PDA

View Full Version : 101 Warren Street - Condo, Rentals - TriBeCa - by Skidmore, Ownings & Merrill



Pages : [1] 2 3

Edward
October 24th, 2002, 10:26 PM
Recreating an old thread....

Originally posted by Stern

Developer Edward J. Minskoff was selected by New York City to build a tower on a 90,565
square foot site bounded by Greenwich, Murray, and Warren Streets in Tribeca. The L shaped lot
is currently a parking lot but since 1985 has been proposed for the New York Mercantile
Exchange, headquarters for the New York Board of Trade, and for the headquarters of Drexel
Burnham Lambert. Edward Minskoff is proposing to build a 1.5 million square foot, 60 storey
tower to rise 600 feet on the site. Originally proposed as a 515 foot tower with 34 storeys, the
tower was able to rise higher when Edward Minskoff acquired the air rights from the College of
Insurance on the same block. The taller building designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merril will
have loading docks opposite P.S. 234 resulting in community opposition. A recently formed
group known as *Citizens for Intelligent Planning hopes to stop such a building from being built.
The still unnamed tower will consist of black granite and glass. The tower will begin
construction in April of 2002 and will finish three years later. Minskoff stated that he will break
ground even without an anchor tenant. This speculative office building will most likly become
the first downtown office tower built within a dozen years.

[hr]

Text and pictures below from SOM website
http://www.som.com/

The massing of the proposed design develops from a series of simple steps that relate directly to the physical context and program. The building is set back from Greenwich Street to create a landscaped plaza for the development, the adjacent College of Insurance and the neighborhood. The establishment of this open space is central to the integration of this project into the surrounding context. Like the open spaces to the north at Salomon Smith Barney, the gardens of Independence Plaza, Washington Market Park, and the playground at PS234, the proposed plaza adds another link to the emerald necklace that the "Greening of Greenwich" plan promises. It also may recall the "pleasure garden" formerly near the site. To the west of this plaza, the massing of the project develops around a folding masonry form that addresses the two different scales of the context. This form begins its three-dimensional movement along the north side of the site and climbs vertically to clearly define a pedestrian-scaled masonry street wall along Warren Street. The height and material of this street wall relates directly to the scale and materials of its neighbors to the north and east. Folding to the south, the masonry form defines a podium for the tower above before it again climbs vertically along the south side of the site to the highest point in the massing. The larger scale of this southern face addresses the scale of the financial district and also creates a kind of "bookend" or complimentary bracket to the massing of Salomon Smith Barney to the north.

Around this masonry form are three distinct glass volumes. The first two volumes nestle under the masonry form and relate directly to their programs. At the southern edge of the site and at grade, a glass enclosed office lobby extends through the project and links Greenwich and West Street. This through block lobby reestablishes the strong east/west organization of the site present when the first piers extended into the Hudson from this location. The eastern end of the lobby extends out towards the plaza to create a clear entry and its chamfered end responds directly to the angle of Greenwich Street. To the north of this lobby, the second glass volume contains street level commercial space accessible from West and Warren Street as well as from the entrance plaza.

The third glass volume is placed above and north of the folding masonry form. The relationship between this volume and the masonry form is critical for two reasons. First, the taller and more solid masonry form acts as a passive solar screen for the glass volume. Shaded by the more solid masonry form, the glass volume can be very transparent, optimizing the quality of light inside and presenting an open, delicate "picture window" to the north. Second, by shifting the glass volume to the west, stepping profiles are created on the east and west faces of the tower that directly correspond to the angles of West and Greenwich Streets. With its northern and southern faces assuming the geometry of the dominant city grid and the stepping profiles of the eastern and western faces responding to the rotated grid sponsored by the Hudson, the tower is a direct manifestation and resolution of the complex grids that overlap the site.

The building is set back from Greenwich Street to create a landscaped plaza for the development. To the west of the plaza, the massing of the project develops around a folding masonry form that addresses the two different scales of the design. This form begins its three-dimensional movement along the north side of the site and climbs vertically to clearly define a pedestrian-scaled masonry street wall along Warren Street.

Around this masonry form are three distinct glass volumes. At the southern edge of the site and at grade, a glass enclosed office lobby extends through the project and links Greenwich and West Street. To the north of this lobby, the second glass volume contains street level commercial space accessible from West and Warren Street as well as from the entrance plaza.

The third glass volume is placed above and north of the folding masonry form. The relationship between this volume and the masonry form is critical for two reasons. First, the taller and more solid masonry form acts as a passive solar screen for the glass volume. Second, by shifting the glass volume to the west, stepping profiles are created on the east and west faces of the tower that directly correspond to the angles of West and Greenwich Streets.


http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b7sm_1283.jpg

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b11sm_1280.jpg

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b18_1282.jpg

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/3/7/0/b12_1281.jpg

Edward
October 24th, 2002, 10:29 PM
270 Greenwich (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/default.htm) will be erected on this parking lot. The view on 22 June 2002 from the corner of Greenwich and Warren Streets, with the 4 World Financial Center (http://www.wirednewyork.com/wfc/4wfc/default.htm) beyond.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/images/270greenwich_warren_22june02.jpg



A stretch of cobblestone Washington Street divides the lot of 270 Greenwich (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/default.htm). 101 Barclay building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/101_barclay.htm) is across the Murray Street.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/270greenwich/images/270greenwich_washington_22june02.jpg

Zoe
October 25th, 2002, 10:40 AM
Here is the buildings web site http://www.270greenwich.com/
As I remember there were not alot of fans of this building on this forum, but I still like it.

kliq6
October 30th, 2003, 04:58 PM
Has anyone heard anything on this, has it been cancelled?

TLOZ Link5
October 30th, 2003, 05:06 PM
I believe it's been cancelled, or will be cancelled shortly. They are considering a taller residential building on that site now.

I say good riddance. It was typical SOM blah.

"Salomon Smith Barney Building?" Are they referring to 7 WTC?

kliq6
October 30th, 2003, 05:09 PM
further proof, Lower Manhattan is no longer the Finacial Capital of the World, that title is now Jersey City

NoyokA
October 30th, 2003, 05:14 PM
I can tell you that Jersey City is not the Financial Capital of the world.

kliq6
October 30th, 2003, 05:24 PM
85% of trades are processed over there and large firms like merrill and Morgan have more empoloyees in that state then in the city. Keeping an official headquaters someplace is one thing, but man power and job numbers are what counts and more and more Jersey City is on top of NYC, i should know, i work for Morgan. But this argument is for another place

alejo
October 30th, 2003, 07:27 PM
"Lower Manhattan is no longer the Finacial Capital of the World, that title is now Jersey City"


hahahahahahahaha!

JMC
October 30th, 2003, 09:24 PM
Actually...you're both wrong. Bear, Morgan Stanley and Goldman (an seon, BNY) all have their back offices in, or around, Metro Tech, in Brooklyn. JC is home to Pershing and Lord Abbott.

The world's largest trading floor is up in Stamford, and it belongs to UBS.

7 WTC was *all* asset management.

TLOZ Link5
October 30th, 2003, 09:32 PM
There are more employees of the NYC financial industry than there are residents of Jersey City.

DominicanoNYC
October 30th, 2003, 09:46 PM
I actually like the contrast of the black and clear glass. It's not that bad.

ZippyTheChimp
October 30th, 2003, 10:11 PM
Substitute London for Jersey City, and at least the debate would be credible.

JC is the financial capital of NJ.

NYguy
June 17th, 2004, 08:02 PM
Originally planned as an office tower to be completed by 2004, 270 Greenwich is now a mixed tower of 730 residential units and 240,000 sf of retail space. (Possibly 700 ft)


The site of 270 Greenwich Street in relation to other high profile projects in the area...


http://www.pbase.com/image/30274991/large.jpg

krulltime
June 17th, 2004, 11:12 PM
This is good news then...wow so many towers happening in downtown. I am so happy for the city! :mrgreen:

NYCResident
June 18th, 2004, 12:01 AM
Is there any more info on this development? I haven't heard anything new on this for a while..

billyblancoNYC
June 18th, 2004, 12:59 AM
Is there any more info on this development? I haven't heard anything new on this for a while..

Nope. Not sure if this will happen, or a new developer and/or project will be chosen. This was stated a few posts earlier.

ZippyTheChimp
June 18th, 2004, 01:11 AM
The site has a history of failed development - Drexell Burnham, the Commodity Exchanges.

NYguy
June 20th, 2004, 04:18 AM
Not sure if this will happen, or a new developer and/or project will be chosen. This was stated a few posts earlier.

It will happen. The city is pushing this development (particularly because its residential) and seeking a developer...Minskoff wants to stay on, but we'll just have to see what the city does...


JUNE 19th, the 270 Greenwich St development will rise on this parking lot...


http://www.pbase.com/image/30352009/large.jpg


A view down Greenwich Street towards the looming 7 WTC...(parking lot on the right)

http://www.pbase.com/image/30352012/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/30352014/large.jpg

kliq6
July 18th, 2004, 05:14 PM
Nothing will happen on this site till a deal is made at site 5-c

TLOZ Link5
July 18th, 2004, 07:41 PM
I hope SOM's atrocious design is not being considered.

Archit_K
July 19th, 2004, 12:42 AM
yes, another box in downtown. :x

NYguy
July 20th, 2004, 08:17 PM
I hope SOM's atrocious design is not being considered.

Doubtful, as it will now be a residential building. But there's a chance Minskoff could still be a developer...

NYguy
September 7th, 2004, 09:12 AM
Not so great news for the site, but good for Downtown...

(Tribeca Trib)

Development Talks for Sites 5B and 5C Down to the Wire

by Carl Glassman

It was looking less like a negotiation and more like a game of chicken late last month as City Councilman Alan Gerson and Bloomberg administration officials sought a last-minute agreement over massive new residential construction proposed for Tribeca.

Development plans for two city-owned parcels near P.S. 234, Sites 5B and 5C, have been the focus of complex negotiations for months.

On Sept. 9, following two days of committee hearings and concluding a required 60-day review process, the City Council is scheduled to vote on the sale of one of those sites, 5C at West and Chambers Streets, to developer Scott Resnick.

But much more is at stake than Resnick's plans for a 300-foot-high apartment tower.

Community leaders and city officials appear to have reached an agreement on Resnick's project. It is expected to include a 300-foot-high residential tower, nearly 28,000 square feet of space for a community center (with a 75-foot pool) run by Manhattan Youth, and a 10-classroom pre-k and kindergarten feeder school. Though important financial details were yet to be worked out, Gerson and Community Board 1 representatives said they were pleased with the deal after much haggling over the size of the community center (now more than twice what Resnick originally offered) and the height of the building (100 feet shorter than first proposed).

The catch is that the city has plans for a much bigger project-which faces more resistance from the community-on the larger Site 5B, bordered by Greenwich, Warren, Murray and West Streets.

City officials have linked the negotiations on the two sites. Looking to avert future community opposition to the large-scale development on Site 5B, community leaders said the city wants them to agree in advance to the size and placement of the apartment buildings that the designated developer, Edward Minskoff, will put there.

And the community has its own demand: a commitment from the city to build a k-8th grade school east of Broadway, to relieve the pressure on P.S. 234 when families move into all those new apartments.

"We are not going to allow any development without assurance of the school," Gerson said.

All this appeared hopelessly unresolved as time ticked away in the waning days of summer, when many of the principals in the negotiations were not even in the city.

In an Aug. 30 letter to Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, who heads the city's side of the negotiations, CB1 chairwoman Madelyn Wils said it would be a "prudent path" to finalize an understanding on Site 5C and defer discussion on 5B.

But as the Trib went to press on Sept. 3, it was unclear how the administration would proceed. Would it be willing to go ahead with an agreement with the community on 5C-community center and all-without one on 5B? Would it withdraw the land sale from a vote altogether, leaving an agreement on 5C up in the air?

"We're going to have no comment on that," said a spokeswoman for Doctoroff.

"I am prepared to kill the whole thing if it is not satisfactory to the community," declared Gerson, who said he believed the City Council would back him if he made good on his threat to oppose the sale.

Two years ago, Minskoff met stiff community resistance when he proposed a 600-foot-tall office tower for Site 5B. Having scrapped that plan, he now wants to build a residential/retail complex.

In a telephone interview, Minskoff said he intends to build "two residential towers and a retail pavilion connecting the two." He said that his project, which would be designed by Skidmore Owings & Merrill, would include two floors of retail. "We're working on the tenant mix right now," he said.

According to people familiar with the negotiations on Site 5B, the city is proposing a height limit of 370 feet on West Street, 245 feet on Murray Street between Greenwich and Washington Streets and 135 feet on Greenwich Street between Warren and Murray.

Wils said the tallest tower could be acceptable because it would be perpendicular to West Street, minimizing its shadow on Washington Market Park and its impact on river views. But she called the 245-foot building, with half its apartments at below-market rents, "very unsatisfactory."

Gerson said an administration proposal faxed to him on Aug. 27 left the two sides even further apart. The city added another building to the mix and pushed for a shallower setback for the building on Greenwich Street, he said.

"We don't know if [the proposal] is coming from the developer or the administration but I want to get to the bottom of this," Gerson said.

Community negotiators said they have been pushing for an "upscale" food store on the site. Minskoff promised only "retail uses that are absent right now."

"There will always be somebody who will be disappointed," said the developer, who claimed to be detached from the negotiations. "But the majority will be happy."


http://tribecatrib.com/photos/news/sept04/mapoutline.jpg

NewYorkYankee
September 7th, 2004, 02:54 PM
Why is it that "Community members" have such a hard problem with large projects in NYC!? I mean, you live IN A CITY FOR FREAKING SAKE, there are going to be skyscrapers all around you!!!! Gte over it!!! Is this just NY or do other citites go through this B.S. too?

ZippyTheChimp
September 7th, 2004, 04:08 PM
The 2 sites have an extensive history of bad blood between the city and the community. The battle has taken on a momentum all it's own.

The main problem is the school that sits across the street. 5B and 5C are the last city owned vacant plots in lower Manhattan. The city tried to maximize profits in the 80s by selling the land to Drexel Burnham, an investment company that threatened to leave NYC. Besides permission to build a hugh office tower, they were offered a sizable tax incentive. The community fought the project. In the meantime, Drexel had their own problems with Michael Milken, the junk bond king. Milken went to jail and Drexel went bankrupt.

Next up was the commodity exchanges, who also threatened to leave the city. The city offered site 5B, the community resisted. The NYMEX was built in BPC, and nobody left.

Minskoff actually shot himself in the foot by taking advantage of the turmoil of 09/11. I forget exactly what it was, but a ruling regarding the site expired unnoticed soon after 09/11, and Minskoff was able to increase the height of his commercial building. This galvanized community opposition.

I hope this explains the "BS" to you.

In my opinion, if the city had originally transferred 5C to the school/community as a bargaining concession, they probably could have gotten what they wanted on the larger 5B. Now the fight goes on, and the school is overcrowded.

BrooklynRider
September 7th, 2004, 08:51 PM
When you consider these developments along with the two new buildings across West Street in BPC, there is a big influx of residents. I would support their negotiation for expanded school facilities - a new school to be exact. However, the people in that particular section of CB1 come off as snobs more interested in protecting their views and keeping their public schools "elite". Each time I read anything of CB1, I almost always find something underlying their argument that, for lack of a better catch-all decription, I would call "obnoxious".

NYguy
September 7th, 2004, 09:27 PM
Not only that, but when you consider how close these sites are to the Freedom Tower and the new Goldman Sachs tower, its borderline absurd.

I always felt that was the wrong location for that school though...

ZippyTheChimp
September 7th, 2004, 10:40 PM
Not only that, but when you consider how close these sites are to the Freedom Tower and the new Goldman Sachs tower, its borderline absurd
That indicates that the issue is not views, but the proximity of the school. The school was built when the entire area was slated for residential development.

kliq6
September 8th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Site 5-B is so large that any use but a office building for a financial firm is a waste, its perfect size for trading floors on the lower floors just like the BPC site for Goldman.

ZippyTheChimp
September 8th, 2004, 10:40 PM
I guess you don't have children...

or you might see that the two sites are different.

BrooklynRider
September 9th, 2004, 12:51 AM
Zip-

Living in BPC, what is / has been the impact of residential growth up to, but excluding, these two new towers on school capacity? There are the new BPC residential buildings, plus River Lofts and other buildings I'm too tired to research. Why so much haggling over capacity with these two proposed buildings? Do they push the capacity over the brink?

ZippyTheChimp
September 9th, 2004, 09:00 AM
I disagree with the current objections over height limitations on 5B and 5C. My objection has always been to a commercial building, especially with trading floors, which is service intensive. The issues should be: more schools and a higher percentage of affordable housing. Last year, there was a proposal to expand PS 234 onto site 5C, but it was rejected. I don't understand why.

Restricting heights on these 2 sites will not solve the school overcrowding problem. In BPC south, there are 2 sites along West St that are zoned for tall towers. In the north neighborhood, they have started construction of the 4th building around Teardrop Park. There are 2 remaining narrow sites adjacent to the ballfields. North of River Lofts on West Desbrosses and Watts Sts, another development is planned.

Walk around the neighborhood in the late afternoon, and you'll see a lot of yellow buses and little people with bookbags.

Much of the resistance to any development is what I call - last one in lock the door.

As I said previously, Minskoff helped revive a dormant group that originally fought the Drexel tower. Within a week of his slipping in the height addition, flyers began appearing all over Tribeca. Now it's like a moving freight train.

BrooklynRider
September 9th, 2004, 10:08 PM
A lot of CB's seem to negotiate for a "community center" in these development's, as CB1 is doing. The arguments for new schools is just so fundmental and, as you said, if not here now, where and when do they build it.

ZippyTheChimp
September 10th, 2004, 08:19 AM
http://www.thevillager.com/

Overcrowding problem is growing at P.S. 234

By Ronda Kaysen

Sandy Bridges, principal of P.S. 234, has about 10 more students in her small Tribeca neighborhood school than she did last year and nowhere to put them. Desperate for classrooms, the computer lab suddenly looks like a viable option.

“We had to close our computer lab and put our computers onto laptops and carts,” said Bridges. She hired a new teacher and added an additional kindergarten and first grade class to this year’s roster. “My problem isn’t staffing, it’s space,” she said.

P.S. 234 is facing another year of overcrowding. With a housing boom in full swing, the school cannot keep up. In 1980, according to census figures, there were 15,918 people living south of Canal St. and west of Park Row; in 2000, the neighborhood population had ballooned to a staggering 34,420; of those, 6,280 are families. With P.S. 234’s test scores among the highest in the city, residents generally opt for public school for their children.

P.S. 234’s zone is one of the largest in the city, and although Bridges has requested that the Department of Education create a new zone, she is not optimistic. “It will take years [to create a new zone] and a hideous battle,” she said. “I don’t want the powers that be let this problem become such a crisis that they run a wonderful school into the ground.”

Enrollment at P.S. 234 jumped by 12 percent over the past two years from 640 students in the 2002 school year to about 715 this year. The school has a capacity of 585. Most of the new students are in the lower grades.

“I walk past Washington Market [Park] and see loads of three year olds,” said Bridges. For Bridges, toddlers milling about the park that abuts her school translate to future kindergarteners. “Their public school is so good, it’s saving [parents] $20,000 a year” in private school costs.

Neighboring P.S. 150, the Tribeca Learning Center, is not faced with an overcrowding crisis because it is an option school and therefore not required to accept all students in its zone. “I don’t have to take anyone,” said Principal Alyssa Pollack. “When I’m full I’m full.” P.S. 150 is close to full enrollment now with about 190 students.

There are plans in the works to alleviate P.S. 234’s overcrowding crisis. The vacant lot behind P.S. 234, Site 5C, is slated for development by Jack Resnick & Sons. The Resnick company unveiled plans at a June Economic Development Corporation meeting for a 35-story, market-rate rental building with about 480 apartments, 12,000 square feet of retail space, a 90-car parking garage and a community facility. The Resnick company offered about 10,000 square feet of space to the Department of Education — space that will be used to build eight additional P.S. 234 classrooms.

But the development of lot 5C, which will also bring additional families to the neighborhood, is still a long way off — the plan still must complete a lengthy public review process before ground can break and many residents oppose the building because of its proposed size. In the meantime, the Department of Education has proposed bringing in trailers next year to use as additional classrooms. For Bridges, the proposal is problematic, to say the least. “Where would we put a trailer?” she said. “We have a playground, which we actually desperately need. There’s a dog run and those dog people don’t want to lose that.”

The Department of Education did not return calls for comment.

Until more permanent space is built, Bridges sees the problem escalating with each passing year. Because she added a new kindergarten class last year, she needed to respond with a new first grade classroom this year. Next year, the new first grade class will need a second grade classroom. This year’s new kindergarten class will also need a new first grade class of its own next year.

“We’ve managed to adjust so far,” said Kevin Fisher, P.T.A. president and a parent of two P.S. 234 students. “As each year passes it gets harder and harder to make that adjustment.”

Bridges is considering shuttering the school’s pre-kindergarten program and replacing it with an art room so that the old art room can serve as a new classroom. “If we had to lose the pre-K, that’s the program that’s been really valuable,” said Fisher. “It ushers the kids into [P.S. 234] in a really good way. That would be a detriment to the school.”

Despite the crowding problem, Bridges is confident that she can maintain the school’s excellent reputation — at least for a while. “We’re a wonderful school, we’ll manage,” said Bridges. “But to lose a science room, you can’t really affectively teach science on a cart. It breaks my heart.”

The Villager is published by
Community Media LLC.
The Villager | 487 Greenwich St., Suite 6A | New York, NY 10013

Email: news@thevillager.com

NYguy
September 10th, 2004, 09:30 AM
Not only that, but when you consider how close these sites are to the Freedom Tower and the new Goldman Sachs tower, its borderline absurd
That indicates that the issue is not views, but the proximity of the school. The school was built when the entire area was slated for residential development.

That's the problem - with Downtown at a loss of sites for expansion, clearly the city should have had the foresight. But it doesn't matter, even if there were no school there, the same people would be bitchin over the towers....

ZippyTheChimp
September 10th, 2004, 12:41 PM
That's true, but to understand the psychology that's driving this particular site, you have to look at it over the last 15 years. For many, although they may not admit it, the issue is no longer what is built, but beating city hall.

The city built the school there for the same reason they wanted to maximize development on 5B and C - they own the land. Once the school was built and became successful, everything changed.

If I were in city hall, I would start looking for a new school site in north Tribeca.

NYCResident
September 11th, 2004, 01:05 PM
From Downtown Express...

Gerson, city sign Downtown school deal

By Josh Rogers


The city and community leaders have reached a deal to build residential towers on two Tribeca sites and a new pre-K - 8 school on the East Side of Lower Manhattan.


The deal also includes a 10,000-square-foot annex to relieve the overcrowding at P.S. 234, a 30,000-square-foot rec center with a gym and a regulation-size pool, according to City Councilmember Alan Gerson who signed the deal with Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff Wed., Sept. 8. Madelyn Wils, chairperson of Community Board 1, was part of the months-long negotiations and Gerson said he would not have signed the deal without her approval.


The first choice for the school site is 250 Water St. in the South Street Seaport Historic District and the city would likely have to acquire the parking-lot site from Milstein Properties through eminent domain. Gerson said the city is required to make its best efforts to find a school site south of the Brooklyn Bridge and east of Broadway and if the city fails to get a site somewhere Downtown, it will make it extremely difficult for the city to proceed with the rest of its development plans in Tribeca.


The City Council on Thursday approved the plans for a 300-foot building at Site 5C, located behind P.S. 234, but the buildings planned for Site 5B across the street have not yet come before the Council. Site 5B would have buildings of 375, 200 and 135 feet, with the larger two on West St. Under the agreement, the developer must make sincere efforts to bring in a supermarket, and according to one source, representatives of the developer, Edward Minskoff, suggested they would try to get the popular Whole Foods to open in Tribeca. Minskoff did not return a call for comment.


Gerson called the deal a “major accomplishment” and added, “there was more than one shouting match with the deputy mayor. In the end, the community came out really well.”

Possibly 2007 Site 5C
Scott Resnick
3 residential buildings between 85- 300 feet, retail space, a 30,000-square-foot rec center with a pool and gym, a 10,000-square-foot school annex to P.S. 234 for younger children
Possibly 2006

Gerson said Site 5C will have the 300-foot building along West St., an 85-foot building with the community rec center and school annex on Warren St., and an 85-foot residential building. Norman Foster, a prominent British architect who was in the running to design the new World Trade Center, will design the apartment buildings for developer Scott Resnick, who did not return a call for comment.


Doctoroff declined to speak about the deal’s specifics but said it includes “very, very attractive community facilities and amenities that the community really needs.” Speaking to reporters as he was leaving a meeting of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Doctoroff said a school site has been picked but he did not confirm it was 250 Water St. Several sources who either participated in the negotiations or who were briefed regularly said 250 Water St. is the first choice.


Wils, who attended the same L.M.D.C. meeting, was considerably less enthusiastic about the deal than Gerson. “Compromise is when everybody is a little unhappy,” she said. “I’m a little unhappy.”


Gerson said he and Wils fought as hard as they could to make the buildings as small as possible and to maximize the school and community space.


School needs and zoning

Paul Hovitz, chairperson of C.B. 1’s Youth and Education committee, said there’s a desperate need for a new school in Lower Manhattan and he was pleased that it would be on the East Side. “All of our schools are overpopulated,” he said.


P.S. 234 at Greenwich and Chambers Sts. is the most overcrowded school in Lower Manhattan and it consistently is a leader in reading and math scores across the city. Hovitz said the new school would have to be academically rigorous — otherwise parents in the Seaport and the Financial District will still fight to get into 234.


Gerson said school zoning issues have not been decided, but under the agreement, only children living in areas that have first priority for P.S. 234 and P.S. 89 in Battery Park City will be eligible to have first priority in the new school. Currently, children living in Tribeca, the Seaport and the Financial District are guaranteed seats at 234 and B.P.C. children have first dibs at 89.


The new agreement means children living in the nearby Smith Houses will not be guaranteed a spot in the new school. At least a few parents living in the new school’s zone have quietly expressed concerns about Smith House residents attending the new school, fearing the housing complex’s less affluent residents might make the school less desirable. Gerson said in all likelihood, Smith residents would be able to attend the new elementary school if it is not filled with children living in the first-priority boundaries. Presumably these boundaries would include the Seaport and the Financial District. They could include Tribeca and B.P.C., but they may not.


The Tribeca school annex on the same block as P.S. 234 will include pre-K classes and may include kindergarten too. P.S. 234, which has 715 students in a building built for 585, will have more room for older children once the annex is built, which could be in two years. Sandy Bridges, the school’s principal told Downtown Express last week that she had to use her computer room as a classroom this year and she will have to make more sacrifices next year.


Gerson said the new school should open in 2006 or 2007 before the Site 5B buildings.


Water St. site

The Site 5B plans could be before the community board within a few months and Gerson said it would be reasonable for C.B. 1 to expect the city to acquire the school site before the board recommends approving Site 5B.


George Arzt, a spokesperson for Milstein, said there is pending litigation with the city over 250 Water St. and his client would resist any effort to take it.


The vacant site was in the landmark district when the Milsteins bought it almost 20 years ago. They have proposed many designs for the block, but all but one were blocked by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which said the proposed towers were too tall for a district made up mostly of 19th century, structures of five and six stories. The commission approved one 14-story office building 10 years ago, but the project stalled because of a crumbling real estate market. Last year, the city changed the zoning in the landmark district and Milstein sued.


“Not only do we contend that it was an illegal act to downgrade the zoning, now they want to be punitive and take it away entirely,” Arzt said Thursday.


Gerson said the eminent domain proceedings would supersede the lawsuit and the Milsteins could make the same arguments about the zoning in a new forum. Gerson said if the Milsteins proved the zoning change was illegal, it would cost the city more to acquire the site. He said the whole issue could be resolved this year.


The city has $44 million in its capital budget for the school and Gerson said it will cost $25 million more to build. Doctoroff said Thursday that he expected the L.M.D.C. would contribute an unspecified amount for the school. The city controls half the L.M.D.C. board and it may not be difficult for Doctoroff to get $25 million out of the agency’s remaining $860 million.


The L.M.D.C. has already designated $50 million to build 315 affordable housing units at Site 5B, but Doctoroff said the city will spend the money other places in Lower Manhattan to build and preserve “substantially more” affordable apartments than would have been built at 5B.


Gerson agreed this would be a much more efficient use of the money and said Knickerbocker Village and Lands End 1 on the East Side, and Gateway Plaza in Battery Park City are three possible places the money could be used to keep middle class people in Lower Manhattan.



Details on Sites 5B and 5C

Many residents oppose tall buildings on the two Tribeca sites because they say the structures would dwarf buildings nearby and cast too many shadows on Washington Market Park and the P.S. 234 schoolyard. Gerson said putting the taller buildings on West St. would take the office bulk further away from smaller buildings. The 370-foot building would have a few large setbacks after 330 feet so it will not seem as tall as it is, he added.


Gerson said Minskoff wanted to build a fourth building at Site 5B and one of the last sticking points was giving C.B. 1 the power to veto a fourth residential building. The block will also have low-rise retail structures, possibly with the supermarket. Sheldrake Organization, an experienced residential developer has been talking with Minskoff about joining the project, according to two sources not connected with the developers.


At Site 5C, there would be 300-foot and 285-foot buildings on West St. along with the two 85-foot buildings with the rec center, annex and more apartments.


Gerson said there were many details that held up the talks along the way. Making sure the pool would be regulation – 75 feet and one inch – took time, as did moving a column off the basketball court. In addition to Wils, Gerson said Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, the expected operator of the Site 5C rec center, signed off on the 5C center details.


And there was one more item that the community representatives fought for and won. On the hot days when noisy construction is going on all around them, P.S. 234 students will be able to ask their teachers to close the gym windows, because they are getting air-conditioning in the gym, the only part of the building that doesn’t have it.

NYguy
September 24th, 2004, 09:50 PM
DOWNTOWN EXPRESS

Site 5B and 5C: Giving a lot to get a lot

Some of Lower Manhattan’s most important needs were included in an agreement between the city and the Downtown community, signed two weeks ago. Downtown will get a new elementary and middle school, a youth recreation center and a school annex for overcrowded P.S. 234 in exchange for accepting two huge Tribeca development projects that won’t be as humongous as they may have been otherwise.

Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff signed the agreement this month with Lower Manhattan Councilmember Alan Gerson, who included in the negotiations two important community leaders – Madelyn Wils, chairperson of Community Board 1 and Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, the group slated to run the rec center.

By signing the deal, Mayor Bloomberg’s office recognizes that even after 9/11, Lower Manhattan thankfully remains the fastest growing part of the city and this population is in dire need of residential amenities to keep up, particularly with school and recreation space. This was not some giveaway to an affluent, political-savvy community, but a partial remedy to what would have been an urban planning mistake.

And make no mistake, the community gave away a lot. The day after the agreement was signed, Gerson and his Council colleagues approved one of the two residential projects, a 300-foot tower behind P.S. 234 on Site 5C that will also include the school annex and rec center. The tower will cast shadows on Washington Market Park, schoolyards and the Battery Park City ballfields. In addition to this project, under the agreement developers can build three towers across the street on Site 5B – 370 feet, 200 feet and 135 feet.

The deal in all likelihood means that the open-space feel of West St. between Chambers and Murray Sts. will no longer seem part of low-rise Tribeca, but will become a part of the Financial District-World Trade Center area. Let’s not forget Scott Resnick, the Site 5C developer, was once willing to build half as tall as he gets to build now under the agreement, for less money and without Liberty Bonds.

That was before the 2001 attacks, but the Tribeca residential market is as strong as it was then. About 50 years ago, the city took over the 5B and 5C land under an urban renewal plan that was supposed to benefit the community.

Gerson told us two weeks ago that the community should expect the city to have acquired a new school site before it recommends approving the larger Site 5B project. We agree. We’d also like to see recognition that all this noise and construction will be scheduled to minimize the effects on the six nearby schools – P.S. 89, P.S. 234, I.S. 89, Stuyvesant High School, the Borough of Manhattan Community College and St. John’s insurance college. And the Dept. of Education must begin a discussion with Downtown over the complicated and sensitive zoning issues for the new schools.

NoyokA
September 25th, 2004, 10:46 AM
The day after the agreement was signed, Gerson and his Council colleagues approved one of the two residential projects, a 300-foot tower behind P.S. 234 on Site 5C that will also include the school annex and rec center.

Too bad Foster wont be designing it.

NYCResident
October 3rd, 2004, 11:32 PM
From Tribeca Trib...

I have one question... From the article - "With the reconstruction of Chambers Street from Broadway to West Street scheduled to begin in January and take 14 to 18 months" - Does anyone know what exactly the reconstruction is for?


Way Cleared for Huge Development

by Etta Sanders

A deal reached last month between community representatives and the city will bring the most sweeping changes to the face of Tribeca since the construction of Independence Plaza North 30 years ago.

Three residential towers, a 27,000-square-foot community center, and a pre-k and kindergarten feeder school are included in the development plans for two sites near P.S. 234, on the blocks bordered by Greenwich, Chambers, West and Murray Streets. A new pre-k-through-8th-grade school east of Broadway is also part of the agreement hammered out by City Councilman Alan Gerson and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff.

The agreement clears the way for the development of the two city-owned lots, known as 5B and 5C, next to P.S. 234, where the community has been fighting various city-supported projects for more than 15 years.
“It’s not everything we wanted, but it is the best possible outcome for the community given this administration’s position,” said Gerson, who had threatened to block City Council approval of the sale of Site 5C to developer Scott Resnick if a satisfactory deal for the community could not be worked out.

The Council okayed the sale to Resnick on Sept. 9 and construction on Site 5C, behind P.S. 234, may begin by the end of this year. Edward Minskoff, the developer of site 5B, across Warren Street from the school, still has to go through an additional approval process for his project, but with community negotiations completed he should face few obstacles. Minskoff said he hopes to break ground by the second quarter of next year and have the buildings completed the following year, “if everyone cooperates.”

The agreement was the result of months of negotiations between city officials and community representatives, including Gerson, Community Board 1 chairwoman Madelyn Wils and Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, which will run the planned community center.

Those meetings were sometimes heated, Gerson recalled. “There were a few shouting matches between me and the deputy mayor,” he said.

The most contentious issue, according to Wils, was the heights of the buildings. “There was some ingenuity that had to go into not creating just two huge, massive buildings that covered the entire spaces,” she said. “This took a lot of work.”

The plans for 5C include:
A residential building up to 300 feet tall.
A 27,000-square-foot community center with a 75-foot-long pool.
A pre-k and kindergarten early learning center with 10 classrooms, intended to ease crowding at P.S. 234.
For site 5B, bordered by Greenwich, West, Murray and Warren Streets, the agreement calls for:
A residential condominium tower with a maximum height of 370 feet on West Street. That building, Minskoff said, will have mostly two- and three-bedroom apartments.
A residential tower up to 200 feet tall at the corner of Murray and Greenwich Streets. Fifty percent of those rental units will be subsidized.
A non-residential building no taller than 70 feet directly across from P.S. 234 on Warren Street.
A commitment by the developer to try to find a “quality supermarket tenant” for retail space on the site.
Although the deal provides a broad outline for the development of the two sites and the creation of a new east-side school, significant challenges lie ahead and many details are still to be determined, including the financing for the public amenities, the zoning and administration of the new schools (see story, page 4) and how to minimize the effects of years of construction on P.S. 234.

Manhattan Youth will need to raise nearly $5 million to outfit the community center. (If the budget exceeds that amount, the city has committed to pay $900,000). That fundraising effort got a boost last spring when Goldman Sachs promised $1 million for the facility. According to last month’s agreement, the community may also help finance the community center by allowing a building taller than 70 feet on Warren Street across from P.S. 234.

Development of the sites will mean that P.S. 234 will be in the midst of massive construction projects for the next several years. With the reconstruction of Chambers Street from Broadway to West Street scheduled to begin in January and take 14 to 18 months, the school will be surrounded by construction on three sides for a year or more.

In addition, P.S. 234 may temporarily lose access to the playground behind the school that is used by younger children.

“It’s going to be dusty and it’s going to be unpleasant,” principal Sandy Bridges said, adding that the building’s air conditioning may need to be kept running during school hours for the sake of air quality. The school also has several air filters that were installed after Sept. 11.

Kevin Fisher, president of P.S. 234’s PTA, said that the PTA and Bridges will need to be in contact with the developers to minimize impacts on the school.

“We probably have to make ourselves known to the developer to have some impact,” Fisher said, “Let’s assume there’s a good faith effort and maybe we can get some mitigation.”

Wils said that the community board will also work on mitigation steps, including the placement of staging areas for construction vehicles in the least disruptive spots and the reduction of work during key school testing periods, as was done last year during construction near P.S./I.S. 89.

Wils said she had hoped that the development issues would have been resolved months ago, so that the construction on 5C could have begun over the summer. Minskoff said that if the approval process for the Site 5B project goes smoothly, contractors may be able to dig the foundations during the summer of 2005 when school is out. Whether that will require the use of pile drivers is still to be determined, he said.

One P.S. 234 parent, who had strongly opposed the development, was more than a little unhappy with the outcome. “It’s an outrage,” said Catherine Weinstock, the mother of a first-grader. “Why is it that the infrastructure and needs of the community are an afterthought and the profits of the real estate developers come first?”

But Andy Koutsoudakis, owner of Gee Whiz restaurant at the corner of Greenwich and Warren Streets, said that the sites’ development was long awaited. When he signed his lease in 1988, he said, the real estate broker assured him that a 60-story building was about to go up in the parking lot across the street. Now that the buildings are finally coming, along with a community center, he sees something positive for everyone.

“If they do things for the community, for the kids, I think that is good,” he said. “And businesswise, no question about it, I think it’s going to be good, too.”

ZippyTheChimp
October 4th, 2004, 12:12 AM
Chambers Street - new water mains and sewers, and a new roadbed.

NYguy
October 15th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Here's a better look at those sites...(Tribeca Trib)


http://tribecatrib.com/photos/news/oct04/site-overview.jpg

billyblancoNYC
January 5th, 2005, 04:16 AM
Nearby Construction Brings Worries to P.S. 234 Parents
by Etta Sanders
http://tribecatrib.com/


New renderings of Site 5B

http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244781659odqTBz


http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244782623IjKjyY

BrooklynRider
January 5th, 2005, 11:07 AM
It seems I can't access the renderings without a password.

billyblancoNYC
January 5th, 2005, 12:09 PM
Damnit. I tried posting it to the site, but it didn't seem to work. Any ideas?

Kolbster
January 5th, 2005, 01:02 PM
speaking about that...anyone know how to do the quote thing? Like whne it quotes what other people have said before???

ZippyTheChimp
January 5th, 2005, 01:48 PM
Just hit the "quote" button on the right side of the post you want to quote. But don't use it if you are quoting an article someone posted. It will appear as if the person made the statement.

ZippyTheChimp
January 5th, 2005, 01:52 PM
Damnit. I tried posting it to the site, but it didn't seem to work. Any ideas?
If you have the password, then I assume you have permission to use the renderings. If so, you can hot-link them here as images.

billyblancoNYC
January 5th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Damnit. I tried posting it to the site, but it didn't seem to work. Any ideas?
If you have the password, then I assume you have permission to use the renderings. If so, you can hot-link them here as images.

I copied the renderings to my "file" so that's not an issue. I now have to see what hot-linking is...

NoyokA
January 5th, 2005, 05:17 PM
Too bad Foster's tower was killed I like this building alot, it would've been a good companion! Bravo SOM for giving the city one of the glassier residential buildings.

kliq6
January 5th, 2005, 05:22 PM
This site should be commercial, even Goldman Sachs has sad that they dont like the idea of building in WFC were everything being built is residential, but have no choice

NoyokA
January 5th, 2005, 05:33 PM
This site should be commercial, even Goldman Sachs has sad that they dont like the idea of building in WFC were everything being built is residential, but have no choice

It definetly should be, another park, what the community wants, would make the entire area look undeveloped. The community board killed plans for office development, so Im happy with what looks to be one of the cities better residential towers. This will be a first of many more to come in lower-manhattan. With an influx of luxury condo's it will have an effect like midtown of high-priced condo's and offices in the same district, in turn the honcho's occupying these towers and penthouses will command additional corporate development.

Derek2k3
January 5th, 2005, 06:21 PM
Too bad Foster's tower was killed I like this building alot, it would've been a good companion! Bravo SOM for giving the city one of the glassier residential buildings.

It wasn't really killed, the developer is building basically what Foster designed. Also the community didn't kill the commercial building but the market did. Minskoff waited years for a tenant. However, they did kill the prospect for a much taller residential tower.

NoyokA
January 5th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Also the community didn't kill the commercial building but the market did. Minskoff waited years for a tenant. However, they did kill the prospect for a much taller residential tower.

They didn't kill it, but they wouldn't have allowed it either. So its a lose lose situation.

Kolbster
January 5th, 2005, 08:19 PM
[/quote]


Graciassss....did it work?

Kolbster
January 5th, 2005, 08:22 PM
Just hit the "quote" button on the right side of the post you want to quote. But don't use it if you are quoting an article someone posted. It will appear as if the person made the statement.


ahhh i understand now, thankyou very much

billyblancoNYC
January 6th, 2005, 12:12 AM
Nearby Construction Brings Worries to P.S. 234 Parents
by Etta Sanders
http://tribecatrib.com/


New renderings of Site 5B

http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244781659odqTBz


http://community.webshots.com/photo/244781054/244782623IjKjyY

Can't get the hot-link to work, maybe the site doesn't allow it.

Can everyone see the pics with the abot link, though?

Derek2k3
January 6th, 2005, 10:34 AM
Yea, webshots doesn't allow hotlinking. You just have to copy and paste the link into the address bar.

kliq6
January 6th, 2005, 10:59 AM
Bloomberg and his administration actually killed the Office Tower, the Board wanted it to be lowered in height. Bloomberg only wants to develop the Far West side for his stupid Olympic bid and would rather Lower Manhattan just become a residential district. If you went back to the 1980's and said to some that in 20 year more people would live below Chambers Street then work, you'd be called crazy, its a dahm shame what's happened Down there. Working here in Midtown having uses to work there makes it even more sad for me

NewYorkYankee
January 6th, 2005, 04:38 PM
ehhh....It's okay. This is going to be residential correct?

kliq6
January 6th, 2005, 04:47 PM
Its in Lower Manhattan, what else would it be these days

NewYorkYankee
January 6th, 2005, 04:57 PM
True

ZippyTheChimp
January 6th, 2005, 05:22 PM
Bloomberg and his administration actually killed the Office Tower, the Board wanted it to be lowered in height. Bloomberg only wants to develop the Far West side for his stupid Olympic bid and would rather Lower Manhattan just become a residential district. If you went back to the 1980's and said to some that in 20 year more people would live below Chambers Street then work, you'd be called crazy, its a dahm shame what's happened Down there. Working here in Midtown having uses to work there makes it even more sad for me
Do some research on the history of business exodus from Lower Manhattan.

kliq6
January 7th, 2005, 10:39 AM
I work for Citigroup, i have all the history i need

ZippyTheChimp
January 7th, 2005, 10:51 AM
OK, but what's your analysis of what happened to downtown business?

I think you're going to have to go back further than the 80s for an accurate picture.

kliq6
January 7th, 2005, 12:10 PM
What happened to downtown is very simple, in the 1960's firms, as employees moved more and more to the suburbs started to relocate and locate there firms in Midtown, closer to Suburban commuting facilities based on closeness to transportation and because Downtown had no available spaces. To try and buck that they built the WTC complex to revitalize the whole westside of the Financial district that was lacking adequate space already on the eastern side, thus also helping the exodus to Midtown gain further and also the WFC, thus creating a River to rive financial district.

However in the 1980's as the financial industry became a more technologically driven industry, many of the older building in downtown became outdated and there was lack of space to build anything new. Thus again the tide of business moving to Midtown started up again, but this time the business also started moving out to Jersey and many other places as lack of space, higher construction costs and other factors became involved.

So facing this exodus what did the city and the State do, NOTHING. Instead of promoting the renovation/demolition of outdated offices in Lower Manhattan and encourage the development of new spaces, they provided no incentive for firms to stay there, so they moved out and built office in Midtown were these incentive were given. Thus all the older buildings have bees converted.

If i missed anythign let me know

ZippyTheChimp
January 7th, 2005, 01:35 PM
During most of the 20th century, although dominated by financial market employment, Lower Manhattan had a more diverse business community than it now has. Port of New York shipping was still dominant. Piers 1-20 (now BPC) were mainly food import/export piers, which served Washington Market (now Tribeca). This was the main food processing center for NYC before the move to Hunt’s Point. The wholesale textile industry was centered at Worth St (Textile Building on Leonard St).

After WWII these industries began to decline and eventually disappeared from Lower Manhattan. But other things were happening. Postwar economic boom, and returning servicemen began moving to suburbs (Levittown). Inner cities were increasingly viewed as not the ideal environment. As flight continued, supporting areas around CBDs began to decay, but businesses still needed them to centralize a workforce.

What changed were the places business searched for employee talent. There was little interest in attracting people from inner city neighborhoods – the focus was the suburbs, so the need was commuter transportation. There was also the need to dispel the perception of the dangerous city.

Lower Manhattan was at a disadvantage to Midtown on both counts. Midtown had direct links to Long Island and Westchester. Although crime was a citywide problem, Midtown still had amenities that projected the glamorous city. (Think about the 1950s and 60s films about people coming to New York to make it in the big city.Were they located on Wall St or Park Ave? Downtown, on the other hand, emptied after dark.

And I mean EMPTY. With no one living there and most workers gone home, it was an eerie and (perceived) dangerous place. If you think Lower Manhattan is a little desolate at night now, you should have seen it in the 70s. At the time, I worked on Worth St, and frequently worked late. A daughter of neighbors of my parents got a job with Merrill Lynch and sometimes had to stay after market close. Her parents were terrified, and asked me on days when I worked late, if I would accompany her home.

For a business either contemplating leasing or building new space, the considerations are not just the quality of the space and the price, but the ability to attract employees. Everything else being equal, Company A in Midtown would have a distinct advantage over Company B in Lower Manhattan.

The trend in loss of business never really stopped, but was masked by increases in rent. It wasn’t so much that companies could not find space in Lower Manhattan, but that the demand to build the space was in Midtown.

One of Lower Manhattan’s problems began to change in the 80s – the perception of the neighborhood, and that was the result of the influx of residents to Tribeca, BPC, and the Financial District. When Merrill Lynch vacated 1 Liberty Plaza, they considered moving across the Hudson (they took space at 101 Hudson in JC). Instead they moved into two towers of the WFC. The neighborhood had amenities. One of the positives of the WTC beside the office space, was the retail mall and the PATH hub. It attracted workers from suburbs in New Jersey.

In a 2002 report Rebuilding Lower Manhattan for the Creative Age author Richard Florida (Economic Development professor at Carnegie Melon) writes about the importance of neighborhood amenities in attracting what he defines as the Creative Class of workers.

Consumer activities and amenities are an important part of the mix. Lower Manhattan
must be seen as a center for consumption as well as production. As shown in research by the
economist Edward Glaeser and the sociologists Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark, the
new city is becoming defined more and more as a city of consumption, experiences, lifestyle
and entertainment: creative workers “increasingly act like tourists in their own city,” write
Lloyd and Clark. This means thinking of Lower Manhattan as a diverse, integrated live-worklearn-
play community where the distinctions between them all begin to blur. Retail is part of
this strategy as is lifestyle in general.


In my opinion, focusing on Lower Manhattan as the center of finance to the exclusion of everything else is old-thinking and dangerous. As electronic trading began in the late 60s, the need for firms to be physically near Wall St has diminished. Wall St doesn’t need to be on Wall St. These firms could move out in the blink of an eye.

It’s time for Lower Manhattan to confront the 21st Century.

kliq6
January 7th, 2005, 02:58 PM
DON'T get me wrong I agree Zippy, but the general feeling of business is that the city no longer wants the Financial district to have any business, thus every city owned site, like 5-B and 5-C that are large and would be able to hold large floor plates, as well as the city okaying every single conversion, even in some building that are borderline class A and currently have tenants that are forced to move out.

Do you feel this is a misinterpretation? How long will it be till there is no business promotion in Lower Manhattan

ZippyTheChimp
January 7th, 2005, 03:25 PM
Where we differ is in the cause of business leaving Lower Manhattan, and what is keeping that business from returning. Your view is that residential pressure and city policy in that direction play a major role. I don’t think that was ever the case, although it is not quite as easy for business to move back as it was 20 years ago.

Sites 5b and 5c are the only city-owned vacant land Downtown. They were cleared in the 60s, and were always available for development. The school wasn’t there, neither was the St John’s building. The residential buildings across Greenwich St were boarded-up tenements that could have been acquired for a song. The present situation at sites 5b and 5c is the result of market conditions, not city or community policy. The CBs have no decision-making power; they can only make recommendations. The city was set to approve the project, if Minskoff had an anchor tenant.

Sites were available along Broadway near Fulton St.

Residential population in the Financial District was very low before 1990. One of the first conversions was Sinclair Oil in 1981. Excluding Tribeca and BPC, Financial District population began to significantly grow in the mid 90s. At that time, the vacancy rate for class-B office space downtown was over 25%. I know that commercial tenants are being evicted from some of these buildings, but if they were occupied to the point of reasonable profitability, I don’t think they would be undergoing costly renovations – especially landmarked buildings.

If the sentiment of business is that it is being squeezed out of Lower Manhattan, why is there no long line at Silverstein’s door? If and when these buildings come on line, we’ll see if they are really interested.

At any rate, so far I am happy at the direction Lower Manhattan has taken – assuming the infrastructure improvements are made. Although the loss of business is troubling, I am more concerned with the lack of NEW businesses to New York City in general. Of all the new industries that have grown in the last 30 years, how many have developed in New York? All the Manhattan corporate giants were once start-up companies. That’s where real growth is. An example was given in the report I previously mentioned – Detroit and Seattle.

Seattle and Detroit. Both have major research universities. Thirty years ago, both had dominant industries — aerospace in Seattle, the automotive industry in Detroit — that were very technically sophisticated, but mature and non-growing. Since then, Seattle has enjoyed new growth in a host of industries that didn’t even exist 30 years ago — from software production, biotechnology and Internet services to coffee house chains — while Detroit has been notoriously unable to generate much of anything new.

The author goes on to explain that places like Seattle have created environments that attract creative people, with new ideas. There should be no reason why the two guys that turned a university project into Goggle couldn’t have done it in a garage in LIC.


From Downtown Express

Whole Food hopes for Tribeca tower

By Ronda Kaysen

Whole Foods Market, the high-end grocery store that has New Yorkers salivating for sushi grade tuna and calamata olive bread, may soon plant itself on Greenwich St.


When plans for a 1 million sq. ft. development on Site 5B in Tribeca were unveiled at a Jan. 5th public scoping session, the familiar green Whole Foods Market awning was sketched into the Skidmore, Owens & Merrill-designed illustrations.

“There is a very good chance that we’ll get a Whole Foods,” Ben McGrath, C.F.O. to Minskoff Equities Inc., the site’s developer, told Downtown Express. “We’ll know for certain in the next month or so.”

Whole Foods is less committal about the possibility. “We don’t have anything finalized yet,” said Angela Rakis, a spokesperson for Whole Foods Market, in a telephone interview. “We’re always looking at new locations.”

Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff and City Councilmember Alan Gerson signed a deal in September giving developer Edward Minskoff the go ahead to build on the city-owned undeveloped site at 270 Greenwich St. At the time, Gerson said Minskoff indicated he had hopes for a 170,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods Market, but the councilmember did not know how likely the chances were. Part of the agreement requires Minskoff to make his best efforts to secure a large grocery store for the space, which will lie on the Greenwich St. side of the development.

The Economic Development Corporation-led public scoping session for the site bounded by West, Murray, Greenwich and Warren Sts., opened the public comment period for the project’s environmental review process. The comment period will end on Jan. 18th at 5 p.m.

In addition to a possible Whole Foods Market, the developer revealed other details for the site. Residents will enter the building’s condo tower, which may increase in height to 382 ft., on Warren St. According to Chris Cooper, an S.O.M. architect on the project, the increase in height will not affect the tower’s square footage.

A separate Warren St. entrance, closer to Greenwich St., will be reserved for the townhouse properties. Most of the retail space will be located on the bottom two floors beneath the townhouses, separated by a garden terrace, and along Greenwich St. Additional retail space is located at the corner of West and Warren Sts. Rental tenants will enter the building from Murray St.

“The proposal departs from some of the aspects of the agreement,” said Robert Davis, a lawyer for Minskoff, at the session.

The main point of community concern, voiced by various members of the public, was the proposed 64-foot height increase along the Warren St. side of the site, across the street from P.S. 234. According to the agreement, any stray from the 70-foot street wall would require C.B. 1 and city approval. In exchange for an increase in height, Minskoff would contribute money to the planned community center at 5C, where construction is expected to begin in several months.

“It would be a substantial amount of money,” said McGrath, estimating a contribution of anywhere from $1 million to $10 million. The exact number will have to be worked out with the city, he said. “We would love to be able to find that number.”

George Olsen, a member of C.B. 1, found the height increase problematic because of the effects of the added shadows. “This is excessive,” he said at the session. “I believe there are reasonable alternatives to this.” Olsen also voiced concern about increased traffic on Warren St., a concern echoed by Kevin Doherty, a Tribeca resident.

The long term construction project, not just at 270 Greenwich St., but also at neighboring Site 5C and at the new World Trade Center — part of which will be designed by S.O.M — concerned Kevin Fisher, president of P.S. 234’s P.T.A. “We have a perfect storm of construction in the area,” he said at the session. “The 720 children of P.S. 234 will be living through four or five years of major construction. There’s going to be dust and incredible amounts of noise. One wonders whether some analysis of the structural effects on the school should be looked at as well.”

Albert Capsouto, chairperson of C.B. 1’s Tribeca Committee, did not make a formal comment at the session, but was pleased to see that the plan did not call for a Floor Area Ratio increase. All other conflicts between the developer and the community, he said, could be resolved. “There are ways of addressing the school’s concerns and the developers concerns either through architectural or schematic ways of dealing with Warren St.,” he said. The Warren St. changes will need C.B. 1 approval to go forward.

For years, neighbors have been objecting to various tower proposals for Sites 5B and 5C, with some more concerned about the shadow effects to Washington Market Park and P.S. 234 and others focused on increasing the size of the rec center. Minskoff’s proposed change could reopen this debate over competing concerns.

Public comments can be mailed to Marilyn Lee, New York City Economic Development Corporation, 110 Williams St., 10038, or faxed to 212-312-3989 before 5 p.m. on Jan. 18th.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_87/plan.gif

Ronda@DowntownExpress.com

Downtown Express is published by
Community Media LLC.

Downtown Express
487 Greenwich St.,
Suite 6A | New York, NY 10013

Email: josh@downtownexpress.com

Email: news@downtownexpress.com

Site plan info, clockwise from upper left:
382 ft condo tower - retail at street
134 ft townhouses - retail at street
Supermarket, retail
139 ft rental building.

kliq6
January 11th, 2005, 02:05 PM
A quote from a guy involved with lower manhattan develop, again making my point that this site should have been commercial and it was Bloomberg not the area boards that killed this. This guy is not pro-business at all


(T)he city wants to oust Edward J. Minskoff, whom it chose in April 2001 to develop a 600-foot commercial building, and find a new developer for what could be an even taller residential tower.
In pushing for a new central business district on the far west side, the City administration is saying in effect that developable sites in midtown and downtown are nearly gone. Yet here the City is removing a prime downtown site from commercial development. The Minskoff tower would have added 1.5 million square feet of Class A office space.

The effort to create a 24-hour downtown is long overdue, and there are many old buildings and small parcels where residential development will work well. But the Minskoff site can accomodate large floor plates that modern office towers require. It should be left for that purpose, even if it has to be land-banked until the market is ready.

The City hasn't fully explained why it wants to swap the airports for the WTC site. Is it possible that they wish to eliminate downtown commercial sites that would compete with their proposed West Side office district?

ZippyTheChimp
January 11th, 2005, 03:00 PM
When was this statement made? It seems tied to the airport-WTC land swap, which fueled suspicions that the city wanted to remove commercial development from the WTC. But that didn't happen.

So with 7 WTC coming on line, the WTC getting most or all of its commercial space replaced, Goldman Sachs moving into a new building and creating more vacancy in their existing property, continued development in Midtown, and future Westside development - how long should the city have deferred any tax revenue from the property by land-banking?

kliq6
January 11th, 2005, 04:45 PM
I don't want to be the only one to say this but did anyone ever think the reason that know one is moving into the WTC towers is because they don't want to be on a graveyard???????????

A for Goldman, the West street tunnel has become such an issue to the firm, they are ready to abandon there plans, as told to me be a person who works at the architectural firm. Why should they care, they have a 2 million sf building 10 minutes away waiting for them.

Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better

TonyO
January 11th, 2005, 07:48 PM
I don't want to be the only one to say this but did anyone ever think the reason that know one is moving into the WTC towers is because they don't want to be on a graveyard???????????

A for Goldman, the West street tunnel has become such an issue to the firm, they are ready to abandon there plans, as told to me be a person who works at the architectural firm. Why should they care, they have a 2 million sf building 10 minutes away waiting for them.

Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better

Downtown is not dead. The WTC buildings are paid for entirely from insurance proceeds unlike other projects which need tenants to receive financing. They have hired CBRE to lease them and have been reported in final negotiations with more than one client.

Goldman's own employees are part of the reason why they are going to build in Manhattan. They want to work here. Hearsay doesn't cut it, if you have a source quote them.

kliq6
January 12th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Silverstein only got funding to build Seven and Freedom Tower and has only one half, $400 million of the $800 million plus. SO far no tenants are lined up for Seven or Freedom Tower, but even i will give it time. Fact is that if they don't get tenants, with the city already giving the Liberty Bonds to Commercial Projects in Midtown and Conversion Residential projects in lower Manhattan, there is just no money.

And I don't know who you work for but in most companies, they don't take a poll and ask were employees want to work, if the firm wants to move or relocate jobs they do it, money and profit motivate business, not employee opinions.

Plus I have quotes from a employee of a firm that designed the Goldman project, cant give out a name based on his signing a confidentiality agreement and thus I could put his job in jeopardy.

Its okay to admit that Lower Manhattan futures is as aresidential districtr, but its not okay to fool yourself into thinking that it is a relative place to do businees, its just not anymore.

TonyO
January 12th, 2005, 11:03 AM
I suggest you read the Goldman and the 30 Hudson St. threads. There are several articles that highlight the company's intentions.

As far as downtown being residential only, that's just not a realistic statement. It's in the top few largest business districts in the country.

kliq6
January 12th, 2005, 11:11 AM
Tonyo, i dont want to argue but fact is fact. It may still be a top businees dirrict but that not wear its heading. Over 40 million sf of office space has been converted to residential. There are not many spaces left for large office construction as well. Large firms left and right are leaving the dowtown area for Midtown and Jersey, its just fact. The trade center will probally fail as well. Coming from a person that went to college and started my career in lower manhattan, ive seen enough to know, plus i work in finance, so i know more abotu the dowtwon exodus then anyone.

Wee do you live and work Tonyo?

ZippyTheChimp
January 12th, 2005, 11:11 PM
You've contradicted your own argument that sites 5b and 5c should be developed commercially with...

Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better
Why would you want to build something that is doomed to fail?


And I don't know who you work for but in most companies, they don't take a poll and ask were employees want to work, if the firm wants to move or relocate jobs they do it, money and profit motivate business, not employee opinions.
That is outmoded thinking. Why do companies bother with the expense of putting up buildings? Obviously to fill them with employees. As I stated a few posts back, business moved to Midtown (long before residents moved in) to reach employees in the suburbs.

Change has been occurring over the last decade or so that has implications (good or bad) for the city.

1. People have become increasingly more mobile. If they don't like a place, they leave. Lifestyle is important.

2. Business has become more mobile. Telecommuting, virtual offices - companies are not tied down to centralized locations.

This sounds like bad news for urban centers. But many people are becoming dissatisfied with surburban life, and the increasingly longer commutes as these areas become more dense. Cities are becoming more and more popular as preferred places to live. Anyone who reads the real estate threads in this forum knows that.

A quote from a speech by HP CEO Carly Fiorina at a governors' conference:

“Keep your tax and
financial incentives, we will go where the highly skilled people are.”

kliq6
January 13th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Im done arguing about Lower Manhattan, im working on bonding issues for the Far West Side at work now, so anyone that thinks Downtown is as important as Midtown, ill let have that opinion. I don't like arguing a pointless topic. Its been fun however zippy, good to have different ideas all around.

Maybe in Ten years we can see who was right or wrong

billyblancoNYC
January 18th, 2005, 03:54 AM
New Whole Foods Tied to Height of Proposed Building
http://tribecatrib.com/

by Etta Sanders

Downtown residents have long craved new food stores. But whether a 55,000 square foot Whole Foods supermarket opens on Warren Street may depend upon the height of the building that rises above it.

A rendering of the 370-foot residential tower at West and Warren Streets on Site 5B. Rendering: Skidmore Owings & Merrill/The Tribeca Trib

That building, a part of the development of the lot bordered by Warren, West, Murray and Greenwich Streets known as Site 5B, was limited to a height of 70 feet in a September 2004 agreement between the city and Councilman Alan Gerson.

The site’s developer, Minskoff Equities, now says that a supermarket would only be financially viable if the height of the Warren Street building were increased to nearly 135 feet to allow for the creation of 48 condominium townhouses.


”Using all of that ground-floor space for Whole Foods is less economically attractive to the developer than breaking it up into small stores along Warren Street, so there’s a cost of having Whole Foods in place,” said Benjamin McGrath, CFO of Minskoff Equities. “Having the additional apartment space above does help the economics of the project.”

Raising the height of the building could also give a funding boost to a community center that will be part of another new residential building on a lot behind P.S. 234. In the September agreement, the city promises to contribute one-third of the increased proceeds from the sale of the property if Community Board 1 approves a taller building. According to both the developer and Gerson, that would mean more than $1 million for Manhattan Youth, which will run the center.

But some neighborhood parents say that if the building casts shadows on P.S. 234 and Washington Market Park it would be too high a price to pay. Many classrooms, the cafeteria and the school’s library have windows that face Warren Street.

At a public “scoping” session on Jan. 5 to determine what will be examined in a required environment impact statement (EIS) before the development can move forward, George Olsen, former P.S. 234 PTA president and a CB1 member, called the 135-foot height “excessive” and urged that the city and CB1 consider, “all reasonable alternatives without sacrificing the needs of the developer, but keeping the concerns of PS 234 for light and air in mind.”

McGrath, and the project's architect, Chris Cooper of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, said the current design will have less of a shadow impact on the school than the original plan. The 135-foot building will have setbacks at 46 feet and 112 feet, and by moving some apartments to Warren Street they were able to reduce the height of another building at Murray and Greenwich Streets.

Community residents also told the Economic Development Corporation, which held the session, to carefully consider the effects of increased traffic, noise and air pollution during the simultaneous construction of several new buildings, as well as crowding once the proposed 420 new apartments are occupied.

“The 720 children at P.S. 234 are going to be living through what I expect will be four or five years of major construction adjacent to their school. During that period there’s going to be dust and incredible amounts of noise and vibrations,” Kevin Fisher, P.S. 234 PTA president said at the scoping session.
A Whole Foods, opposite P.S. 234, may be part of the 5B complex. Rendering: Skidmore Owings & Merrill/The Tribeca Trib

Fisher also said that relying on apartment size to estimate the number of children who will be living in the new residential buildings near the school could be a mistake. “People will live in studio and one-bedroom apartments for a good school,” said Fisher.

Wils said the community board would consider the project after the EIS has been issued. A new supermarket is a "very important" part of the development, she said, but admitted that there may be no way to ensure that Minskoff will lease to a supermarket even if the height increase is approved.

After the session, McGrath said the deal could fall through if there are delays because Whole Foods is on a tight schedule to find new locations. And in the September agreement Minskoff promised only to "make reasonable best efforts to find a quality supermarket tenant provided that the space is ready to be occupied by 2006."

NoyokA
January 27th, 2005, 10:41 PM
MINSKOFF WOOS FOODIE FAVE

By LOIS WEISS

Edward J. Minskoff told Professional Women in Construction yesterday he is in "serious discussions" with Whole Foods for 55,000 square feet on the street level of his new downtown residential project.

"This is the best retail residential site in lower Manhattan today," he said.

"This will be the nicest apartment building in New York, trust me. The marketing people call it 'Wholesome Living.' "

The downtown property is bounded by West, Warren, Murray and Washington streets. A previous design for an office tower was scrapped after 9/11.

During a developers' panel at the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen, Minskoff said there will be a luxury 382-foot condo tower on the West St. corner with 180 units that will have clear views over P.S. 234.

The Warren Street side will have 44-condo townhomes above three stories of retail. There will also be 162 market rate and "affordable" rentals in a shorter tower along Greenwich and Murray streets.

The project is being designed by Skidmore Ownings Merrill.

NoyokA
March 26th, 2005, 07:46 PM
Tribeca Tribune:

http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/mar05/5b-architect.jpg

'5B' Developer Seeks Local Support

by Carl Glassman

After some 15 years of opposing one project after another proposed for the city-owned lot known as Site 5B, Community Board 1 seems poised to give its blessing to a residential-retail complex that will put hundreds of apartments and two levels of retail shops across the street from P.S. 234

The board will not take an official position on the development, planned for the block bordered by Greenwich, Warren, West and Murray Streets, until an environmental impact study is issued and a city-mandated land-use review process is begun. But most members of the Tribeca Committee, which last month was given its first detailed presentation on the one million-square-foot project, seemed persuaded that this was the best development plan that they could expect.

"At the end of the day we found there was a design that was more in line with the context of the neighborhood and would lead to additional benefits to the community," said CB1 chairwoman Madelyn Wils who was involved in negotians with the developer, Minskoff Equities, Inc.

Minskoff proposes rental apartment buildings on Greenwich Street and Murray Street, condominium townhouses on Warren Street and a condominium tower on West Street. Two floors of retail would occupy the entire perimeter of the site.

Last September, the Bloomberg administration reached an agreement with City Councilman Alan Gerson on the placement and maximum height of buildings on the site, including a 70-foot-tall building across the street from P.S. 234. Seeking to raise that allowable height to nearly 135 feet, to make room for 48 more condominium townhouses, Minskoff representatives appeared before the CB1 committee to explain their revised plans.

They presented shadow studies in hopes of persuading the committee that the new design would not have a greater overall impact on P.S. 234. In fact, the studies showed less shadow cast over the school during morning hours. In the afternoon the school would be so eclipsed by the planned Goldman Sachs headquarters in Battery Park City and the Freedom Tower on the World Trade Center site that the impact from the Site 5B structures would be insignificant, said Minskoff CFO Benjamin McGrath.

The height of the condominium tower on West Street would also increase, from 370 feet in the earlier proposal to 382 feet. But what had been planned as a 200-foot-tall building at the corner of Murray and Greenwich Street would be reduced by half.

"They dealt with it in a very smart way," said board member George Olsen, former president of the P.S. 234 PTA who earlier had expressed grave concerns about the higher building looming over the school.

If the board accepts the revisions, Minskoff is expected to contribute more than $1 million towards the community center planned for a new residential tower across the street on Site 5C, on the west side of P.S. 234. A Whole Foods store at Greenwich and Warren Streets in the Minskoff complex also appears likely to be part of the deal.

In January, McGrath told the Trib that leasing to the grocery would be "less economically attractive" if the developer can not create the additional townhouses on Warren Street.

When pressed about that statement by a board member last month, McGrath sidestepped the question of a tradeoff for the food store but said a decision had to be made soon.

"[Whole Foods] said to us, 'We ain't waiting around for this deal,'" McGrath told the committee. "In other words, if we can't demonstrate that we can deliver to them within a certain time period then they'll pull the plug."

For years, the operator of the parking lot on Site 5B has paid the maintenance costs for nearby Washington Market Park-now $46,000 a month-in lieu of taxes. Once Minskoff takes over the site the developer will be required to continue supporting the upkeep of the park. But how much he will pay and other details of of the arrangement remain unclear.

Alex Adams, a vice-president for the city's Economic Development Corp., told the committee that the city "fully intends" to make sure the allocation to the park is met. "Exactly how we do it remains to be seen," he said. "It's one of those things that was simple in concept and difficult to actually execute."

The new Minskoff complex, together with the residential tower to go up next to P.S. 234 on Site 5C, will transform the landscape around P.S. 234. Minskoff's design, presented by its architect Chris Cooper of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, received mixed reviews by the committee, and several members requested a separate meeting on the design.

"The surface architecture on such an enormous site is so ordinary," said committee member Bruce Ehrmann. "It looks like a mediocre high-rise midtown street as opposed to our Downtown low-rise."

Eric Anderson, an architect on the community board, was more positive. But he, too, expressed reservations. "I think it's an attractive building but
it's got an institutional character to it. The building has the look of a modernist past period and maybe that's fine. But I think it's worth discussing."

Whatever misgivings the committee may have about the design, most members expressed support for the overall plan. That is a dramatic change from the battles that have ensued during the past 15 years over abandoned tower proposals by long-defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert, the Commodities and Mercantile Exchanges, and the Cotton, Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa exchanges.

In October 2002, Anna Switzer, then P.S. 234's principal, and local elected officials stood outside the school to protest a 600-foot-tall office tower proposed by Edward Minskoff himself. "Stop the Minskoff Tower: Save Tribeca and Save P.S. 234." read a big banner hung on the school's fence.

sfenn1117
March 27th, 2005, 01:03 AM
I walked past the 5C lot I think it is (Chambers St, behind the school, accross from the community college). I was wondering what was going on there. Fences are up surronding the lot (The ones that go up on construction sites). These are awesome lots and something great needs to be built on them. I would be disappointed by something ~130 feet high.


So has construction actually begun?

ZippyTheChimp
March 27th, 2005, 01:24 AM
Construction has begun on site 5C. There is a thread for that site.

sfenn1117
March 27th, 2005, 01:58 AM
Thank you. It said construction began Feb 1st. The area really isn't too lowrise.....BPC has a lot of hi-rises after all. It's good for the neighborhood, better than an empty decaying lot.

ZippyTheChimp
May 14th, 2005, 10:11 AM
Tribeca tower gets nod from C.B. 1

By Josh Rogers


Developer Edward Minskoff moved one step closer to building a million square foot residential complex and Whole Foods Market in Tribeca by winning approval of a Community Board 1 committee last Thursday.


Under an agreement signed by Councilmember Alan Gerson and Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff in September, the community board has the rare power to veto the current proposal at Greenwich, Murray, Warren and West Sts., but Albert Capsouto, chairperson of C.B. 1’s Tribeca Committee, said there are so many positive components to the agreement, that the committee was not inclined to ask for more from Minskoff. The full board is expected to vote on the plan May 17.


The developer agreed to kick in an additional $1 million for a community recreation center being built across the street behind P.S.234. When Minskoff looked to make changes to the proposed buildings on the parking lot known as Site 5B, it obligated him to invest $2 million to help pay for the center and gave the C.B. 1 the power to veto the changes.


“Ed Minskoff has met his obligations to the community,” Madelyn Wils, former C.B. 1 chairperson who helped negotiate the agreement, said at last week’s meeting. “He’s changed this entire plan to meet the community’s plan. He’s done more than most developers would have done and I think he deserves to have this go through in a timely manner.”


Minskoff agreed to reduce the height of the buildings closer to their residential Tribeca neighbors and shifted height to the tallest tower on West and Warren Sts. from 370 to 382 feet. The Greenwich St. building has been reduced from 138 feet to 101 and the one on Murray St. from 200 feet to 139.


The lone voice of dissent at the meeting was board member Paul Sipos who said, “It’s going to be so overwhelmingly large it’s going to change the whole [complexion] of this part of the neighborhood.”


Beth Terrell, a Tribeca mother, said a community center for teens is essential particularly since they can no longer spend time in the World Trade Center shopping center. “For older teenagers we lost our mall,” she said. “We’ve got teenagers that have no place to go.”


The community center will be run by Manhattan Youth.


The project is expected to be approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council over the summer and construction is expected to begin in September.


The developer had hoped for approval earlier so pile driving could begin over the summer and not be too disruptive to P.S. 234 but they could not get it scheduled before City Planning, Wils said. Carlos Olivieri, Minskoff’s vice president of construction, said because the soil conditions are worse at Site 5B than the development site across the street, they will have to do drive 800 to 850 piles rather than implementing the less noisy methods being used across the street.


Minskoff has also agreed to pay $7.5 million into a Parks Dept. trust fund for Washington Market Park. A spokesperson for Minskoff said the developer will pay money into the park fund regardless of whether C.B. 1 approves the changes to the project.


The Doctoroff-Gerson letter also provides for the rec center and a public school annex next to P.S. 234, and it led to the agreement to build a K-8 school on Beekman St. Capsouto said given the addition of school and community space, park and rec center money, and the fact that Minskoff was not looking to increase the overall size of the project, it is a good deal for the neighborhood.


The project includes 230 condos and 162 rental apartments. Of the rentals, half will below market rate, with 60 percent of the 81 apartments set aside for moderate income apartments and 40 percent for low income. Subsidies for this are likely to come from a $50-million fund the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation identified in 2003. Originally, 300 affordable units were to be built on the Minskoff site, but Doctoroff announced last September that some of the money will be used to preserve affordable apartments in Lower Manhattan and the city is expected to release a plan for this money in a few months.


The city’s Economic Development Corp. announced in April 2001 that they would sell the lot to Minskoff to build a 32-story office tower and over the years the project’s height and prospects have risen and fallen before settling on a 382 foot apartment building. After the committee vote, Ben McGrath, Minskoff’s chief financial officer, said it took a long time and a lot of negotiations but he was happy that the project was nearing the construction point.


“I’m relieved,” he said. “We’ve made extraordinary efforts with community leaders.”

Josh@DowntownExpress.com

There are drilling rigs on the site making test borings.

NoyokA
July 6th, 2005, 11:38 AM
New York Mag.:

A Tribeca school fights developers for its place in the sun; kids “perform better” in natural light.

By Will Doig

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/shadowstudies050620_400.jpg
(Photo credit: Pak Fung Wong)

Tribeca’s BoBo parents aren’t about to let their kids’ intellectual development be stunted by a lack of sunlight. So when developer Edward Minskoff announced plans for a nineteen-story tower just south of P.S. 234, the coveted three-story brick schoolhouse on Greenwich, they fought back. City Councilman Alan Gerson got Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff to make the developer commission a “shadow study” indicating “no negative impacts” on P.S. 234’s classrooms. They’re “delightfully sunny,” explains principal Sandy Bridges.

Though shadow studies are occasionally launched in response to community pressure (Woody Allen–led shadow protests have stymied developers in Carnegie Hill), Minskoff Equities CFO Ben McGrath says, “99 percent are concerned with the impact on open space,” not a building.

“It was a lot of work to produce this study,” he adds. Not to mention to redesign the building after calculating how the sun’s angles would strike the school hour-by-hour on March 21 and September 21—the midpoints between high summer and low winter. Using this as a guide, Minskoff added setbacks, allowing light to reach the classrooms during most of the school day.

The solar coup is state-of-the-art education theory. “Schoolchildren perform better in buildings with diffuse daylight,” says architect Lisa Heschong, who has studied the effects of natural light on 9,000 students.

Still, P.S. 234 isn’t out of the shade yet. With Minskoff’s building currently in the approval process, developer Scott Resnick recently broke ground for a nearby 300-foot tower. Bridges seems resigned. “Tribeca,” she says, and sighs. “I remember when it was like an empty field of heather.”

-----------------------------------------------
I'll restrain myself.

billyblancoNYC
July 7th, 2005, 12:55 PM
New York Mag.:

A Tribeca school fights developers for its place in the sun; kids “perform better” in natural light.

By Will Doig

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/shadowstudies050620_400.jpg
(Photo credit: Pak Fung Wong)

Tribeca’s BoBo parents aren’t about to let their kids’ intellectual development be stunted by a lack of sunlight. So when developer Edward Minskoff announced plans for a nineteen-story tower just south of P.S. 234, the coveted three-story brick schoolhouse on Greenwich, they fought back. City Councilman Alan Gerson got Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff to make the developer commission a “shadow study” indicating “no negative impacts” on P.S. 234’s classrooms. They’re “delightfully sunny,” explains principal Sandy Bridges.

Though shadow studies are occasionally launched in response to community pressure (Woody Allen–led shadow protests have stymied developers in Carnegie Hill), Minskoff Equities CFO Ben McGrath says, “99 percent are concerned with the impact on open space,” not a building.

“It was a lot of work to produce this study,” he adds. Not to mention to redesign the building after calculating how the sun’s angles would strike the school hour-by-hour on March 21 and September 21—the midpoints between high summer and low winter. Using this as a guide, Minskoff added setbacks, allowing light to reach the classrooms during most of the school day.

The solar coup is state-of-the-art education theory. “Schoolchildren perform better in buildings with diffuse daylight,” says architect Lisa Heschong, who has studied the effects of natural light on 9,000 students.

Still, P.S. 234 isn’t out of the shade yet. With Minskoff’s building currently in the approval process, developer Scott Resnick recently broke ground for a nearby 300-foot tower. Bridges seems resigned. “Tribeca,” she says, and sighs. “I remember when it was like an empty field of heather.”

-----------------------------------------------
I'll restrain myself.


Wow, this jerk-off must be in her early 200s. Did she look good...had some work done, I suppose.

lofter1
July 7th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Truth be told you really only have to go back about 20 years to remember when there was just an expanse of sand where Battery Park City & WFC now stand.

And up until 1990 (aside from some early homesteaders) lots people went to Tribeca only for the wild club scene (Area, etc.).

lofter1
July 7th, 2005, 04:25 PM
To jog your memories, here's a couple of photos from 1984 of northern BPC.

This is an installation called "Freedom of Expression" from Creative Time's "Art on the Beach". Back then BPC was a almost literally a beach -- acres of sand. (This piece was recently re-installed in Foley Plaza.)

http://www.creativetime.org/programs/archive/1984/Art_Beach6/Art_Beach6.htm


http://www.creativetime.org/programs/archive/1984/Art_Beach6/ArtBeach8.jpg


NJ in the background...
http://www.creativetime.org/programs/archive/1984/Art_Beach6/ArtBeach3.jpg

billyblancoNYC
July 7th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Well, sortof, but TriBeCa has been a major hub of activity for many years now, and surely wasn't field-like.

sfenn1117
July 7th, 2005, 04:55 PM
It may once have been low-rise, but then BPC was built up, and those 3 big apartment towers north of Chambers Street, that office building with the terraced roofs north of 7WTC. These sites could certainly handle buildings of significant height (~500 ft?). Instead they've been nimbyfied.

BTW is site 5c out of the ground yet?

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2005, 05:19 PM
If you check the history of the area, the city owned sites 5b and 5c were cleared for development, but they never followed through. Gradually, the park was built, then the school, and the residential buildings along the east side of Greenwich. By the time the city realized the value of the property and tried to peddle it to the highest bidder, the area had turned residential and it was too late.

There has been test drilling all over the site the past few weeks. The area is landfill, similar to the WTC.

pianoman11686
July 14th, 2005, 10:51 PM
From http://cityrealty.com:

City Planning Commission reviews plans for 270 Greenwich Street 13-JUL-05

Six years ago, the city designated Edward J. Minskoff Equities to build a 1-million sq. ft. office tower in the Washington Market Urban Renewal District to the north of the World Trade Center site. Shortly before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the plans were revised to use the site for housing. After negotiations with the community, plans were recently scaled back and today the City Planning Commission closed its public hearing on the proposal, which now calls for a 32-story condominium apartment tower and a lower rental apartment tower on a two-story podium that will contain a 55,000-sq. ft. Whole Foods store.

The plan calls for 230 condominium apartments and 132 rental apartments. Half of the rental units will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

About 180 of the condominium units will be in the tower at the corner of West and Warren Streets, just to the south of another new condo tower at 200 Chambers Street. The rest of the condos will be in an adjacent mid-rise structure on Warren Street and they will have loggias screened by two-story-high stone piers. The façade of the condo section of the development will have a checkerboard fenestration pattern and be faced with a sand-colored textured granite from India and the condos will have a fitness center and space and landscaped roof terrace designed by Thomas Balsey on the third floor on the roof of the two-story retail platform.

The rental units will be in another mid-rise structure with its own entrance that will rise six-stories (100 feet) along Greenwich Street and 10 stories (138 feet) along Murray Street.

The building will also have a garage for 400 cars. The developer will contribute $7.5 million for the maintenance of the Washington Market Park and another $3 million for a community center on an adjacent block.

Jake
July 15th, 2005, 12:20 AM
The plan calls for 230 condominium apartments and 132 rental apartments. Half of the rental units will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

I never undersood the reasoning behind stuff like that, so you're gonna have "projects" on floors 1-?, then mid class people on 3-? and the rich folks on 6-?

"Look honey, that's where the poor people live"

This is so ridiculous, why don't we just put some hobos at One Chase Manhattan to show some diversity of income?

macreator
July 15th, 2005, 01:02 AM
This is really a disappointment and quite shortsighted on the City's part. The demand for office space will come back and probably right around the time this building is completed but alas we'll be stuck with a mediocre Battery Park City-inspired blah apartment building.

sfenn1117
July 15th, 2005, 01:10 AM
The world trade center will provide sooo much office space, we don't even know if there will be enough demand for it. Meanwhile I'm for these residentials, while I wish they may be taller and have better designs, Lower Manhattan continues to become a 24/7 community.

Citytect
July 15th, 2005, 02:46 AM
I never undersood the reasoning behind stuff like that, so you're gonna have "projects" on floors 1-?, then mid class people on 3-? and the rich folks on 6-?
I believe the units are spread out throughout buildings like this and it is stipulated in receiving the incentives for provided mixed income housing that the units are all to be comparable - all of them, market-rate or not.

tmg
July 15th, 2005, 10:48 AM
I never undersood the reasoning behind stuff like that, so you're gonna have "projects" on floors 1-?, then mid class people on 3-? and the rich folks on 6-?

"Look honey, that's where the poor people live"

This is so ridiculous, why don't we just put some hobos at One Chase Manhattan to show some diversity of income?

This is becoming a fundamental ethic of New York City, not seen in any other American city, as far as I know. Rich and poor live side by side. We no longer ghettoize the poor, and we no longer build exclusive enclaves for the rich. (Or at least we say we don't do these things). I think it is a wonderful urban ideal, something to be proud of.

As for it is carried out in practice, I imagine that the below-market-rate apartments might be smaller, and not have the same quality finishings (hardwood floors, granite counters, etc.) as the market rate apartments. But a mix of incomes will be represented in a building.

And by the way, don't think of this as simply a mix of rich and poor. These policies help also neighborhoods to have "lifecycle" diversity, i.e. single yuppies, families with children, and retirees all living together.

BrooklynRider
July 15th, 2005, 11:00 AM
The world trade center will provide sooo much office space, we don't even know if there will be enough demand for it. Meanwhile I'm for these residentials, while I wish they may be taller and have better designs, Lower Manhattan continues to become a 24/7 community.

The rate at which older office stock is being absorbed for residential conversion offers no guarantee that the WTC will fill the future gap. This is going to do more to spur back-office moves to Jersey City and Brooklyn as the cheaper office stock dimishes.

lofter1
July 18th, 2005, 09:09 AM
City Planning Commission reviews plans for 270 Greenwich Street 13-JUL-05

The plan calls for 230 condominium apartments and 132 rental apartments. Half of the rental units will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

Those figures add up to 462 residential units.

Documents from City Planning state that this building will contain "approximately 402 residential units".

( http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/dispo/071305cal.pdf - Scroll down to "III. Public Hearings / Borough of Manhattan" and click on "Nos 24, 25 & 26" ).

pianoman11686
July 18th, 2005, 01:01 PM
230 + 132 = 362

lofter1
July 18th, 2005, 02:18 PM
230 + 132 = 362

Thanks pianoman ... what can I say, it's too darned hot to be doing math today!!

ZippyTheChimp
September 16th, 2005, 05:52 PM
http://www.downtownexpress.com/


Gerson stalls Tribeca development

By Ronda Kaysen

City Councilmember Alan Gerson stalled a City Council vote last week on a Tribeca development, leaving the project’s future in doubt and setting the stage for a possible standoff between the mayor’s office and the City Council.

A dispute between developers of the Greenwich St. site and officials from P.S. 234, an elementary school located across the street, about construction noise was not resolved in time for a City Council vote on the project’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, a crucial step in authorizing the development.

Insisting a resolution must be hashed out before the development can move forward, Gerson delayed the vote until the Sept. 22 deadline. If an agreement is not reached, Gerson says he has the votes in the Council to reject the ULURP, a move that would derail the seven-month-long process, unless the mayor steps in and overrules the vote. The City Council would then have the power to veto the mayor’s decision by a 2/3 vote.

Developer Edward Minskoff has long maintained he intends to pile drive — a noisy excavation process — directly outside the school. With 65 of the school’s windows facing onto the construction site, parents and school officials balked at the possibility that their students might be subjected to as much as 12 weeks of mind numbing noise.

“Kids can’t go anywhere. Kids are essentially required to be in a classroom from 8:30 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon and that’s when they’re doing the pile driving,” said Kevin Doherty, president of the P.S. 234 P.T.A.

One proposed solution was to schedule the pile driving between 1 p.m. and 9 p.m., in effect sharing the burden between residents and schoolchildren, an option Gerson characterized as a last choice. “I’m optimistic it will not come to that,” he said.

Doherty’s apartment building, of which he is the president of the co-op board, also faces onto the development. “You need to ensure that when you are doing it [the construction], it’s in a community friendly way,” he said.

Other solutions include building a sound barrier between the school and the site and reducing the number of months of pile driving.

Minskoff Equities did not return calls for comment for this story.

Construction was originally expected to begin this summer but was delayed because Minskoff made changes to the development, a 1.1 million sq. ft. residential complex project bounded by Warren, Murray, Greenwich and West Sts., Gerson told Downtown Express. “We’re not going to harm our kids because of the delay,” he said.

But if an agreement is not hashed out with the developer and Gerson moves to block the project, the decision will come down to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who might not agree with Gerson’s assessment.

The site, dubbed Site 5B, is city-owned land sold to Minskoff as part of a residential development agreement brokered a year ago by Gerson and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff. As part of the agreement, the developer agreed to build a community-friendly project.

The Economic Development Corporation, the city agency that selected the developers and negotiated the sale, has indicated that it thinks the development honors the spirit of the agreement and does not see any reason why the deal should be delayed.

“We believe we have a terrific project,” Janel Patterson, an E.D.C. spokesperson, said in a statement to Downtown Express. “We hope that no one would put this project at risk at this point in the process.”

Ronda@downtownexpress.com (Ronda@downtownexpress.com)

BrooklynRider
September 17th, 2005, 12:36 AM
It would seem that the sooner this project starts the less the inconvenience overall. However, I have to applaud the sensitivity to the school on this one. Hope they work it out.

ZippyTheChimp
September 23rd, 2005, 06:07 PM
The parking lot on Greenwich that took up most of the site is closed, so maybe an agreement has been reached, but the latest story is:


Tribeca 5B decision

The City Council will vote soon on the Tribeca development project across the street from P.S. 234. Councilmember Alan Gerson has delayed the vote on Site 5B in order to get developer Ed Minskoff to come up with a construction plan and schedule — particularly as regards to pile driving — that is not overly disruptive to the school. That Minskoff has not done, citing “prohibitive” costs.

The vote delay days are numbered and if Minskoff cannot come up with an acceptable plan to build his luxury apartment buildings, the Council should stand with Gerson against Minskoff and the mayor. Minskoff will lose lots of money if the project is delayed or blocked. If he doesn’t want to spend some of that money to reduce the hugely negative impact that pile driving will have on kids across the street trying to learn, then the project shouldn’t be approved.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/


Across the street at 200 Chambers, Resnick used either vibration or auguring to set the foundation.

NYCResident
October 1st, 2005, 07:07 PM
From www.downtownexpress.com

P.S. 234 wins noise protections in development deal

By Ronda Kaysen


A major Tribeca project received a go ahead from the city on Wednesday after its developer agreed to minimize construction noise that would have disrupted a nearby school.


City Councilmember Alan Gerson, who represents the neighborhood, brokered the deal between the city and developer Edward Minskoff Equities early Wednesday morning, bringing months of protracted negotiations to a close and securing a vote of approval from the City Council later that day.


The deal clears the way for Minskoff to develop a 1.1 million sq. ft. residential project at 270 Greenwich St. The development, dubbed Site 5B, includes a nearly 400 foot tall condo tower, several townhouses, rental units and 170,000 sq. ft. of retail space, which will house a Barnes & Noble bookstore and a Whole Foods Market.


In a rare decision to restrict a developer’s construction methods because of quality of life concerns, Minskoff is required to create sound barriers and use alternative construction techniques to mitigate pile driving noise that would have inundated P.S. 234, an elementary school with 700 students that abuts the project’s Warren St. side. Minskoff will cover the approximately $2.5 million in mitigation costs.


“This sets a new framework — people, especially kids, have to come first,” said Gerson in a telephone interview shortly after the City Council vote, adding that he hopes this agreement sets a new precedent for future developments, particularly upcoming projects across West St. at Sites 23 and 24, which face another school: P.S./I.S. 89, also on Warren St.


Discussions between the councilmember and Minskoff dragged on through the summer, extending beyond the City Council Sept. 22 deadline for the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a lengthy development process that needs City Council and mayoral approval. Gerson stalled a vote twice in the hopes that an agreement could be reached that would not unduly impact the schoolchildren and the residential neighborhood.


The agreement requires Minskoff to reduce the number of piles and cut the number of weeks of pile driving in half from 12 weeks to five to six weeks. A hydraulic pile driving hammer, quieter than a standard driver, will be used and all pile driving hammers will be enclosed in acoustical shrouding, muffling the sound. With the exception of some preliminary driving slated for December, the bulk of the pile driving will be delayed until after students complete standardized tests on Jan. 12.


A sidewalk bridge on the south side of the school will be enclosed with plywood and acoustical material. Another sidewalk bridge will be erected on the south side of Warren St., creating a 20-ft. high acoustic wall, further protecting the school.


In all, noise inside the school will not exceed 50 decibels, the current noise levels inside the school when air conditioning is running. The noise restrictions will also lessen the noise at P.S./I.S. 89 across West St.


“[The agreement] is great. Our experts tell us it’s great,” said Gerson. “I said all along that we’re going to protect our kids and the surrounding residents.”


Martin McLaughlin, a spokesperson for Minskoff, was reluctant to discuss the specifics of the noise agreement, which will cost the developer as much as $2.5 million. “It’s all settled, the agreements are made and we’re going forward. We tried to be a good neighbor and we’re doing what we can do,” he said.


Parents, city and school officials expressed satisfaction and relief that a deal was reached that did not unduly impact the school or the neighborhood.


“We’ve gotten a lot, it’s not perfect, but we’ve gotten a lot,” said P.S. 234 principal Sandy Bridges, who sent a notice to parents on Tuesday evening alerting them of the imminent agreement. “My goal was to mitigate the sound, not to completely eradicate it. Is it perfect? No, but I think it is a manageable and livable compromise.”


John Jiler, a P.S. 234 parent who has closely followed the negotiations and attended the Wednesday City Council ULURP vote, was delighted by the agreement. “The deal was rather remarkable. We got more than we dreamed we would, and are very happy,” he said in an e-mail to Downtown Express.


The noise agreement is the latest chapter in a larger deal brokered a year ago by Gerson between the developer and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff for the sale of Site 5B, which is city land. As part of the $110 million sale, Minskoff agreed to contribute $3.6 million to a community center planned for a different development in the agreement and $7.5 million for the maintenance of nearby Washington Market Park.


“People were astounded by how much the community got for this,” said McLaughlin. The development also includes a 55,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods Market and a new addition to the project, a Barnes and Noble bookstore.


“From an infrastructure perspective, this is a tremendous step forward,” said Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, the organization that will operate the new 28,000 sq. ft. community center. The $3.8 million will go toward the build out of the community center, which is expected to open in 2007. The center still needs to raise an additional $1.5 million to $2 million.


The Doctoroff deal assured a “community friendly” development, language that bound Minskoff to answer to school concerns and gave Gerson the leverage to vote down ULURP, which he threatened to do. Gerson maintains he had the 2/3 majority needed in City Council to overturn a mayoral veto.


Although the school is the closest building to the development, nearby residences will also benefit from the construction agreement. “The fact that there’s a school there helped influence and get the noise abatement strategy in place,” said Kevin Doherty, president of The Tribeca condo board, a condo at 303 Greenwich St., close to the development. Doherty is also president of the P.S. 234 P.T.A. Doherty doubts the residents, without the school’s involvement, would have been able to influence the developer at all.


“This an achievement in that the city has never before gotten an agreement from a developer to take into account the [impact of] their construction noise on schools,” said Bennett Brooks, a noise consultant hired by the school. “The fact that they got the attention of the developer on this issue is considered a big achievement.”


Ronda@DowntownExpress.com

krulltime
December 28th, 2005, 09:20 AM
Mixed-Use Development Secures $452M in Financing


By Barbara Jarvie
December 27, 2005

NEW YORK CITY-Construction will move forward on a mixed-use project in Lower Manhattan that has gone through several redesigns. Edward J. Minskoff Equities’s 270 Greenwich St., 1.1-million-sf multi-building effort secures a package totaling $452 million.

The Warren Street Condominium encompasses an entire city block adjacent to Battery Park City. The financing includes a $320-million construction loan facility for creation of a 228-unit condominium tower. It also contains an $82-million loan facility for the construction of a 155,000-sf commercial project including a 400-unit garage. Also part of the package is a $50-million letter of credit enhanced bond financing, supporting the construction of a "50/30/20" residential rental building consisting of 163 units for low, moderate and market-rate units.

Minskoff's plan for the L-shaped lot is a city-sanctioned project awarded to the developer through a New York City Economic Development Corp. RFP designation back in 2001. The project, originally expected to be completed in 2004, has gone through a number of incarnations since that time. The 90,565-sf lot is bound by Greenwich, Murray, and Warren Streets on the urban-renewal site known as Site 5B. In addition to the residential units, the project is now scheduled to include retail space for a planned Whole Foods supermarket and Barnes & Noble.

Bank of America was administrative agent and sole lead arranger. JP Morgan Chase Bank and Landesbank Hessen-Th ringen were the other lenders participating in the financing at initial closing. Mezzanine financing was provided by an affiliate of BlackRock. Law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP represented BofA. The letters of credit issued by the banks in connection with the residential rental building back a Fannie Mae credit facility, which in turn secured bonds issued by the NYSHDC.

The transaction team was led by Morrison & Foerster partners Mark Edelstein and John McCarthy. Others working on the deal included Christopher Delson, Gunilla Haac, Scott Kohanowski, Joshua Bloodworth, Alethea Jones, Jason Jones, Justine Martin, Angela Garcia and Jeanette Harris, all in the New York City office.

“This was a complex, multi-tiered arrangement, combining several different financing types on components of a larger, singular project,” says Edelstein, who chairs Morrison & Foerster’s real estate finance practice. He notes that now that the financing is in place, the developer has taken “a major step to bringing a brilliant new residential and retail property to what has unquestionably returned as a prime place in the New York market.”


Copyright © 2005 Real Estate Media.

krulltime
December 28th, 2005, 09:20 AM
Wow can't wait for this one to be built.

ablarc
December 28th, 2005, 09:36 AM
Three years plus of fighting over this?

Is it still dull as ever?

kliq6
January 3rd, 2006, 11:34 AM
This building complex will be as dull at site 5-C, a truly wasted site, with florr plates like that a great office building, the size of Site 26 could have been built

BPC
January 3rd, 2006, 01:18 PM
Trobecans are very protective of their 'hood.

ZippyTheChimp
January 3rd, 2006, 02:35 PM
Klig 6,

You continually contradict yourself.

On the one hand, you state there is little demand for office space downtown; and then you come back with the idea that this site could be a successful commercial location, even though it is two blocks further away from transportation than 7 WTC.

Minskoff had zero tenants lined up; the best he would have done is compete with the WTC site, and further hold back development.

kliq6
January 3rd, 2006, 04:38 PM
Minskoff had a tenant, Bear Sterns to take 300,000 sf, i was involved in the talks. the NYC EDC came to them and asked to have him wait as they wanted to see if Bear would move to 7 WTC. With this delay, Bear just resigned in Metrotech for there Back office space and then the NYC EDC demanded Minskoff turn this site into Residential, to further along that there was no LM demand and to help push there Far Wes Side project. SOrry Zippy but i was invovled heavily with this project and could not talk about it, but as you can see thru out this thred, if defended the commercial usage need for this site

antinimby
January 3rd, 2006, 04:50 PM
The amount of lost opportunities in this city is just mindblowing. If true this is just another heartbreaking missed opportunity.

BTW, the fact that it is not part of the GZ mess is IMO a plus for some companies.

ZippyTheChimp
January 3rd, 2006, 05:34 PM
7WTC is not really part of the WTC site. That is why the building is finished.

If Bear Stearns was so intent on taking space downtown, why didn't they lease at 7WTC? They could have occupied before Minskoff finished his building. And it's a superior location.

And now Bear Stearns is looking at 200 Greenwich? Would that have been the case if they leased at 270?

It seems to me Klig6, that you defended this project because it was your account, while ignoring the other aspects that made it unsuitable for commercial development. At the least, it would have increased the pressure to put residential development on the WTC site, which I think is a waste of the transportation hub.

And Minskoff's slab was ugly.

kliq6
January 3rd, 2006, 05:39 PM
They didnt want 7 wtc since it had been designed and they could not change the floor plans to there need or (built to suite). They could at site 5-b since nothing was set in stone as to floor layouts since it was not under construction.

7wtc problem, in regards to leasding to finacial tenants is since each floor is the same size, there is no possible trading floor usage as they are not big enough. They can cosider 200 Greenwich since like 5-b nothing is set and they could get this built to there needs as a anchor tenant

ZippyTheChimp
January 3rd, 2006, 05:53 PM
So, do you see it as more advantageous that BS is considering 200 Greenwich, or would we all be better off if they were at 270?

kliq6
January 4th, 2006, 09:48 AM
my opinion, 270. Im for commercial development, two many times the city has not planned ahead and when economic expansion happened, we reach our cap of jobs that can be consumed by space at hand and then lose out. Im tired of this tread, not only as a broker but a passionate native NYer. 200 greenwich will be built no matter what, based on insurance and other proceeds. 270 would not. Under what Bear wanted to do both would be built and we would have more class A space, that if all goes well and a turn around in LM happens, would easily be rented when demanded was needed. That site with that large floor plan area, larger then any site at Ground Zero, has truly been wastede to build something that the residents now dont want, more ressidential development.

Four years ago, when the area was more commercial, the residents wanted more residential to establish there area. That has been done. This site if voted on now by CB1 would be for mixed-use/commercial use based on people iv contacted.

But no point in continuing with this convo, the sites fate has been decided and only a major crash of the housing market will delay it from being built out

NYguy
January 4th, 2006, 10:06 AM
7WTC is not really part of the WTC site. That is why the building is finished.


That, and the fact that it wasn't controlled by the Port Authority and the LMDC. Also it didn't have rounds and rounds of design competitions and redesigns to contend with. Then there was the matter of the power needed from the substation.

Lack of tenants aside, we would have had more progress without so much input from outside parties.

infoshare
January 4th, 2006, 10:20 AM
Lack of tenants aside, we would have had more progress without so much input from outside parties.

I think you are right about that one. The public review process has turned into a stealty weapon for "obstructionists" : as in NIMBYs.

BTW - I have been very interested in this project and have been follwoing it closely, and will continue to - I will go and photo the site and post the pics for the mutual edification of the NYW community.

cheers

ZippyTheChimp
January 4th, 2006, 10:35 AM
That site with that large floor plan area, larger then any site at Ground Zero, has truly been wastede to build something that the residents now dont want, more ressidential development.

Four years ago, when the area was more commercial, the residents wanted more residential to establish there area. That has been done. This site if voted on now by CB1 would be for mixed-use/commercial use based on people iv contacted.
Site B never has, and does not now have, majority support among residents for commercial development, and no one on record at CB1. The support you speak of is specifically for the WTC site, where residents want commercial development.
http://www.cb1.org/

Despite the funds in place to build 200 Greenwich, the prospect of it getting built is still on shaky ground. I doubt Silverstein would commit those funds without a substantial tenant base at 7WTC and FT. A competing building at 270 would not have helped him.

kliq6
January 4th, 2006, 10:40 AM
Zippy, by any chance are you on CB1?

ZippyTheChimp
January 4th, 2006, 10:42 AM
No

antinimby
January 4th, 2006, 10:53 AM
... and post the pics for the mutual edification of the NYW community.Err...that sounds strangely erotic. :o

kliq6
January 4th, 2006, 10:54 AM
Then i wold like to personally invite you to the next meeting were i will introduce you to a number of board memebers that wanted 5-b to be commercial now. I will also introduce you to someone, with the initials MW, who strongly supports 5-B now as non residential. Accept?

ZippyTheChimp
January 4th, 2006, 11:00 AM
Ok

infoshare
January 4th, 2006, 10:32 PM
Err...that sounds strangely erotic. :o

No, I don't mean thooose pictures! (L-Out-L)

P.S. Hope the meeting (mentioned on this thread) can bring about some change in the outcome of the project.

WiredNY can be a real cataylist for change: much more than the mere pleasure of "mutual edification". Just take a look at the traffic numbers - amazing.

cheers

vc10
February 17th, 2006, 11:20 AM
Cool blog entry on Site 5B, including a rendering, on the occasion of the official ground-breaking. First rendering I had seen, I'd be interested in seeing more.

http://www.startsandfits.com/2006/02/progress-yes-but-with-twinge-of.html

lofter1
February 18th, 2006, 03:31 AM
Another butt ugly POS going up on 5B to match the duller but still ugly POS going up on 5C.

See how poorly they look side by side (welcome to the West St. Wall) ...

BPC
February 18th, 2006, 04:11 AM
Looks fine to me. (I would like to see some storefronts at ground level.) Nor do I understand why a so-called "West Street wall" should be a problem. The street formed an unbroken line of buildings until the urban "renewal" of the 1960s. After forty years of government inactivity and ineptitude, sites 5B and 5C are finally returning to productive use. This is cause for celebration, not consternation.

ablarc
February 18th, 2006, 11:45 AM
Looks fine to me. (I would like to see some storefronts at ground level.) Nor do I understand why a so-called "West Street wall" should be a problem. The street formed an unbroken line of buildings until the urban "renewal" of the 1960s. After forty years of government inactivity and ineptitude, sites 5B and 5C are finally returning to productive use. This is cause for celebration, not consternation.
I think the objection here is to the quality of the architecture --which, shall we say, is not the highest. There's an unbroken wall on West End Avenue and another on upper Park Avenue. Both even lack street level shops, but I doubt you'd hear much complaint if buildings of their quality were proposed.

This, however, looks like Lefrak City come to Manhattan.

lofter1
February 18th, 2006, 11:47 AM
As I see it the main problem with both of these designs is that they rise directly up from the property line at the side walk to their full height. This creates a impediment to any retail uses at the street level since it fronts onto the very busy and noisy West Side Hiway -- not very conducive for a restuarant (it will be interesting to see how long the large retail space at street level in the new full-block building at West / Morton remains empty as it has been since the building opened 2 years ago -- the only inhabitant of that space now is a large sign advertising a possible restaurant site).

The wind effect that will most likely exist at street level from these two buildings will also be a problem for any retail fronting onto West St.

I know these both went through significant dessign review at many levels, but it seems a mistake not to have included a set-back for these towers -- as was done across the WSH in Battery Park city.

ablarc
February 18th, 2006, 12:40 PM
As I see it the main problem with both of these designs is that they rise directly up from the property line at the side walk to their full height. This creates a impediment to any retail uses at the street level since it fronts onto the very busy and noisy West Side Hiway...
How would a setback cure this?

lofter1
February 18th, 2006, 12:44 PM
It could help to minimize the wind effect created by the cheer wall.

More on the "Tribeca Wall' effect from points further north ...


Residents: Do not build north Tribeca 'wall'
http://www.tribecatrib.com/newsjan06/letters.html#1

To the Editor:

I ask myself, is the proposed Jack Parker development in north Tribeca worthy of New York City? (See story, page 5.) Creating a wall blocking our neighborhood physically and psychologically from its unique access to the Manhattan Waterfront greenway is not.

Close to 1,000 residents have signed a petition expressing their unequivocal opposition to this project. Can the overwhelming voice of the community be ignored?

To quote City Planning Chairwoman Amanda M. Burden:

"In these challenging times we must think and work in new ways, fostering ideas, nurturing creativity and producing solutions. I look forward to your participation in this exciting process."

Let us not repeat past errors. A comprehensive study, not a piecemeal one, must be undertaken to consider the environmental impact on the whole of north Tribeca.

I understand that development pressures dictate that something new will be built on this site. Let the environmental impact study process go forward-guaranteeing citizen access to decision-making.

Let it also guarantee an outcome that is good both for the city and the neighborhood.

Sidney Spanier
466 Washington Street

BPC
February 18th, 2006, 01:36 PM
Lofter1, Spanier's objections could not be more different than yours.

NYatKNIGHT
February 20th, 2006, 04:00 PM
At any rate, the building in that rendering does look like yet another dull box. Big yawn.

ZippyTheChimp
February 20th, 2006, 04:48 PM
Yes, it's pretty cheesy.

MidtownGuy
February 20th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Completely boring...if only for the sake of the skyline, I wish projects that were close to the river had to at least have SOMETHING compelling about them.

lofter1
February 20th, 2006, 09:23 PM
thank you ^ :cool:

BPC
February 20th, 2006, 10:28 PM
Completely boring...if only for the sake of the skyline, I wish projects that were close to the river had to at least have SOMETHING compelling about them.

It's two blocks from the river.

MidtownGuy
February 20th, 2006, 11:50 PM
what, that's not close?

BPC
February 21st, 2006, 12:41 AM
If every building within two blocks of the river has to be an architectural masterpiece, then we will need to expand the pool of "geniuses" beyond the five names that get spoken of in that category these days. Rem Koolhaus and pals only have so many hours in the day.

MidtownGuy
February 21st, 2006, 12:54 AM
Masterpiece, that's your word. You don't have to be some kind of untouchable genius to make something more interesting than the above.

I was expressing a wish, not something I expected to pass into legislation tomorrow. Try being less hostile.

BPC
February 21st, 2006, 12:10 PM
I don't think I was being hostile. Dismissive, perhaps.

BrooklynRider
February 21st, 2006, 03:14 PM
That's my laugh out loud moment for the day... thanx

krulltime
March 18th, 2006, 11:34 AM
Luxury, With Its Own Forest


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/17/realestate/19deal184.jpg


By WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: March 19, 2006

LOUISE SUNSHINE, the condo marketing guru, thinks of the large residential and retail complex under construction two blocks from ground zero as a kind of downtown Time Warner Center. The new TriBeCa development will have a luxury condo tower designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, just like Time Warner, which Ms. Sunshine helped create and sell and which has featured prominently in the city's current real estate boom.

Like its uptown predecessor, 101 Warren Street, as the TriBeCa condos will be known, will also have a Whole Foods supermarket at its base. And leading the sales effort, it will have Ms. Sunshine, who has never met a bit of hyperbole she couldn't top.

"This is the single most important development ever," Ms. Sunshine said on a recent afternoon in the Midtown offices of the project's developer, Edward J. Minskoff. After a momentary pause she added, "In TriBeCa."

Ms. Sunshine, chairwoman emeritus of Corcoran Sunshine Marketing, trademarked the phrase "five-star living" to sell the Time Warner apartments, which include the mammoth duplex that the financier David Martinez paid $54.7 million for. She is calling 101 Warren Street "a world unto itself."

The complex is on an L-shaped plot bounded by Warren, West, Murray and Greenwich Streets. It will have a 35-story tower with 228 condominiums, a midrise rental building with 163 apartments, a parking garage, a gym and spa, as well as 170,000 square feet of retail space, including restaurants, Whole Foods, a Barnes & Noble and a Bank of America branch.

A raised plaza at the center of the complex will also contain a "forest" of 101 Austrian pine trees.

"Most developers put you up on a floor and let you fend for yourself," Ms. Sunshine said. But 101 Warren is meant to be different: a self-contained world where you can shop for groceries, eat out, visit the gym, make a deposit at your bank, buy a book or a CD and even commune with nature.

"You can go to Whole Foods and have them prepare a picnic for you," Ms. Sunshine said, "and take it up to the pine tree forest with your family."

The condo portion of the development will contain a mix of simplex and duplex units with interiors designed by Victoria Hagan. Prices range from about $1.2 million to about $13 million.

Perhaps the most intriguing feature of the condos are the large terraces on many of the units, which Ms. Sunshine and Mr. Minskoff are calling loggias. More like semi-contained outdoor rooms than balconies, they are unusually deep and wide, with 18 foot ceilings.

The rental apartments are in what amounts to a separate building, across the pine forest, with an entrance on Murray Street. The residential part of that building, with 10 floors of apartments over 2 floors of shops, will be built using $49.8 million borrowed from the city's Housing Development Corporation. It will have 85 market-rate apartments, 44 middle-income units and 33 low-income units.

Mr. Minskoff said he agreed to buy the lot from the city for $110 million in 2001, and he originally planned to put up an office tower. But the downtown market changed after the terror attack on the World Trade Center, and the developer said he agreed to a request by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to change the development to a retail and residential complex.


Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

krulltime
March 18th, 2006, 11:36 AM
101 Warren Street, as the TriBeCa condos will be known

So now is called 101 Warren Street as opposed to 270 Greenwich.

Maybe we can change the title.

ZippyTheChimp
March 18th, 2006, 11:47 AM
Since the site is very large and there will be separate buildings, I'll change it to

"Tribeca Site 5B Project"

lofter1
March 18th, 2006, 12:43 PM
I'm not exactly clear how the tower portion and the low-rise rental portion sit on the site, but it appears from the photo above and here http://www.startsandfits.com/2006/02/progress-yes-but-with-twinge-of.html that the blank wall on this building just to the south (St. John's Library? http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/libraries/campus/davis ) will remain visible and intact for all to see ...

http://www.startsandfits.com/images/washington_street_aerial_winter.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
March 18th, 2006, 01:27 PM
The tower will sit in the lower right corner. There will be a passageway between the tower and the St Johns building into the interior courtyard. The blank wall will remain visible.

A wing off the tower will extend up Warren St to a little beyond what was Washington St. There will be another opening into the courtyard. An L-shaped building will run along Greenwich and Murray to the St Johns building.

harsaphes
March 24th, 2006, 07:50 AM
Just noticed that the 101 Warren St projects web site is up.
I have to say when i first saw it i didnt like it, but i think its going to be great spaces...MHO

krulltime
March 25th, 2006, 12:09 PM
Here is a better rendering...


101 Warren Street:


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422533.101Warren.JPG

krulltime
March 25th, 2006, 12:10 PM
March 18, 2006:


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422861.IMG_8041.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422882.IMG_8125.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
March 25th, 2006, 12:53 PM
Just noticed that the 101 Warren St projects web site is up.
I have to say when i first saw it i didnt like it, but i think its going to be great spaces...MHORegrettable building architecture aside, I think the project will correct a long-standing problem in the immediate area - no street activity after business hours.

101 Barclay is the biggest offender. Despite huge sidewalks on three sides, nothing is offered to the street except a few planters, trees, and bike racks.
An opportunity was lost at Fiterman Hall. Assuming it ever gets demolished, it will return as a CUNY facility. I think it would have been a perfect spot for a mixed-use collaboration between CUNY and a private developer. Where was Mike Bloomberg?

Hopefully, site 5b will bring some street life to the area.

vc10
March 25th, 2006, 04:10 PM
Totally agree. Ground level retail should be mandatory in the area -- and once there's a Whole Foods and a Borders (?) in 5B, there will probably be a lot of demand for ground floor retail.

Totally agree that Fiterman replacement should be multipurpose.

My idea (and I know it's very unlikely to happen) would be to extend BPC north, up to about the Citigroup building. There's nothing residential that fronts West St up to there, so no residents should be upset about this. Put a Fiterman replacement across West St from the current BMCC site (linked with another skybridge). That would keep the BMCC campus more compact. There would easily be room in the new part of BPCC for more residential plus ballfields.

Then Fiterman could be turned over to a commercial developer, and the existing ballfields on BPC could be developed -- and given their location across from the new Goldman Sachs building they'd yield a pretty penny. This would also tie BPC closer into the rest of downtown.

I think you could do this for significant net increase in park/playing fields, plus it would still probably pay its way.


Regrettable building architecture aside, I think the project will correct a long-standing problem in the immediate area - no street activity after business hours.

101 Barclay is the biggest offender. Despite huge sidewalks on three sides, nothing is offered to the street except a few planters, trees, and bike racks.
An opportunity was lost at Fiterman Hall. Assuming it ever gets demolished, it will return as a CUNY facility. I think it would have been a perfect spot for a mixed-use collaboration between CUNY and a private developer. Where was Mike Bloomberg?

Hopefully, site 5b will bring some street life to the area.

antinimby
March 25th, 2006, 08:39 PM
Regrettable building architecture aside, I think the project will correct a long-standing problem in the immediate area - no street activity after business hours.

101 Barclay is the biggest offender. Despite huge sidewalks on three sides, nothing is offered to the street except a few planters, trees, and bike racks.
An opportunity was lost at Fiterman Hall. Assuming it ever gets demolished, it will return as a CUNY facility. I think it would have been a perfect spot for a mixed-use collaboration between CUNY and a private developer. Where was Mike Bloomberg?

Hopefully, site 5b will bring some street life to the area.Zippy, you know I agree with you there, but I have one question (well, not really a question but more of a comment). Isn't that what these community groups really want anyway? You know, tranquility, open spaces, trees, no crowds, no heavy traffic, no noise and all the pleasant characteristics that development will invariably take away? You know they would have been happy if nothing was done here other than maybe a school and a grocery store.

lofter1
March 25th, 2006, 09:16 PM
Unfortunately they're not getting a school -- although it is desperately needed.

Even more so as these new buildings go up.

lofter1
March 25th, 2006, 11:34 PM
A Downtown Neighborhood Struggling for Services

NY Times
Letters
March 26, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/realestate/26lett.html

To The Editor:

Residents of TriBeCa are watching with alarm as new developments like 101 Warren Street, a "downtown Time Warner Center" (Big Deal, March 19), bring hundreds of additional families to a neighborhood where overcrowded schools are already stretched beyond their limits.

Louise Sunshine, the marketing guru, has great optimism for filling the 228 condominiums with buyers, but does her offering plan mention that there is no more room in TriBeCa to send children to kindergarten?

The well-regarded Public School 234, adjacent to the property, is already at 120 percent capacity. Mayor Bloomberg recently pulled the plug on his promise to build a new elementary school on Beekman Street. His reversal also eliminated the planned annex for P.S. 234, desperately needed to ease its overcrowding.

Both of these promises were used by City Hall to garner the blessing of Community Board 1 for the development at 101 Warren Street, which, including the 163 rental units, will bring nearly 400 families to TriBeCa.

The city has helped Lower Manhattan realize a veritable real estate boom since 9/11, but it has failed in its obligation to support these same downtown neighborhoods where thousands of families are already struggling for basic services.

The stylish design of a new apartment building, with high concept forests and a Whole Foods store, shouldn't be the only bait to lure buyers downtown.

They will also need a neighborhood capable of welcoming new residents to their streets. The picture on the brochure doesn't tell that part of the story.

Nelle Fortenberry
TriBeCa


Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

ablarc
March 26th, 2006, 12:16 AM
[SIZE=6]...there is no more room in TriBeCa to send children to kindergarten...

The well-regarded Public School 234, adjacent to the property, is already at 120 percent capacity.
What does this actually mean? They won't let you send your kid to school or the classes will be big and the classrooms crowded (big deal)?

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2006, 12:28 AM
They need another school. What else could it mean?

lofter1
March 26th, 2006, 12:42 AM
It means that they are forced to use storage rooms for class rooms. That those classes are overcrowded. That kids are being short-changed. That Pataki is playing games with state funds due to NYC. That developers are playing bait and switch. That we are failing to provide for kids.

Feel free to add to the list...

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2006, 12:46 AM
By the way, both the PS 234 annex and the Beekman school will get funded.

krulltime
March 26th, 2006, 01:58 AM
Regrettable building architecture aside, I think the project will correct a long-standing problem in the immediate area - no street activity after business hours.

Hopefully, site 5b will bring some street life to the area.


Maybe it will...


B&N books space with Whole Foods


Published on March 27, 2006

Barnes & Noble is heading downtown to Edward J. Minskoff's new development at 270 Greenwich Ave., at the corner of Warren Street.

The book and music seller has signed a 20-year lease for 38,000 square feet in the L-shaped building.

The Barnes & Noble will open above a Whole Foods grocery store when the building is completed in summer 2007.

"With all the activity downtown, it's just a great neighborhood for Barnes & Noble," says Robert Futterman, chairman of the eponymous real estate brokerage that represented the bookstore in the deal. He says Barnes & Noble chose the location because it offered a single-level site, a rarity in Manhattan's tight retail market.

The 35-story building will feature a gym, a spa, and condos above the retail space.

Mr. Minskoff plans to divide the building's remaining 50,000 square feet of retail space and is negotiating with several national retailers. Industry insiders say that a Bed Bath & Beyond is eyeing one of the spaces. About 5,000 square feet of ground-floor space is available at an asking rent of $200 per square foot.


--Elisabeth Butler

©2006 Crain Communications Inc.

antinimby
March 26th, 2006, 03:15 AM
The 35-story building will feature a gym, a spa, and condos above the retail space.35 stories? It sure does a good job at looking a lot shorter.

Here, judge for yourself. Does this look like 35 stories to you?

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422533.101Warren.JPG

Derek2k3
March 26th, 2006, 04:17 AM
At 428 feet (DOB) it's tall for a 35 story res. building also.

ablarc
March 26th, 2006, 10:29 AM
Does this look like 35 stories to you?
Bad proportions.

God, that building is ugly.

The parts that aren't ugly are boring.

Bet its Godfathers are NIMBYs. When it's built they'll have reason to hate it.

lofter1
March 26th, 2006, 02:21 PM
Plus the top 3 floors are set back and have a glassy look that blends with the sky in the renderings.

It sure is ugly ... reminiscent in the facade treatment of alternating window placements to another downtown favorite:

http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/socialdiary/2005/09_29_05/images/P1000395.jpg

Javits Federal Building
http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/socialdiary/2005/09_29_05/socialdiary09_29_05.php

Kris
April 19th, 2006, 10:41 AM
http://www.triplemint.com/triplemint/2006/04/101_warren_stre.html

vc10
April 19th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Says something about the towers on West St at 200 Chambers and 101 Warren making Battery Park City feel cut off.

Much less so than the empty lots that were/are there currently.


http://www.triplemint.com/triplemint/2006/04/101_warren_stre.html

MidtownGuy
April 19th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Ugly and boring architecture. This is our NY destiny in the early 21st century.
Oh, and overpriced big chain retailers. What an exciting and unique city we are creating.

lofter1
April 19th, 2006, 04:49 PM
Ooooh ... an "ART-rium" for the residents ... a PRIVATE forest cut off from the neighborhood ...

All fine and well and good for those who live there.

Besides adding to the tax base and offering some shopping options this is not very attractive from the outside and adds very little to the surrounding area (eeek -- I'll get jumped on for that last comment!).

Citytect
April 19th, 2006, 09:40 PM
It's not a masterpiece. And it isn't unique.
But I don't think it's that bad. Better than the majority of the residential towers going up in the city right now.
Is boring always bad?

vc10
April 20th, 2006, 11:35 AM
The Wholefoods will transform the neighborhood, and in a good way. I'll probably not be living here by then, but if I was still here, I'd welcome it with open arms. There's a palatial lack of decent groceries around here (the only other one I'm aware of is the Food Emporium in Independence Plaza, and it takes a dire emergency for me to darken the door of a Food Emporium).


Ugly and boring architecture. This is our NY destiny in the early 21st century.
Oh, and overpriced big chain retailers. What an exciting and unique city we are creating.

czsz
April 20th, 2006, 03:36 PM
Honestly, every neighbourhood in the borough could use a Whole Foods calibre store. Manhattan has been saddled with inadequate purveyors of groceries for far too long. The bodega is fine for a quick need, but serious shopping requires a serious store, with standards somewhat higher than Gristedes or Associated Foods.

ZippyTheChimp
April 20th, 2006, 04:39 PM
14th St & 8th Ave
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7492/balducci017fi.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=balducci017fi.jpg) http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2724/balducci020vx.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=balducci020vx.jpg)

vc10
April 21st, 2006, 12:37 PM
Great, but that's hardly in the lower Tribeca/north BPC nabe...


14th St & 8th Ave
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7492/balducci017fi.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=balducci017fi.jpg) http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2724/balducci020vx.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=balducci020vx.jpg)

MidtownGuy
April 21st, 2006, 01:12 PM
The pictures show an example of what was being discussed, grocery stores of "high calibre". Can't find a better example than that!
We all know that's way to far to schlep from BPC for vittles. Enjoy your Whole Foods Market, it will be great for downtown. It's a big chain I don't mind as much since we've always been underserved in Manhattan when it comes to decent grocery stores.
My previous post was directed more at some of the other chains.

diggin76
May 2nd, 2006, 08:01 PM
I think the limestone facade of the building is beautiful and harks back to the days of quality pre war construction. I also was shocked to hear that the chimp guy advocates the "development" of our pristine ballfields. They are perfect as they are. This development has beautiful family friendly apartments, and it is a "big deal" to those of us who have children that our kids not be crammed into cellar spaces to suffer class sizes of 30 or more. I am sure you wouldn't wish that on yourselves or your own children. I want to support the public education system, and only ask that it provide reasonable amenities for all children. I am a buyer!

ZippyTheChimp
May 2nd, 2006, 10:41 PM
What "chimp guy" are you talking about?

SilentPandaesq
May 2nd, 2006, 11:24 PM
I also was shocked to hear that the chimp guy advocates the "development" of our pristine ballfields. They are perfect as they are.
It is not that anyone wants your kids to have a substandard education or lifestyle.
The fact of the matter is that all of us have to make choices. You chose to live in a major metropolis, and you chose to live in an area that is very densely populated with less than perfect amenities. There are plenty of children that grow up without a ball field across the street and they turn out perfect. Would you rather have a "pristine" park for you and yours or reasonable affordable housing for families that are not lucky enough to have the income to purchase what you just did. For me, it is a simple choice. We all have to give up a little to live here, and it is wrong to "shut the door" once you have what you want. You should know this, since if your neighbors had their way you would not have been a buyer at all.

ZippyTheChimp
May 3rd, 2006, 12:13 AM
SilentPandaesq:

Are you aware that corporate teams also use the ballfields, and that an agreement was made several years ago in which the density of the surrounding buildings was increased in exchange for the ballfields, and that two more towers are to be built at the western edge?

Why do you think it is necessary to remove them? Residential development is already outstripping infrastructure.

And why are least common denominator examples always brought up? There are people in the world living in squalor, so maybe we should build some mud huts and consider ourselves lucky.

SilentPandaesq
May 3rd, 2006, 01:00 AM
Mr TheChimp:

(if that is your real name)


I am not advocating that you build some sort of massive housing block for the poor and destitute. I am not saying that Diggin76 is somehow morally wrong for wanting to keep the park the way it is, just that there sometimes is room for a compromise.



What is wrong with building the ball field on top of a new structure? It does not have to be massive in scope. When I was a kid my Dad played company softball on the top of some building (I can not recall where it was, sorry). Why can't that sort of agreement be reached here? The site looks pretty big, hell, make a underground supermarket, and then put 4 floors of schooling on top of that and then the ball field on top of that. You are only 6 or 7 stories above ground then, with perhaps a slender 20 story tower next to that. I am aware that this might be economically infeasible but hey I am putting that out there...

I don't think that it is necessary to remove them, just to "move" them. Although "necessary" is a stronger term than... well.... necessary. I think that it would be nice, effective and if properly priced, would allow people that might not have the means to live there to be part of the community.

As to mud huts, well... would we not then be living in squalor ourselves? ;)We would hardly be in a position to argue lowest common denominator arguments while we are trying to install granite counter tops in our adobe huts.

ZippyTheChimp
May 3rd, 2006, 02:17 AM
I am not saying that Diggin76 is somehow morally wrong for wanting to keep the park the way it is, just that there sometimes is room for a compromise.
Compromise what? Where is there an argument over the ballfields that needs a compromise?


Why can't that sort of agreement be reached here? As I previously posted, an agreement was reached years ago.


As to mud huts, well... would we not then be living in squalor ourselves? ;)We would hardly be in a position to argue lowest common denominator arguments while we are trying to install granite counter tops in our adobe huts. You missed it.


I think that it would be nice, effective and if properly priced, would allow people that might not have the means to live there to be part of the community. Do you really think that something affordable would be built on that land, or something more like what diggin76 is moving into?

SilentPandaesq
May 3rd, 2006, 03:28 AM
We are misunderstanding each other, or at least I am misunderstanding you. Allow me to clarify.

I am speaking in the hypothetical about what I would like to see done with the entire site, not what is going to occur at the site. I think that it would be preferable to retain the functionality of the ball fields while providing increased infrastructure and housing at the cost of some ascetic details and perhaps some minor inconvience. This is in contrast to diggin76's statement that the ball fields are fine the way they are.

However, you are correct. There is no actual argument over the ball field (aside from the one we are presently engaged). If there were an argument over the ball field, I highly doubt it would be between building the plan that I put forward and retaining the field the way it is. This does not take away from the fact that the land underneath the ball field could be used more efficiently, for more people.

Yes, I have missed the mud hut statement.

ZippyTheChimp
May 3rd, 2006, 08:40 AM
OK. Now I understand.

nyesq
May 3rd, 2006, 10:11 AM
By the way, both the PS 234 annex and the Beekman school will get funded.
Just out of curiousity, what is your source of information for this statement? I'm a potential buyer who is concerned about the overcrowded school situation in this area. Thanks.

ZippyTheChimp
May 3rd, 2006, 10:19 AM
It was an opinion. The source was my knowledge of city politics. Luckily, it was correct, or I'd have to construct some sort of apology.

You can get info on the school funding agreement in the last few pages of this thread. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4305&page=48)

lofter1
May 3rd, 2006, 11:10 AM
... I am speaking in the hypothetical about what I would like to see done with the entire site, not what is going to occur at the site. I think that it would be preferable to retain the functionality of the ball fields while providing increased infrastructure and housing at the cost of some ascetic details and perhaps some minor inconvience...



What is wrong with building the ball field on top of a new structure?

Just to jump in ...

Why not build ball fields on the top of your new building?

SilentPandaesq
May 3rd, 2006, 11:44 AM
Lofter1:
I have no new building so I suppose that any response that I give has to be taken with an eye that I do not have to put my money where my mouth is.

I would not see a problem with putting a ballfield on the base portion of a tower + base residential development that I lived in. ( disclosure: I don’t live in a tower + base development so grain of salt is taken again)

However, I am not necessarily advocating that anyone has to live under a ballfield. My preference is that it be made indoors or underground and something else placed on top of it. However I am aware that some people like to play outside so my compromise was to put it on top.

But again this is not going to happen, but I think it would be a better use of the space.

BPC
May 4th, 2006, 12:27 AM
If there is some shortage of developable space, you can write up a proposal to put up condos on the ballfields in Central Park. We'll keep ours. Thanks, though, for the suggestion bro'.

diggin76
May 5th, 2006, 05:46 PM
Come to think of it, why not just "develop" the entire of central park? Please understand my sarcasm. This development is not strictly for the superwealthy. There is a rental portion on the southeast side that will be comprised of a mixture of market rate, middle income and low income rentals, and I know that those who live there will be thrilled their children can enjoy ground level green spaces and great schools alongside the granite counter-toppers. Whatever the quality of their countertops, everyone likes parks and good schools! BTW, my new apartment is going to be SWEEEEEET!

SilentPandaesq
May 5th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Come to think of it, why not just "develop" the entire of central park? Please understand my sarcasm.

Sarcasm noted and appreciated. It is good to know that your apartment will be Sweet, and that those less fortunate will also experience some of said sweetness.

diggin76
May 5th, 2006, 06:01 PM
Oh, and BTW, have you not noticed that there is a MASSIVE housing project to the north of the site by a few blocks? I think the neighborhood has done plenty to provide affordable housing. The rental building I am in, the Solaire, also has 5% affordable units. There are plenty of people benefitting from economic distortions in this neighborhood that provide for great amenties like shops and decent schools and parks. If all the high earners left this "metropolis" because it was not family friendly, we wouldn't be forced to fork over the high percentage of our income that goes to the city income tax that makes everything so nice and pretty and provides rent subsidies to those who earn less. And the 101 Warren development is I think a 50/30/20 split, so that's a bonus to teachers and firemen everywhere, as they have sold it to us.

SilentPandaesq
May 5th, 2006, 06:12 PM
Oh, and BTW, have you not noticed that there is a MASSIVE housing project to the north of the site by a few blocks?

No. I have not. Can you give me some info on it?


If all the high earners left this "metropolis" because it was not family friendly, we wouldn't be forced to fork over the high percentage of our income that goes to the city income tax that makes everything so nice and pretty and provides rent subsidies to those who earn less.

I am not sure that all the High earners in manhattan are concerned about fam friendly development


And the 101 Warren development is I think a 50/30/20 split, so that's a bonus to teachers and firemen everywhere, as they have sold it to us.

This is a good thing. I am advocating balance, not class warfare.

ZippyTheChimp
May 5th, 2006, 06:31 PM
I've lived in BPC for a long time, and the only thing that's affordable is Gateway Plaza, and that's Mitchell Lama. Set-asides and 80-20s are a joke.

The massive IPN complex is an abomination. It wasn't provided by the neighborhood; it was put up before there was one. If it wasn't for landmarking, it would have encompassed the entire area.

SilentPandaesq has noble ideals, but providing land in the area will not produce affordable housing.

However, the high-end BPC property did provide the city with the means to build real affordable housing. By charter, about $.11 billion of BPC revenue was to be turned over to the city to construct affordable housing. A few token efforts were made in the late 80s in the Bronx, but most of the payments were used by the city to balance the budget.


I am not sure that all the High earners in manhattan are concerned about fam friendly development
But aren't ballfields and playgrounds family-friendly?

It seems you're the one that's not concerned about family-friendly development.

diggin76
May 5th, 2006, 06:31 PM
The entire west side highway from Harrison street to Northmoore has an enormous housing project, consisting of apts with great river views and terraces for low income earners. If you have ever been to Tribeca, you can't miss it. It's right next to BMCC, another massive portion of property that is dedicated to those who need free higher education. Both of these projects occupy billions of dollars of prime waterfront property in Tribeca. From Chambers street to Northmoore is all low income amenties, a huge project and a huge free community college. Also, for the potential buyer who was wondering about the funding of Beekman and 234, class sizes are currrently around 30 per class, and the education is good, but definitely crowded. There is no immediate pressure to resolve the situation, but there are good private schools in the area like Claremont Prep, which is new and undersubscribed. It's across the street from the NYSE. We are currently sticking with public schooling at PS 89, but yes, the class sizes are less than desirable. PS 234 had to eliminate it's Pre K program due to lack of space, but supposedly will be reinstating it when the annex at 200 Chambers is done. The school situation here is barely reasonable, but I wouldn't count on it, as more and more people are moving to the area and having loads of kids! I am part of the problem, we have 3, which is crazy by NYC standards.

ZippyTheChimp
May 5th, 2006, 06:36 PM
BTW, the land wasn't worth billions when IPN was built.

diggin76
May 5th, 2006, 06:37 PM
True, I assume we are all talking about the current conditions, not several decades ago.

ZippyTheChimp
May 5th, 2006, 06:42 PM
My point was that no one "provided" IPN. It would never be built today.

SilentPandaesq
May 5th, 2006, 06:48 PM
.

But aren't ballfields and playgrounds family-friendly?

Yes


It seems you're the one that's not concerned about family-friendly development.

My point was that Digging76 said that there would be no subsidized housing without the wealthy paying large taxes (or at least that was the jist), and that If they left (because of non family friendliness) then poor people would be screwed. I argue that not all rich people are concerned with family friendliness even if they have children.

Am I not concerned about fam-friendly developments?

Guess that depends on how you define it. Good uncrowded schools, other kid dependent things? (massive 9 story basketball courts :D )

Yes I am in favor of it.

Making your community look like a stylized version of the burbs' ?

No i am against that.

Which is not to say that is what is happening here, it is just what I oppose under the guise of Family friendliness.

diggin76
May 5th, 2006, 08:21 PM
Whoa, for one, your point was made WAY before I even mentioned the taxes, and two, money don't grow on trees, even the 101 fine Austrian pine trees they are going to put on our common terrace. So, yes, in order to provide subsidized housing, the city needs income tax revenue that funds all the liberty bond hoopla they give developers to build all the fine affordable housing I hear you begging for. That's just reality. If it weren't so, we wouldn't be handing them a big old check every April 15th, and my husband wouldn't be bugging me about moving to Rumson or Larchmont! In addition, it doesn't really matter what "rich" people want, because the city makes the decision (yes, we all know they are influenced but that's another story) as to how to allocate funds. I am just saying, that rich or poor, people want nice things, and nice things cost money. So, why not let all enjoy them if it is possible. Some people kick in more, some less, but if everyone benefits, it's all Good! I have a degree in Economics from UCLA (a fine and economical public institution) and an MBA in finance and real estate from Columbia, so I have a decent understanding of both the economic validity of the proposition from a public welfare standpoint, as well as the realistic fundamental analysis from a developer's standpoint. This deal helps everyone. If this city were about rooftop baseball fields and jamming in projects wherever possible, we wouldn't have central park, or landmarking, or any of the other things that make NYC the best place to live IN THE WORLD!

lofter1
May 6th, 2006, 02:20 AM
... even the 101 fine Austrian pine trees they are going to put on our common terrace ...

I am just saying, that rich or poor, people want nice things, and nice things cost money. So, why not let all enjoy them if it is possible.

Would it not be possible for all the people of NYC to enjoy the "101 fine Austrian pine trees" (and not just from afar)?

pianoman11686
May 16th, 2006, 01:40 PM
From http://cityrealty.com/new_developments

Details on condo project at 101 Warren Street in TriBeCa 15-MAY-06

The condominium section of the large project being developed by Edward J. Minskoff Equities in the Washington Market Urban Renewal District to the north of the World Trade Center site will be known as 101 Warren Street.
The project, which has been known as 270 Greenwich Street, will include 228 condominium apartments and 132 rental apartments and a large Whole Foods store. About 180 of the condominium units will be in a 32-story tower at the corner of West and Warren Streets, just to the south of another new condo tower, being developed by a different developer, at 200 Chambers Street. The rest of the condos will be in adjacent mid-rise structure on Warren Street and they will have loggias screened by two-story-high piers.

The façade of the condo tower will have a checkerboard fenestration pattern and will be faced with a sand-colored, textured granite from India.

The tower has been designed by Mustafa Abadan of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Ismael Leyva Architects is handing the interior layouts and Victoria Hagan is doing interior design. Thomas Balsey Associates is handing the landscape design for the project.

Penthouses will have 20-foot-high outdoor loggias with Ipe wood decking and glass handrails and one- to four-bedroom units will range in size from 923 to more than 4,000 square feet.

The developer has commissioned a 14 ½-foot-high sculpture by Joel Shapiro for the building’s entrances and two lobbies will be double-height and each will have a large tapestry by Roy Lichtenstein.

The project will have an “Artrium” on the fifth floor with a pine tree forest “resting on a red of rust-colored river rock and adjacent to a 8,400-square-foot-glass-walled health and fitness center and an indoor/outdoor children’s play area.

Apartments have floor-to-ceiling windows and South American walnut Lapacho wood floors and ceilings range in height from 10 to 12 feet. Kitchens have Bulthaup b3 fixtures and Sub-Zero, Miele and Bosch appliances and Master baths have Bianco Lucido lazed ceramic tiling, and Wenge wood vanities, Imperial Danby marble floors and countertops.

The condominium building has a doorman, a concierge, a residential manager and, a “Bloomberg Financial Lounge” and a “Board Room” facility and on-site parking and storage.

Occupancy is anticipated for the fall 2007.

Half of the rental units, which will have their own entrance in low-rise buildings on Greenwich and Murray Streets, will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

The developer is contributing $7.5 million for the maintenance of the Washington Market Park and another $3 million for a community center on an adjacent block.

kliq6
May 16th, 2006, 03:12 PM
A bit off topic but id like to ask Zippy something. As a resident of BPC, do you feel it has "lived up" to its purpose?

ZippyTheChimp
May 16th, 2006, 03:20 PM
No.

It's original purpose was to provide a neighborhood for mostly single yuppies.

MidtownGuy
May 16th, 2006, 03:25 PM
Then the baby brigade moved in:)

kliq6
May 16th, 2006, 03:25 PM
Thanks Zip. Also on top of more Afforable housing, werent they supose to construct two other site as commercial that they didnt? Just curious as to if that fact is true?

ZippyTheChimp
May 16th, 2006, 03:38 PM
One that I know of. The site of 1 River Terrace (across from the Irish Memorial) was to be commercial. What remains from that plan is the library.


Then the baby brigade moved in:)
That did it.
The three schools, library, community center, larger apartments, and ballfields were not part of the original master plan.

It was too late for South End Ave, which should have been designed with retail on both sides of the street.

Fabrizio
May 16th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Next question: better as "a neighborhood for mostly single yuppies" or family friendly?

ablarc
May 16th, 2006, 04:55 PM
Next question: better as "a neighborhood for mostly single yuppies" or family friendly?
What would be wrong with a mix of both?

BrooklynRider
May 16th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Single yuppies sleep with unhappy parental units of dysfunctional families, thus destroying the very fabric of society and leaving these children with nothing but predatory urban homosexuals to recruit them into a life of sin.

No, no. We mustn't mix.

Fabrizio
May 16th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Well...to each his own:

"Single yuppies sleep with unhappy parental units of dysfunctional families, thus destroying the very fabric of society and leaving these....daddies....with nothing but predatory urban homosexuals to recruit them into a life of sin."

Now we´re talkin´.

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

vc10
May 20th, 2006, 02:45 PM
Northern BPC is coming together as an outstanding small neighborhood, and that will only accelerate once Whole Foods moves into 101 Warren.

As to yuppies, I wouldn't be surprised if the two remaining residential buildings (400 North End Ave, 200 North End Ave) are built with them in mind. They will be located right next to the new Goldman Sachs building, so they could end up as financial analyst/associate dormitories. Then again, they could also be built as condos... once the last few empty lots are filled in (200 Chambers, 101 Warren, 1 Riverside Terrace, 200 & 400 North End Ave) I think the full potential of the neighborhood will be revealed and it will be a very desirable place to live.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 08:11 PM
Needs better architecture.

BPC
June 1st, 2006, 12:51 AM
You mean like another Blue Condo? No thanks. We locals like BPC in the understated architectural style that it is. The architectural geniuses of the moment can find some other neighborhood to make their names.

ablarc
June 1st, 2006, 09:07 AM
Understated is good. 15 CPW is understated. There's a line between understated and dull, however, and there's no good reason for Battery Park City to be on the wrong side of that line.

antinimby
June 1st, 2006, 05:57 PM
Battery Park City is well entrenched on the dull side.
They could've gone the way of 15 CPW and made that place spectacular.

pianoman11686
June 1st, 2006, 09:39 PM
If you're implying that it's average, I beg to differ.

antinimby
June 2nd, 2006, 12:44 AM
So then, what makes it above average (whatever that "average" yardstick is) in your opinion?

ablarc
June 2nd, 2006, 07:21 AM
So then, what makes it above average (whatever that "average" yardstick is) in your opinion?
In conception, BPC had potential for excellence. The master plan was fairly sound, in that it more or less picked up a Lower Manhattanish street pattern across the (still, and perhaps always, too great) barrier of West Street. The buildings that execute that master plan are dull, not merely understated. From a strictly building-form standpoint, Kondylis' riverside towers uptown for Trump are actually preferable, imo. And the retail situation leaves much to be desired. Upshot: a certain barrenness.

pianoman11686
June 2nd, 2006, 10:56 AM
So then, what makes it above average (whatever that "average" yardstick is) in your opinion?

Average, to me, is a group of buildings that all look the same, and have a few patches of grass and playgrounds scattered throughout the development. Battery Park City, on the other hand, is unlike any other place in Manhattan. Where does a residential development make so much use of the waterfront? Where do we see such an insistence on sustainable, green design/construction? The place has little parks scattered all throughout - chess tables, billiards, and other little gems - this all within the confines of cramped Lower Manhattan. Okay, I'll give you this much. The residentials are not very exciting, but let's face it, there aren't many in the city that fit the bill. Some of the recent ones though - the Solaire, Tribeca Greene, One River Terrace - are all of higher quality than anything going up on the Brooklyn/Queens waterfront, and are preferable, at least in my view, to anything in Trump Place.

Some examples of what I'm talking about:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0117154/images/2003/08/11/BatteryA4.JPG

http://www.pps.org/graphics/upo-pages/battery_park_city_2_large

http://www.nycjpg.com/2003/pictures/jpg/0602.1.jpg

http://www.bpcparks.org/bpcp/picts/empty.gif

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/apr05/bluestone_041105_big.jpg

http://www.batteryparkcity.org/parks/rockefeller.jpg

http://www.turnerconstruction.com/newyork/files_newyork/Solaire2.jpg

If you disagree, that's fine. Everyone's entitled to like their own thing. All I'm saying is, if I were to move to Manhattan, Battery Park City would be on or near the top of my list for places to live.

pianoman11686
June 2nd, 2006, 10:59 AM
In conception, BPC had potential for excellence. The master plan was fairly sound, in that it more or less picked up a Lower Manhattanish street pattern across the (still, and perhaps always, too great) barrier of West Street. The buildings that execute that master plan are dull, not merely understated. From a strictly building-form standpoint, Kondylis' riverside towers uptown for Trump are actually preferable, imo. And the retail situation leaves much to be desired. Upshot: a certain barrenness.

I agree to some extent. While most of the essential retail is there in one form or another, the place certain isn't "buzzing with activity." If you ever find yourself there, however, stop for a minute and listen. Chances are you won't hear anything - something pretty rare in Manhattan.

infoshare
June 2nd, 2006, 11:09 AM
Average, to me,

I agree, my opinion is that the architecture/landscape design at BPC is above average for NYC.

My favorite of your photos: http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/apr05/bluestone_041105_big.jpg Thanks.:)

BPC
June 2nd, 2006, 11:45 AM
The retail situtation is due in part to the fact that the neighborhood is not completely built out. You need a certain critical mass of people before retail can thrive. When all the residential is built, there will be much more retail. Even now, however, the neighborhood has three drug stores, three grocers and three delis (two Korean and one Italian), a pet store, lots of restaurants (although none very good), a wine store, a bank, a newstand, an indoor shopping mall of sorts (the WFC), a cineplex, a day care, lots of doctors offices (and an animal clinic), countless dry cleaners, etc., with a lot more retail just across West Street, such as the excellent Whitehall Hardware store. There is little in the way of necessary retail that is lacking, although the variety could be improved.

As for the architecture, it is fine, indeed better than most. What the non-architects might not get here is that within the architectural community there is a war raging between rival camps, the dominant Modernists (who have the newspaper critics and architecture school professors on their side) and the insurgent post-Modernists or New Urbanists (who have most of the public on their side, judging by how people vote with their feet). BPC has been held up as a success story by the latter, and thus it is in the interests of the former (including, I suspect, Mr. Ablarc) to try to knock it down a few pegs. If you go back and review the columns of Messrs. Muschaump and Ourousoff, leading MOdernists, you will see that almost half of their columns attack BPC, which would seem disproportionate for a neighborhood of BPC's size, even were it atrociously designed. Of late, this shooting war has been transported to Gulf Coast rebuilding, as evidenced recent Times pieces. In any event, the attacks on BPC say little about the actual BPC and much about the current state of architectural fashion.

ablarc
June 2nd, 2006, 12:58 PM
Pianoman, reality is what it is, and most folks not blinded by theories perceive about the same things. I agree the waterfront and parks at BPC are first rate, and you never heard a peep out of me to the contrary. However what you describe as "average" is actually substandard:


Average, to me, is a group of buildings that all look the same, and have a few patches of grass and playgrounds scattered throughout the development.
That's not average; that's below-average.

The planning, I'll grant you, is above-average. Not perfect but pretty good.

Anyway, I was talking about the architecture. And the architecure at BPC is average. Seems we agree on that too:


Okay, I'll give you this much. The residentials are not very exciting, but let's face it, there aren't many in the city that fit the bill.
Things that are largely factual are hard to disagree about.

You're right. And I agree. After all, we're looking at the same thing, and neither of us is delusional.


...if I were to move to Manhattan, Battery Park City would be on or near the top of my list for places to live.
Me too.

But I still wish it had better architecture. And more stores.

ZippyTheChimp
June 2nd, 2006, 01:44 PM
They could've gone the way of 15 CPW and made that place spectacular.One dimensional city-planning. If they had gone the way of 15 CPW (very expensive), the neighborhood would have failed, and you might have had 92 acres of IPN hastily built to avert bond default.

Keep in mind the conditions today. A large residential presence downtown, low crime, and a booming real estate market. How well has 80 South St done in marketing?

Now go back to when BPC was conceived: high crime, a city mired in debt, crumbling infrastructure, declining population, a handful of pioneer residents below Chambers St.

Before anything revenue producing could be built, the land had to literally be created, and that took expensive financing. It was critical that the neighborhood attract residents immediately, so it's no accident that the first development was the Mitchell Lama regulated Gateway Plaza. As the neighborhood took hold, condos were built, but it was still necessary to offer a cheaper alternative to uptown. It is unfair to compare the architecture with 15 CPW when a nice condo could be had in the 80s for $150 - $200K. And the build quality is better than any new neighborhood in NYC.

The young neighborhood survived the real estate hit of 1987, with only speculators mortgaged to their eyeballs weeded out. Adjustments were made to attract a more permanent resident base.

I would have liked to see a couple of architecturally significant buildings. The best chance was GS, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. At this point, one or two 15 CPWs would look silly in the neighborhood - sort of contextual, but not really. I would rather have the blue condo.


Upshot: a certain barrenness.Sort of like Riverside Drive, right?

ablarc
June 3rd, 2006, 01:13 PM
Sort of like Riverside Drive, right?
Sort of, though the old part of Riverside Drive is partially salvaged --for at least your eye-- by architectural ornament.

pianoman11686
June 17th, 2006, 04:26 PM
From http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments:

Forty percent of 101 Warren Street's condos sold in two months 16-JUN-06

The condominium section of the large project being developed by Edward J. Minskoff Equities in the Washington Market Urban Renewal District to the north of the World Trade Center site has sold 40 percent of its 228 apartments in the first two months of sales.
The project is at 270 Greenwich Street and it overlooks West Street and Battery Park City and will also include 132 rental apartments and a Whole Foods Store. It has a prime TriBeCa location.

The condominium apartment section of the project is known as 101 Warren Street.

About 180 of the condominium apartments will be in a 32-story tower at the corner of West and Warren Streets, just to the south of another condo tower now under construction by a different developer at 200 Chambers Street.

The rest of its condos will be in a adjacent mid-rise structure on Warren Street and they will have loggias screened by two-story-high piers.

Penthouses will have 20-foot-high outdoor loggias with Ipe wood decking and glass handrails and one- to four-bedroom units will range in size from 923 to more than 4,000 square feet.

The project will have an “Artrium” on the fifth floor with a pine tree forest “resting on a red of rust-colored river rock and adjacent to a 8,400-square-foot-glass-walled health and fitness center and an indoor/outdoor children’s play area.

The 101 Warren Street residences are priced from approximately $1.175 million to approximately $12 million.

The façade of the condo tower will have a checkerboard fenestration pattern and will be faced with a sand-colored, textured granite from India. The tower has been designed by Mustafa Abadan of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Ismael Leyva Architects is handing the interior layouts and Victoria Hagan is doing interior design. Thomas Balsey Associates is handing the landscape design for the project.

The condominium building has a doorman, a concierge, a residential manager and, a “Bloomberg Financial Lounge” and a “Board Room” facility and on-site parking and storage.

Occupancy is anticipated for the fall 2007.

Half of the more than 130 rental units, which will have their own entrance in low-rise buildings on Greenwich and Murray Streets, will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

lofter1
June 18th, 2006, 01:40 AM
Forty percent of 101 Warren Street's condos sold in two months 16-JUN-06

Half of the more than 130 rental units, which will have their own entrance in low-rise buildings on Greenwich and Murray Streets, will be market-rate, 30 percent for middle-income and 20 percent for low-income.

Very curious to see what those rent levels will be ...

pianoman11686
July 6th, 2006, 10:10 PM
A Test of Will (http://testofwill.blogspot.com/2006/07/behind-blue-wall.html)

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Behind the blue wall

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/230/1249/1024/060702%20003.jpg

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 12:20 PM
A whiff of class warfare?? Envy rearing it's ugly head ...
O! beware, my lord, of jealousy;
It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on.

~William Shakespeare, Othello


Pines in the sky for Tribeca project’s wealthiest tenants

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_168/warren.gif
Rendering of the third-floor terrace at 101 Warren St.

Downtown Express (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_168/pinesinthesky.html)
By Ronda Kaysen

The residents of 101 Warren St. will not need to trek upstate to enjoy pine trees — they’ll have a whole grove of them right outside their window.

The new luxury development currently under construction will come equipped with a bucolic grove of 101 Austrian pine trees set atop the building’s third floor terrace. The building’s sports center will open out on the grove, and all the residents in the 227 condo units will have access to the trees.

“There’s just the serenity and peacefulness of this grove,” said landscape architect Thomas Balsley. “The needles, the texture, the sound of the wind going through the pine trees above. It’s really an extraordinary experience, it’s almost religious. It’s one that would be transported to this roof as a gift to the residents of this building.”

The “gift” will be reserved for the condo residents only. The public and rental tenants in the building’s 163 rental units will not have access to the forest or any of the other amenities reserved for the condo residents.

“You’ll see the pines rising off from the roof, but you will probably have to go across the street to see them,” said Balsley.

In 2005, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. set aside $15 million in Community Development Block Grants for 77 units of affordable rental housing at the lot, formerly called Site 5B. “They will have their own amenity rooms in the rental building,” Jeffrey Sussman, executive vice president for the developer, Edward J. Minskoff Equities, Inc., said in an e-mail. Rental tenants will have a separate fitness room and lounge and a different address: 89 Murray St.

The 1 million sq. ft. development has no public plaza, either. “The rental building was the giveback for the community,” Lawrence Kruysman, Sunshine Group’s director of sales for the property, told Downtown Express.

The Skidmore, Ownings & Merrill-designed building will open at the end of 2007 and already, buyers are grabbing at the luxury abodes, which range from $1.2 million for a one bedroom apartment to a whopping $16 million for a five-bedroom 34th and 35th floor duplex. Nearly 50 percent of the units have sold since they hit the market in April. “Sales have been great,” said Kruysman.

Promotional materials boast a Whole Foods Market, a sports center and the building’s proximity to P.S. 234, “the city’s top ranked public school.”

A promotional video shows a future Tribeca family—equipped with a handsome couple, their two curly-topped young children and miniature dogs—reveling in their sleek, modernist abode.

Current Tribeca residents have long complained that 234, which is currently at 120 percent capacity, will be further squeezed by the new residential developments in the neighborhood.

© 2006 Community Media, LLC

pianoman11686
July 28th, 2006, 01:35 PM
What a crock. Rentals are the community giveback? Give me a break. I can understand the need for privacy, but at least open up the space to the public at restricted times, e.g. a few hours during the weekend.

On a separate note, it's interesting that this building, along with many others in the area, is being so strongly marketed towards families. I think it's safe to say Tribeca is completing its transition into a suburban enclave, in the heart of Manhattan.

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 02:27 PM
Which is where it had started to go pre-9/11, with many large sized / multi-bedrrom spaces in conversions.

9/11 seemed to put and end to that -- but only for a short time.

Now the move towards family-friendly units is in full swing.

Better start building those schools ....

LeCom
July 28th, 2006, 03:24 PM
^Lofter, the project if across the street from a school...

Yesterday:

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/07/476785.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/07/476792.jpg

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 09:59 PM
^ Yes, but please note this part of the article ...



Current Tribeca residents have long complained that [PS] 234, which is currently at 120 percent capacity, will be further squeezed by the new residential developments in the neighborhood.

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 10:09 PM
An article from last year regarding the school crowding problem in Tribeca / Battery Park City ...

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_100/schoolcrowdsdraw.html

School crowds draw parents to town hall
By Ronda Kaysen

Downtown needs more zoned schools for its growing school age children from pre-kindergarten through middle school, parents told representatives from the Department of Education, the New York City Council and Community Board 1 at a Town Hall meeting on Wednesday night.

Peter Heaney, superintendent for Region 9 who spoke at length at the meeting, agreed that overcrowding was suffocating Downtown’s elementary schools, particularly P.S. 234 in Tribeca and a zoned middle school was needed for the area as well. He did not, however, offer suggestions as to how to resolve the looming crisis.

“We need more seats in the Downtown schools. That is a shared goal that we need to work towards,” Heaney told a roomful of about 100 parents at the meeting co-sponsored by C.B. 1 and City Councilmember Alan Gerson.

Several parents spoke out about a need for a zoned middle school for the neighborhood, although they expressed deep divisions about where they would like to see the school go. Currently, the only zoned middle school for children living south of Canal St. from the Hudson to the East River is the Simon Baruch School on E. 21st, with no direct bus or subway route for most children.

“Logistically, the only way I see my life working and to be able to be involved in the school and to have my son participate in the after school programs – he starts Little League on Friday — is to be able to be close and to have a school that’s in the neighborhood,” said Deb Summerville, a B.P.C. resident for eight years whose child attends P.S. 89. Summerville works Downtown and expressed concern that if her child were forced to attend a middle school far afield, she would consider moving or changing jobs to cope with the change. “Knowing that he is close is very important to me,” she added.

Several parents — mainly from Battery Park City-zoned P.S. 89, which shares a building with I.S. 89 — have long maintained that the solution to the zoning problem is to zone I.S. 89 for the neighborhood, a suggestion that received little support from Region 9 representatives and I.S. 89 parents.

According to Heaney, the vast majority of P.S. 89 and P.S. 234 children who choose I.S. 89 as their first choice middle school are accepted. Of the 23 P.S. 89 children who live in the P.S. 89 zone who chose I.S. 89 as their first choice school last year, only two were denied a spot last year. “In most cases, we’re able to honor people’s choices,” he said.

The I.S. 89 parents who attended the meeting were united on one point: leave their school as it is. “It is much more difficult to build something than it is to tear it down. If we have something that’s working we need to preserve,” said Catherine Skopic, a 32-year Tribeca resident with an eighth grader at I.S. 89. “We need to work together for a zoned school down here in Manhattan on the lower West Side.... We need to combine our forces, not fight each other, but fight for a zoned middle school that is large enough not just for our current population, but look towards the future.”

Already in the works is a 600-seat pre-K-8 for the East Side, which was part of a deal brokered last year for the community by Gerson and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff. Recently, C.B. 1 members have suggested looking to the new school, and considering various zoning options, as a way to resolve some of the issues plaguing Downtown schools.

“There’s an opportunity here with the new school coming on,” said C.B. 1 chairperson Madelyn Wils, who was removed from the board by Borough President C. Virginia Fields earlier in the day. “We all have to stay very open-minded with the three schools. Whether it’s best going forward with a K-8 or not, we’ll have discussions about what makes sense for the community.”

The parents at P.S. 234 in Tribeca are already feeling the squeeze of an overcrowded school. But when the two residential developments going up across the street from their small school open, with a total of 700 units, they expect the crowding to only intensify.

“In the next couple of years, if these apartments open first, we’re going to have a major, major problem on our hands,” Sandy Bridges, principal of P.S. 234, said at the meeting.

Last week, the School Leadership Team recommended shutting down the school’s pre-K program for the foreseeable future to make room for more children and Bridges expects that the art or science room will soon follow suit. Even a new annex, expected to open in 2007 as part of the development agreement brokered by Gerson, will only temporarily alleviate the crowding. Bridges expects 80 new children alone from the two new residential developments outside her school’s windows.

“I wish the new school were bigger,” she said of the planned pre-K-8 across town. The planned school is slated for a 75-story residential tower on Beekman St., which will bring with it its own flood of new school aged children.

Kevin Fisher, P.S. 234 P.T.A. president, suggested capping enrollment on P.S. 234, much like nearby P.S. 150, which is not a zoned school. “Are we really doing [incoming parents] any favors by jamming their kids in the janitor’s closet to make room for them?”

P.S. 234 is not the only school closing its pre-K programs. Judy Levine, co-chairperson of the School Leadership team at P.S. 150 in Tribeca, announced the school’s decision to change its pre-K program next year. Instead of offering two half-day programs serving 36 students, the school will now offer one full-day program for 18 tots, allowing the kindergarten class to be open to more children who have not gone through the pre-K program.

For parents of pre-K children, the changes at P.S. 234 and P.S. 150 mean 54 less seats for their children. “I am really wondering why 150 would choose this year of all years to go to a full day [program]?” said Shannon Burkett, a Downtown parent of a three and a half year old. “I just don’t know why they can’t wait until the new school is built…. The community is in dire need of more seats.”

In the next five years, 13,000 new residential units of housing will be built in the neighborhood and with only one new school – offering 600 seats – in the works, many parents expressed mounting concern. “Getting schools that match our population growth is more of a right than a gift,” said Brad Bodwell, a Downtown parent. “How did we find ourselves in this position?”

© 2006 Community Media, LLC

Derek2k3
August 4th, 2006, 02:55 AM
http://static.flickr.com/58/199770186_a5f7ba4c75.jpg
June 27, 2006
DMurrow's photostream (http://flickr.com/photos/murrowfamily/)

investordude
August 5th, 2006, 04:32 AM
I'm curious why the presence of families = suburbia?

pianoman11686
August 5th, 2006, 01:40 PM
Because for the past 30 years or so, the only people that have lived in the suburbs were families. And the only people that remained in the cities were singles. It's not exactly that cut and dry, but that's the perception.

ablarc
August 8th, 2006, 08:33 AM
Because for the past 30 years or so, the only people that have lived in the suburbs were families. And the only people that remained in the cities were singles. It's not exactly that cut and dry, but that's the perception.
But that's turning around --at least in New York. And a good thing too --unless they get into NIMBYism, of course.

LeCom
August 13th, 2006, 02:25 PM
August update:

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/479583.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/479582.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/478350.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/478343.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/479587.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/478345.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/478348.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/478351.jpg

BrooklynRider
August 14th, 2006, 11:57 AM
Hmmmm... A steel superstructure on this residential. That's a change from the usual structural cement. I know they are using steel on Bridgeview Tower in Brooklyn. Any other new or recent additions that are steel residentials?

LeCom
August 14th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Workers chillin', taken about an hour ago

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/480487.jpg

lofter1
August 14th, 2006, 02:50 PM
This building is going to have a "Community Center" (or some such public use); any chance that the steel-framed portion is connected with that and the actual residences will be reinforced concrete?

Derek2k3
September 10th, 2006, 01:18 AM
Model:
http://www.radiiinc.com/images/22/Radii-270.pdf

LeCom
September 28th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Site overview (June photo, but it doesn't look too different now)

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/09/490417.jpg

GSN
October 16th, 2006, 09:26 PM
on the design quality of 101 Warrent Street?

Kace
October 18th, 2006, 05:31 PM
It is supposed to be very nice. There are renderings of the interiors on the website. All of the appliances and fixtures are top of the line and the finishes look well good.

pianoman11686
November 10th, 2006, 03:25 PM
TWO OF A KIND

SWANK PADS, WHOLE FOODS, A LIBRARY: WELCOME TO THE NEW DOWNTOWN

By KATHERINE DYKSTRA

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092006/photos/re056c.jpg

November 9, 2006 -- This is a tale of the effect of two buildings on one micro-'hood.

Rising at the nexus of TriBeCa and Battery Park City, with just one city block between them, are Riverhouse and 101 Warren. Both buildings boast price points north of the area norm, amenities equally over-the-top and major retail offerings that will add convenience to an area that has thus far had little.

What's more, the buildings are being marketed with renderings that look more than a little similar, even though what's being constructed will be quite different.

Their simultaneous rise is poised to create an insta-neighborhood (just add buyers, of course), perhaps doing for the area what the Time Warner Center did for Columbus Circle.

Riverhouse is set to open beside Rockefeller Park on River Terrace Drive in late 2007. Like the Solaire before it, Riverhouse's extreme eco-friendliness sets it apart from other new developments. The developers have exceeded Battery Park City's already stringent requirements for ecological development, putting $30 million into its greening.

But it is much more than just a green building. There will be David Rockwell designs - including the double-height lobby's salt-water fish tank, a billiards room, gym with yoga studio and all the apartment finishes - as well as a slew of high-end amenities, such as a pet spa and car wash.

Riverhouse will also house an outpost of City Bakery, the Poets House (a literary center and poetry archive) and a branch of the New York Public Library.

One block east, just across West Street, 101 Warren is following a similar timetable. But while Riverhouse is stressing its eco-friendly features, like its air-filtration and water-conservation systems, 101 Warren is all about extreme luxury.

Upscale touches include interior design by Victoria Hagan, two Roy Lichtenstein tapestries in the lobby and a Thomas Balsley Associates-designed landscaped deck with 101 pine trees.

There will also be a Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath & Beyond and, at 68,000 square feet, the largest Whole Foods in Manhattan, setting up shop on the first two floors.

"Those neighborhoods don't have a concentrated area to shop in," says Robert Futterman, chair and CEO of Robert K. Futterman & Associates, 101 Warren's exclusive leasing agent. "[101 Warren] solidifies downtown as a shopping retail site."

DOWNTOWN REVIVAL

To be fair, these two buildings are just the latest in a post-9/11 downtown renaissance.

"TriBeCa had been known for low-rise conversions of what had been manufacturing space, and [after 9/11] they began converting more rapidly," says Annette Elvey of Fox Residential, who has been working in the area since 2001. "But after more time passed, a couple of years, developers looked at other types of buildings, ones that had been office buildings, like 270 Broadway."

And then, of course, there was the revitalization of the waterfront.

"Then came this incredible Hudson River Park that stretches downtown to the Battery," says Elvey. "Forlorn piers became these spectacular parks, beautifully planted and adorned with public art by big-name artists."

Karen Whitford, who recently purchased a three-bedroom at Riverhouse, was initially drawn to the parks.

"I go down to Battery Park a lot on my bike," says the 54-year-old photographer, who currently lives with her three children in a three-bedroom condo slightly uptown at 505 Greenwich Street.

"The reason I decided to move down there was, for one thing, the building is ecologically correct," says Whitford, "but it also offers amenities like a swimming pool and parking in the building that I didn't have."

Though she paid $2.6 million for her Riverhouse condo, measure for measure, 101 Warren is the pricier of the two buildings. It could be owing to one of many factors: the German Bulthaup kitchens, the interiors by Victoria Hagan, the fa‡ade (the first in New York to be built of Jura limestone) or simply the fact that it's that closer to the subway.

DIFFERENCE MAKERS

Edward Minskoff of Edward J. Minskoff Equities, which is developing 101 Warren, sees little in common between his building and Riverhouse.

"One is a brick building, ours is Jura stone," explains Minskoff, when the similarities of the renderings are brought to his attention. "I don't even see what I would call a 5 percent similarity [between the buildings]; we're using different materials."

Interestingly, Riverhouse developer Chris Daly, president of the Sheldrake Organization, is working with 101 Warren on market-rate and low-income rentals at 89 Murray, a project attached to 101 Warren.

Says Daly of the difference between Riverhouse and 101 Warren: "Edward is a good builder; we're pleased to be compared to him. Though I don't think there's a need to differentiate, they're different projects."

And buyers are flocking to both. Riverhouse has sold 50 units in the three months since its sales office opened. And nearly 60 percent of 101 Warren's 228 condos, which went on the market in March, are sold.

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.