, 11:24 PM
I highly doubt that these green spaces will end up being anything like that public housing complex you talk about. I suspect that it will be a selling point of the development actually, a place for residents to relax, a buffer from traffic. I think that is why they did this, to attract the more suburban city dweller who wants a retreat from the hustle and bustle. It may not be a times square/bryant park, but I think it will be a very succesful development overall. I really think the green areas will be used, especially on weekends. There might even be cafes, shops to attract people to linger. I mean, manhattan is a concrete jungle and I think it can do with all the green space it can get to be honest, even if it is not bringing shops/retail to the curb. I realize that many feel that green lawns don't belong in a city expect in parks, but I feel a few select projects like this will break up the monotonous street wall canyons of manhattan and provide a bit of natural relief. If done right, I don't believe it will fail especially given the clientelle of the proposed condos.

lofter1
December 1st, 2008, 11:54 PM
The tricky part about this site is that the elevated 9A roadway is right directly in front of it (unlike the buildings in the blocks to the north which are set back, a bit away from the highway). The new park / greenspace will actually look right out at the roadway as it moves down to street level. At the southern end it's low and will act almost like a wall between these newly-developed blocks and the park along the river.

So ... I rescind my previous comment, where I wrote that the park-like area logically opens up to the Riverside Park South just to the west. It only does that on a piece of paper.

Perhaps it's all being planned in the hope that the elevated roadway will actually be put underground one day. But Fat Chance that it will happen in our lifertimes (unless you happen to be 5).

ZippyTheChimp
December 2nd, 2008, 12:17 AM
I bet the "community" is against shops.Maybe the WalMart incident spooked them.


Plazas and parks can bring lifeblood to a city when well done.Although burdened with a dead-end street (which will soon be corrected), a better designed public space is a few blocks north on 65 st and West End Ave. A well defined park surrounded by streets and buildings.


But this suburban lawn is not either of those.That's exactly what they'll be. Front lawns for the buildings, with walks leading to the doorways.


So ... I rescind my previous comment, where I wrote that the park-like area logically opens up to the Riverside Park South just to the west. It only does that on a piece of paper.I don't see why the park needs a specific grand entrance. Though better with the El highway buried, all properties end at the winding Riverside Blvd, which will have park access at various points. No different than CPW.

I forgot to mention the block-long IRT powerhouse directly south of the site. Another reason the site needs to generate it's own activity.

Marlowe
December 4th, 2008, 10:06 AM
I highly doubt that these green spaces will end up being anything like that public housing complex you talk about. I suspect that it will be a selling point of the development actually, a place for residents to relax, a buffer from traffic. I think that is why they did this, to attract the more suburban city dweller who wants a retreat from the hustle and bustle. It may not be a times square/bryant park, but I think it will be a very succesful development overall. I really think the green areas will be used, especially on weekends. There might even be cafes, shops to attract people to linger. I mean, manhattan is a concrete jungle and I think it can do with all the green space it can get to be honest, even if it is not bringing shops/retail to the curb. I realize that many feel that green lawns don't belong in a city expect in parks, but I feel a few select projects like this will break up the monotonous street wall canyons of manhattan and provide a bit of natural relief. If done right, I don't believe it will fail especially given the clientelle of the proposed condos.

I agree.

You have to consider that the grid is absent in the surrounding blocks. Apart from Lincoln Center, you have Fordham University, you have John Jay which may want to open up its campus, to the north you have projects (unfortunately), Lincoln Towers (is that their name?). I think the grid comes back somewhere between 69 and 71st St.

lofter1
December 4th, 2008, 10:37 AM
At the risk of being called pedantic :eek: :

The grid is basically intact directly to the east (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=10+West+End+Ave,+New+York,+New+York,+New+Yo rk+10023&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&cd=1&geocode=FZMgbgId8wCX-w&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&ll=40.772279,-73.986794&spn=0.003713,0.006781&t=h&z=17) (north of 59th between West End and Amsterdam) except for a short stretch mid-block at 61st / 62nd Streets; it remains intact up to 66th Street at the southern edge of the Lincoln Towers housing complex (not a "project" in the way that term is generally understood). The main disruption of the grid is farther east, between Amsterdam and Columbus where Fordham & Lincoln Center break it up from 60th <> 65th, save for the one through cross street at 62nd.

Anyway, those interruptions of the grid mainly effect Vehicles -- for the most part the grid remains in effect for Pedestrian passage.

btw: How does the John Jay Campus interrupt the grid?

Pinkie
December 4th, 2008, 11:17 AM
This development reminds me of a scaled down Hudson Yards. I like the site plan and I think the green space will be well used considering the abundance of residential development in the area.

ablarc
December 5th, 2008, 07:58 AM
I think the green space will be well used considering the abundance of residential development in the area.
Technically, I'm not sure this is a space at all. A space has edges. This is more like leftovers around buildings.

Maybe it's on the borderline. An almost space?

Moebius
January 27th, 2009, 09:29 AM
For those interested, Extell is promoting it's proposal for Riverside South with a glass of wine at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle, 405 West 59th between 9th and 10th on Thursday Feb. 12 at 6:30 PM. I received an e-mail invite with an RSVP # 212-712-6106. These are the same people who gave a free Seal concert for the Avery launch. I guess they are scaling down.

NYC360Guy
February 13th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Anyone have any pics on the construction next to the Rushmore building on 64th street....

Derek2k3
February 13th, 2009, 11:20 PM
http://afinecompany.blogspot.com/2009/02/extells-aldyn-at-riverside-south-rises.html

Tectonic
March 11th, 2009, 08:18 AM
http://www.riversidecenternyc.com/

http://curbed.com/archives/2009/03/10/high_five_extells_riverside_center_revealed.php

antinimby
March 11th, 2009, 01:18 PM
Towers-in-the-park.

Ugh.


http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3625/3344932944_ac84839b00_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3551/3344086173_c861e726b6_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3546/3344921380_1e317d3f37_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3583/3344086745_17941b80d4_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3596/3344920514_ac468c6293_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3609/3344086817_15183aff9f_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3611/3344086545_abfb9c58d5_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3373/3344921114_d3f4277bd9_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3389/3344086303_55a4ddfee4_o.jpg

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3552/3344086451_63d88c030c_o.jpg

avngingandbright
March 11th, 2009, 02:46 PM
Aggressively anti-urban, ala Robert Moses.

brianac
March 27th, 2009, 06:12 PM
Just a snippet, dont' know if it is old news or how serious a proposal it is.


METRO-NORTH CONSIDERS W. 60s STOP (http://westsidespirit.com/?p=1785)

March 26, 2009


Riverside South, the mega development between West 59th and 61st streets along the Hudson River, is being considered by Metro-North as a location for an Upper West Side railway stop. The MTA has long studied the possibility of connecting Metro-North’s New Haven and Hudson lines, which terminate in Grand Central Station, with Penn Station. But without room at Penn Station, an entrance on the West Side is being considered.

Council Member Gale Brewer sent a letter to Howard Permut, president of the Metro-North Railroad, asking about including stop at Riverside South, a project being developed by Extell.

Permut responded, thanking Brewer for her interest and stating that Robert MacLagger, acting vice president for planning, has been assigned to meet with her on a proposed Metro-North entrance.

“The next step is to conduct further analysis of this potential station location and others,” Permut wrote in the letter.

“It’s positive. It was nice to get this letter,” Brewer said. “I can’t think of a better way to add transportation and get people out of their car.”

Both Extell and Metro-North confirmed they have been discussing the feasibility of such a project. Brewer’s office said they are expecting to set a date to meet with MacLagger, the project manager, shortly.

© 2009 Manhattan Media

Alonzo-ny
March 27th, 2009, 06:20 PM
Forgive me if Im wrong but Metro-north comes down the east side, right? They want to curve it round to the west side and dump people there how many blocks from the subway?

londonlawyer
March 27th, 2009, 10:02 PM
Hi, mate!

The Harlem and New Haven lines come down the east side. The Hudson line comes down along the Hudson River before crossing east.

Alonzo-ny
March 28th, 2009, 08:07 AM
Thanks amigo! Wouldnt this proposed plan be quite awkward? What is the logic with terminating the trains at Riverside. Wouldnt that result in everyone just getting off at GCT anyway?

londonlawyer
March 28th, 2009, 09:15 AM
I think that there would probably be a stop at Riverside -- just like there's a stop at 125th St.

ZippyTheChimp
March 28th, 2009, 10:18 AM
Just a snippet, dont' know if it is old news or how serious a proposal it is.The proposal has been around for at least a decade. Not sure what is meant by "an entrance on the West Side is being considered."

The study is called Metro North Penn Station Access. The problem has been the availability of slots at Penn Station. That will be alleviated with the completion of East Side Access (diverting LIRR trains to GCT), and Access to the Region Core (new NJT station at 34th).

Two Amtrak lines would be used for access to Penn Station. The Hell Gate Line splits from Metro North New Haven Line at New Rochelle. Stations would be added at Co-op City, Parkchester, and Hunts Point.

The Amtrak line through Riverside is the Empire Corridor. It splits from Metro north Hudson Line near Spuyten Duyvil. This is the route of the proposed W60th St station, but a terminal here makes no sense. If not Penn Station, maybe the "entrance" is at Hudson Yards, where it would connect to the #7 subway.

econ_tim
April 6th, 2009, 01:21 AM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3550/3417144414_fd6d748fd7.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3573/3416328811_06c1d1f892_b.jpg

Tectonic
April 6th, 2009, 01:31 AM
Some projects are rolling along just fine and dandy.

ZippyTheChimp
April 7th, 2009, 01:08 AM
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7119/riversidesouth01c.th.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/my.php?image=riversidesouth01c.jpg)


64th and 63rd Sts are cut though.
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5434/riversidesouth02c.th.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/my.php?image=riversidesouth02c.jpg)


New north-south street mapped.
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4715/riversidesouth03c.th.jpg (http://img111.imageshack.us/my.php?image=riversidesouth03c.jpg)


http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4796/riversidesouth04c.th.jpg (http://img111.imageshack.us/my.php?image=riversidesouth04c.jpg)

econ_tim
August 25th, 2009, 12:09 AM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3854023149_dbb9e4c34f_b.jpg

ablarc
August 25th, 2009, 08:11 AM
I don't understand the hatred some folks display toward these buildings.

The buildings themselves are better styled than those in Battery Park City, imo.

They have decent Deco massing much better than their modernist neighbors eastward.

They could do with a little Deco ornament; that might make them more popular.

Will there be ground floor shops?

lofter1
August 25th, 2009, 10:41 AM
It seems for this whole complex they've shoved the shops to the backside, so that the entire stretch of street facing the Hudson has a sterile / dead quality where nothing happens except cars dropping people off.

The architectural treatment at the sidewalks along Riverside South is banal and harsh. They should have left a narrow planting area out front (ala many of the older buildings along Fifth Avenue opposite Central Park) to soften the effect. Perhaps if they were to plant more trees at the edge of the sidewalk that would ease the pain.

Tectonic
August 25th, 2009, 03:02 PM
I agree 100%, I couldn't figure out why it always felt like something was missing on that side.....some trees and plants could be it.

ZippyTheChimp
August 25th, 2009, 03:04 PM
I don't understand the hatred some folks display toward these buildings.Walk the streets.


.What Lofter said.

MidtownGuy
August 25th, 2009, 03:12 PM
Yeah, the streets in the area around these buildings are a wasteland. Might as well be the surface of the moon.

ablarc
August 25th, 2009, 04:27 PM
Yeah, the streets in the area around these buildings are a wasteland. Might as well be the surface of the moon.
Could that be the result of zoning banishing shops?

Is Battery Park City all that pedestrian-friendly, except for the actual riverfront? How would it be if it had an elevated highway?

ablarc
August 25th, 2009, 04:37 PM
It seems for this whole complex they've shoved the shops to the backside, so that the entire stretch of street facing the Hudson has a sterile / dead quality where nothing happens except cars dropping people off.
Could you put shops there --legally or economically?


They should have left a narrow planting area out front (ala many of the older buildings along Fifth Avenue opposite Central Park) to soften the effect.
Is this a suburban prescription?

And isn't the situation tempered on Fifth Avenue by the occasional appearance of a cafe?

Fabrizio
August 25th, 2009, 04:55 PM
Question: Riverside, West End and CPW have no shops. Commerce was concentrated on B'way, Columbus and Amsterdam. So if Riverside South doesn't have businesses wouldn't it just be following the formula of the area? Isn't the biggest problem here that all of these buildings have a block busting footprint? Maybe if some blocks had 2 or 3 buildings instead of just 1 it would be more varied. Gracious touches like canopies reaching out over the sidewalks would be nice.

ablarc
August 25th, 2009, 05:22 PM
^ Right on.

lofter1
August 25th, 2009, 11:32 PM
There is not a single cafe in the buildings on Fifth opening onto the Avenue opposite Central Park that I know of.

Why is a small planting area termed "Suburban?" People in the cities had greenery out front long before the suburbs were even dreamed of.

ablarc
August 26th, 2009, 08:15 AM
^ Is the Stanhope gone?

Fabrizio
August 26th, 2009, 09:04 AM
^ All gone: it's a condo now. The cafe opened on to 5th and it was quite a romantic place.

But 5th is a bad example to use here... it is residential but with the Met, the Guggenhiem, the Cooper Hewitt, the Frick, the Frak, and so on... it will always have foot traffic.

ablarc
August 26th, 2009, 09:47 AM
^ Could use some cafes. Does the zoning forbid it?

ablarc
August 26th, 2009, 09:55 AM
^ All gone: it's a condo now. The cafe opened on to 5th and it was quite a romantic place.
Livin' in my garden of Stone Age memories.

lofter1
August 26th, 2009, 11:50 AM
But 5th is a bad example to use here... it is residential but with the Met, the Guggenhiem, the Cooper Hewitt, the Frick, the Frak, and so on... it will always have foot traffic.

But Fifth is opposite a large park, as is Riverside South (unlike West End, which has buildings on both sides of the Avenue). The new stretch of Riverside South was a potentially great site for something special. But special is not what was built.

The stretch of Fifth between 59th <> 70th (where the Frick stands, and where Museum Mile begins) is museum free, but is enlivened by pedestrians on their way to somewhere and is made better by the inclusion of a tad of greenery at the buildings' bases.

Perhaps the failure to include anything of interest along this stretch of Riverside South which might bring in additional foot traffic is one of the failures of its design / urban planning scheme. Riverside South is sorta like Oakland: There's no there there.

ablarc
August 26th, 2009, 01:04 PM
^ Fair enough.

fioco
August 27th, 2009, 12:01 AM
The missed opportunities are as obvious as the criticisms have detailed. Yet, isn't this isolation an intended part of the overall 'urban' (sic) design? Without shops, cafes or nearby destinations to engage a diverse foot traffic, isn't Riverside South a gated community without the inconvenience of gates? . . . an illusion of full-integration into the street scape without the annoyance of a great unwashed strolling past your street? Is this what the dwellers are seeking, though perhaps unconscious? Is this the city version of suburban cocooning?

Give me the lively streets of Eighth and Ninth Avenue, shoulders impatiently even rudely brushing past me, a glimpse of a smile, an unguarded glance, a scene of delight (or of horror, disgust, or surprise) that lets me know I'm alive!

SlavMan1
September 13th, 2009, 11:41 AM
It's a great neighborhood for people and especially families who want spacious apartments with park/river views and (by NYC standards) at affordable prices. Riverside Park South has a great playground for little kids. The park also provides easy access to the Hudson River for bikers, joggers, strollers, etc. The 70th St. pier and the cafe are wonderful. The park is being expanded with new green space, beach volleyball courts, a dog run, etc. There is nowhere else in this great City where people can enjoy nature as much. As a resident of the neighbor, I would love to have retail, but I also enjoy the serenity of Riverside Blvd.

ablarc
September 13th, 2009, 04:14 PM
^ The horse's mouth.

meesalikeu
September 13th, 2009, 04:45 PM
Livin' in my garden of Stone Age memories.

aww c'mon it wasnt that long ago!

still its a shame, the stanhope's cafe m or m cafe or whatever it was called was great to have on that otherwise residential richy rich stretch.

the only thing along the way on fifth that is around there now that i can think of are the austrian styled cafes at the neue galerie museum at 86th, but they are indoors. thats where we usually go after a museum visit.

SlavMan1
September 14th, 2009, 05:54 PM
^ The horse's mouth.

Damn straight! I live in the neighborhood and love it. The only other neighborhood that comes close to having as much open space, parkland, views is Battery Park City.

Derek2k3
September 28th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Not sure they can be combined but there's a Trump Place thread here also.
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3408&page=22

Since I know how much we love HDR.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2432/3702412371_c996950992_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/onesevenone/3702412371/sizes/l/in/set-72157611302093477/]onesevenone

Stroika
October 23rd, 2009, 12:39 PM
This is an interesting article: All of the community groups' counterplans to Extell/Portzamparc's plan for Riverside South reject the tower-in-the-park approach that Portzamparc embraces. Instead, they restore the grid and have carefully delineated parks with dense residential areas. They are, accordingly, infinitely smarter and more likely to be successful than the Pritzker winner's plans, IMO.


10.21.2009
Trump It's Not
Portzamparc tackles Riverside South, though alternative plans put up tough defense
http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/ExtellRender.jpg Christian de Portzamparc and Signe Nielsen have designed a major residential complex for Extell Development (right) on the last undeveloped parcels at Riverside South.
Courtesy Extell

Riverside South, like so many of Donald Trump’s projects, is not particularly known for its architecture. Beginning in 1997—after decades of plans, deals, and legal wrangling—the first of nearly a dozen faux-Park Avenue towers began to rise above the West Side Highway. In 2005, Extell Development bought the final undeveloped parcels at the southern tip of the project. But instead of more bland luxury, Extell announced last fall that Pritzker Prize-winning French architect Christian de Portzamparc would be designing the project, which was unveiled earlier this year as Riverside Center, a soaring, crystalline complex spanning four city blocks.

And yet Portzamparc’s plan is already facing skepticism from locals, and not only because it is 800,000 square feet larger than previously allowed. Ever since NBC abandoned Trump’s plans to build new studios on the southern most plots, planners and community groups have been devising alternatives. While Extell is in no way required to embrace these plans, it must now contend with them, as was the case during a September 30 roundtable at the Center for Architecture.

While the half-dozen medium- and high-rise towers crafted in Portzamparc’s sculpted style are the most notable piece of the plan, the architect insists the most important part is what happens at the street. Working with landscape designer Signe Nielsen, Portzamparc has broken the predominating superblock and carved it into quarters. The idea is to incorporate the project with the city’s street grid and create view corridors through the project to the river.

The designers draw 60th Street into the project, heightening access and street activity. But the street terminates halfway through the site, where it is met by a 1.5-acre park. This is partly practical—the grade change is 28 feet, rather steep for a roadway—but also a public gesture. To create visual continuity with the street, a shallow reflecting pool runs the length of the park. “It was a way not to create an enclave and also to flow with the Manhattan grid, which allows a variety of architecture,” Portzamparc said. He added that the open space, which reaches 3.2 acres when plazas surrounding the buildings are included, is larger than that at Lincoln Center.

The buildings themselves will contain some 3.1 million square feet of development, and though their exact configuration remains to be determined, Extell has been promoting a school, grocery store, and movie theater as lacking public amenities that could find a home in the base of the towers. Above them would be a mix of luxury apartments, hotel rooms, and possibly affordable housing. “We see it as an exclamation point to the rest of Riverside South,” Nielsen said.

Like Portzamparc, his interlocutors focused considerably more attention on the ground than the towers above them. The Riverside South Planning Corporation, a non-profit that oversees the original master plan for development, also advocates the continuation of 60th Street, but it proposes a wall of towers on the north side with the creation of a public park on the block to the south. Not only are they skeptical of how public the park at the center of a major development would be, but Paul Elston, president of the corporation, said it would be less stifling on McKim, Mead & White’s old IRC power station on 59th Street. The corporation has proposed transforming the Con Ed-owned building into a cultural institution akin to the Tate Modern.

The Coalition for a Livable West Side proposed an approach similar to that at Gramercy Park. A public park would be created first running north-south in the middle of the site, with four development plots surrounding it—two east of the park, two west. Finally, Paul Wellen, one of the architects of the original plan, abandoned the corporation’s plan for something he said was more reasonable. He proposed leaving Portzamparc’s plan intact, except eliminate a mid-size tower at the middle of the complex, thus reducing its overall balk and opening up the IRT station.

Nielsen said these approaches were unfeasible, however, because they ignore issues such as creating a certain critically New York density and that 59th Street is a major Department of Sanitation route, to which the park should not be exposed. “These were things we were aware of, but we could not consider them,” Portzamparc said.

What shape the project takes will begin to be decided this winter, when the developer said it would initiate the public review process—it needs a special waver to deviate from the original plans for a studio, as well as to seek greater density. While the local community board has yet to take a position on the project, Page Cowley, an architect and co-chair of the board’s land-use committee, said the considerable community outreach undertaken by the developer has been heartening.

As for the designs, Cowley said that while they are impressive, many questions remain. “Schools, parks, and cars are probably bigger concerns than the architecture here,” Cowley said. “Because it’s bound to put a strain on other resources in the neighborhood.”
A version of this article appeared in AN 17_10.21.2009.
http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3947


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/4032838511_83ff56619e.jpg


Portzamparc/Extell's plan (above and below)



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/4033591848_ff762274b6.jpg



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2435/4033591754_26e18c102a.jpg


The Riverside South Planning Corporation's plan (above and below)



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2670/4032838419_8e9c7b544a.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/4032824097_f563d2f4fb.jpg



The best plan, by The Coalition for a Livable West Side

ablarc
October 23rd, 2009, 02:45 PM
^ Not brilliant, but at least it's urban.

Alonzo-ny
October 23rd, 2009, 04:44 PM
Who would have thought nimbies would be right for once?

antinimby
October 23rd, 2009, 06:21 PM
Even a blind squirrel...

lofter1
October 24th, 2009, 03:29 PM
In this rendering the Hudson River is to the left -- the westernmost line of towers in this scheme visually + physically block connection to the River and Riverside Park South.

So why would this be considered the "best" proposal?




http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/4032824097_f563d2f4fb.jpg

The best plan, by The Coalition for a Livable West Side


This project includes 3.1 Million sf of development, which means lots of people will be living & working on those 4 city blocks. The biggest unresolved problem at this site is the junction of Riverside Boulevard + the West Side Hiway, which by the looks of the Potzamparc rendering (below), encompasses about 10 or more lanes of traffic. The WSH at that point is basically at grade so any pedestrian activity east <> west would be across those traffic lanes.

An elevated pedestrian bridge would be a wise addition. A bridge would allow safer and easier access both to the riverfront park and create a needed point of entry to the piers just to the south (which are very active with events).

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/ExtellRender.jpg

10WEARCC
November 24th, 2009, 05:26 PM
We too are concerned about Extell’s breaking the deal with the community. Extell needs to be stopped from developing the massive project that it is proposing that will only add to even more overcrowding in our schools and will take away the last chance we have to build a neighborhood. We are for more modest residential development on the site that incorporates schools, a neighborhood retail center, and a public park, and are against the massive hotel/convention center and car dealership that Extell proposes.

Please sign our petition and help us win this battle for the benefit of all Upper West Siders. You can conveniently sign the petition online by going to the following link:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/riverside-center-needs-schools-neighborhood-retail-center-and-a-public-park-not-more-residential (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/riverside-center-needs-schools-neighborhood-retail-center-and-a-public-park-not-more-residential)


Or you can just log on to www.thepetitionsite.com (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/) and search for “Riverside Center,” and our petition will come up. Please sign the petition, and please forward it to as many of your friends and neighbors as possible to sign it as well. We only have power with numbers, so we urge you to sign the petition. Your signature is critical to the success of our fight!

Thank you for your support!
The 10WEA Riverside Center Committee
10weariversideproject@gmail.com (10weariversideproject@gmail.com)

Stroika
November 24th, 2009, 07:42 PM
That seems a bit extreme. I'm all for density; I'd just rather have an urban composition appropriate for New York than the towers in the park garbage Extell is proposing.

I'm afraid that any "community" proposal -- which usually means taking the interests of a small portion of the community that has reasons to have interest where most people don't really give a hoot -- means less density, less urbanity, more towers in the park or nonsensical "public" or "neighborhood" accoutrements (like pointless fountains, underused basketball courts or "public buildings" that are mainly empty, etc.).

I don't follow the particular complaints outlined above, other than that they sound like typical NIMBY take-downs: a hotel might be a good idea in an area with few hotels (as opposed to another in McSam's Hotel Hell or the Financial District) and as for the car dealership, the Far West Side has traditionally been a hub for car sales (it's no coincidence that the BMW building is nearby!). Does this plan incorporate any aesthetic, architectural or urban perspectives, or is it merely "not in my backyard! give me 'open space'!" (when that backyard is Midtown Manhattan)?

Derek2k3
November 25th, 2009, 12:54 AM
We too are concerned about Extell’s breaking the deal with the community. Extell needs to be stopped from developing the massive project that it is proposing that will only add to even more overcrowding in our schools and will take away the last chance we have to build a neighborhood. We are for more modest residential development on the site that incorporates schools, a neighborhood retail center, and a public park, and are against the massive hotel/convention center and car dealership that Extell proposes.

Please sign our petition and help us win this battle for the benefit of all Upper West Siders. You can conveniently sign the petition online by going to the following link:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/riverside-center-needs-schools-neighborhood-retail-center-and-a-public-park-not-more-residential (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/riverside-center-needs-schools-neighborhood-retail-center-and-a-public-park-not-more-residential)


Or you can just log on to www.thepetitionsite.com (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/) and search for “Riverside Center,” and our petition will come up. Please sign the petition, and please forward it to as many of your friends and neighbors as possible to sign it as well. We only have power with numbers, so we urge you to sign the petition. Your signature is critical to the success of our fight!

Thank you for your support!
The 10WEA Riverside Center Committee
10weariversideproject@gmail.com (10weariversideproject@gmail.com)


Funny enough, activists just like you opposed the construction of your very own building 4 years ago. Unlike your building though, which contributes absolutely nothing to the city (is there even retail?), Extell is planning a school, retail, a park and exceptional architecture that would actually attract other New Yorkers to the area. But I forget you NIMBY's seem to only care about yourselves and your kids.

Wouldn't it be wiser to work with the developer. Why not mandate them to build a bigger school if you care so much about school overcrowding. Even if Extell doesn't get the 1 msf here, far more than 1 msf of residential space is planned for the immediate area. Then what? More petitions?

How is the 1992 plan composed of 40 story towers more conducive to neighborhood-building. Just look at what's been completed so far. Just admit that these towers will block your view and that you don't like that some of Extell's uses will bring outsiders into your wasteland of a neighborhood.

MidtownGuy
November 25th, 2009, 01:26 AM
^yeah!