Con Ed site on the East River

[pianoman11686]

I think developers (or the people that pitch their projects for them) should make it a priority to explain certan logical realities of a development before any questions are raised. Some people are just ignorant, and perceive height as unequivocally bad. Is it so hard to understand the concept that a taller, slimmer building will take up less land area, therefore leaving more space for parkland and open areas? Is it a myth that bulkier buildings block more of the sun, especially when it's low in the sky (near sunrise and sunset)? Common sense (with a little help from outside sources) goes a long way towards self-enlightenment.

[SilentPandaesq]

^^That assumes that some peoples opposition is due to an insufficent grasp of the facts and not a completly ulterior motive.

[ablarc]

^ Worst is when it's simultaneously both. They have an ulterior motive, and they're so ignorant that they produce the opposite of what they want.

[pianoman11686]

Self-induced myopia.

If in fact the opposition is based on ulterior motives, then these people are no better than the businessmen they are trying to fight. Since the city planning commission regulates developers, they should regulate selfish NIMBYs, too.

[ablarc]

^ Interesting thought. Maybe NIMBYs should be required to submit drawings too. The NIMBYs' drawings would need to demonstrate that their claims made sense, just as developers' drawings must demostrate code adherence.

[webuiltthiscity]

Good one! Clearly though, these wankers don't care about the city as a hole. They care only about their maggot strewn, filthy 4 block area.

Whoa there buddy, you have NO idea what kind of neighborhood that is over there. According to the press release:

The meeting last night was attended by many residents in high-rise buildings near the site such as the 552-foot-high Corinthinian, the 383 foot-high Manhattan Plaza and the 442-foot-high Horizon, all clustered along First Avenue and the Manhattan entrance to the Queens Midtown Tunnel.

These are some of the most valuable midtown apartment complexes beyond 5th ave and central park south! The Corinthinian alone has rents in excess of 4k/month for just a 1 bedroom. That goes without even mentioning Tudor City. The people who attended this meeting are very rich, likely to have many contacts, and can influence politicians/developers in many ways. Maggot strewn? Yes, the Con-ed plant sure was, in fact that was the ugliest piece of architecture on the east side, just because you travel the FDR and see hubcaps doesn't mean that part of town isn't nice. Next year go to the midtown 4th of July Fireworks and walk around down there, ignore the eyesore that is the con-ed demolition(since it will probably still be going on) and focus on the park space, NYU medical center, UN complex, Tudor City etc. area. The midtown tunnel isn't even visible until you get up to 2nd ave...please, before you go spewing hate take a closer look at the surroundings.

P.S.> I am actually in favor of the development, especially since it involves getting rid of that "beautiful old plant" that parked 3 smokestacks right in the middle of arguably the nicest piece of skyline in the world.

[londonlawyer]

Whoa there buddy, you have NO idea what kind of neighborhood that is over there....

I work near there. I also live on York and go down 2nd Ave. all the time. But for Tudor City and expensive high-rises, this area is a dump that warrants redevelopment. I am not someone who favors building high-rises everywhere. This area, however, should be redeveloped.

[NYguy]

Observer

At Con Ed Site, Solow Takes a Cue From His Peers


By Matthew Schuerman


It’s been almost 10 years since Consolidated Edison decided to sell off its nine prime waterfront acres in the East 30’s and developer Sheldon Solow emerged as its buyer—for $630 million.

Still, nothing is built there.

The Con Ed site is hardly alone. Ground Zero is crawling upward, and Bruce Ratner’s plan for a 22-acre site in downtown Brooklyn is struggling with vocal neighborhood opposition.

But while the masters of those sites have grappled with, paid off, charmed or waged P.R. campaigns against their critics, Mr. Solow—whose plans for the site include seven high-rises, between 3,000 and 4,000 apartments and about one million square feet of office space—has remained aloof.

That may be ending now.

Mr. Solow recently hired the lobbying and public-relations firm Geto & De Milly—the same firm that is handling Mr. Ratner’s project—to do his community and political liaising.

And he has made a politic concession—however slight, the first one yet in evidence—to his opponents. He has agreed to lower the height of the buildings and increase their footprints to make up for the lost space, and to reorient the buildings so that street lines can run through the site and almost right up to the river’s edge.

The new drawings were shown around to elected officials and the community board this summer, but to little more fanfare than when the original plan was unveiled last fall.

“He took a little bit of the top off of the buildings but did not change the density,” said City Councilman Daniel Garodnick, who represents the area. “They are too tall and too dense; there’s not a single unit of affordable housing; and from a services perspective, the number of people who could be introduced into the neighborhood—it is like dropping the entire population of Kennebunkport between 34th and 41st Street.”

Considering that Kennebunkport only has 3,720 people in it, make that two Kennebunkports—with lots of Republicans, Yalies and generally rich people inhabiting them.


Michael Gross, a spokesman for Mr. Solow’s partnership, East River Realty, told The Observer: “We’ve substantially revised our master plan to respond to community concerns, and we look forward to a continued constructive dialogue with community leaders and elected officials as we continue the planning process.”

He wouldn’t discuss whether the project would include affordable housing. It’s not necessary under the zoning that Mr. Solow has proposed, but elected officials have come to expect some sort of sweetener if asked to rezone large swaths of land for profitable development.

Dan Golub, senior policy advisor to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who has met with Mr. Solow’s advisors, said that they may end up including affordable housing under pressure.

“As of now, they haven’t stepped up on their own to make a serious affordable-housing commitment,” Mr. Golub told The Observer. “But at some point in the process, they know they’re going to be forced to, and they’d be better off doing it sooner rather than later. They can’t make it a golden ghetto.”

The Bloomberg administration has said nothing publicly about the proposal, since it is in the preliminary stages of review, but other officials have been critical. Former State Assemblyman Steve Sanders once predicted “one of the biggest development fights” over what is the largest undeveloped parcel in Manhattan after the World Trade Center, but it has not generated much interest outside the confines of Murray Hill.

The 5.1-million-square-foot development right now sits in limbo as the developer figures out the final specifications and the Department of City Planning moves to the next review phase. Two hearings this spring brought out large crowds that objected to the project.

But Mr. Solow, who developed 9 West 57th Street in the 1970’s and luxury projects on the Upper East Side more recently, hasn’t gone too soft, and it is unclear just what City Hall—and the City Council—will do once he makes his application to rezone the area from manufacturing to commercial.

The one place that Mr. Solow has budged is height. The luxury towers, which are being designed by David Childs and Richard Meier, once reached as high as 864 feet, or 57 stories; the tallest one is now about 700 feet, according to individuals who have seen the latest plan. That’s still taller than the 505-foot United Nations Secretariat building a few blocks north, and Mr. Solow has made up for the lost floors by making the buildings wider and adding an eighth tower.

In addition, in a nod to residents who wanted more access and views of the East River, Mr. Solow’s architects have turned the buildings in an east-west direction and extended the streets almost to the F.D.R. Drive, where he would also add a raised promenade.

“The community board took the position that other buildings that have been built between 34th and 41st Street are all about 400 feet tall,” said John West, the co-chairman of the Board 6 subcommittee on the Con Ed site. “That’s still a substantial apartment building, but 400 feet is enough shorter than 500 feet that we consider them to be deferentially shorter than the Secretariat. We like that word deferentially shorter, because it conveys what we are trying to express.”

Marilyn Taylor, a partner at Skidmore Owings and Merrill, Mr. Childs’ architectural firm, presented the revised site plan earlier this summer to Board 6. Mr. Solow, though he has met board members previously, wasn’t present; Mr. Childs and Mr. Meier were also absent.

“Marilyn Taylor maintains a degree of credibility,” Mr. West told The Observer. “She sticks by the party line but doesn’t over-promise. She said that they had been listening to us and had some changes they thought were in the right direction—and to the extent that they were, great. But there were many points at which they were not.”

Mr. West and others on the community board say they do not substantially disagree with the density that Mr. Solow is proposing. In fact, an alternative rezoning plan that Board 6 has formally proposed calls for just 25 percent less square footage, and none of it would be office space.

The board’s own plan would require affordable housing to reach that density, though, as well as improving the esplanade along the East River.

[lofter1]

So we end up with BULK BULK BULK everywhere ... :eek:

Seems it's viewed by some that this development's core reason is as a ploy to populate the area with Republicans and skew the votiing precinct ...

"... the number of people who could be introduced into the neighborhood — it is like dropping the entire population of Kennebunkport between 34th and 41st Street.”

Considering that Kennebunkport only has 3,720 people in it, make that two Kennebunkports — with lots of Republicans, Yalies and generally rich people inhabiting them.

[TREPYE]

These scrapers should be scaled down even further than 700 feet

I am usually for tall scrapers but this is one case I believe that the scraper should be shorter. Mostly becasue they are in the waterfront positions that if build tall enough could block the views of other scrapers and sections of the skyline. Thats why I despise the trump world tower so much (besides the banal design issues); at that waterfront position at that height it blocks the great midtown scrapers.

[pianoman11686]

And he has made a politic concession—however slight, the first one yet in evidence—to his opponents. He has agreed to lower the height of the buildings and increase their footprints to make up for the lost space, and to reorient the buildings so that street lines can run through the site and almost right up to the river’s edge.

The reorientation is a great idea, and community input in that regard is helpful. The lowering of heights and increasing the footprints is absurd as the only people that will really be impacted by this is new residents on the Queens waterfront. This is not Atlantic Yards, where the surroundings are low-rise; this is Midtown, and a 800-foot tower cannot "add" to the shadows of a 400-foot tower behind it. As for the people that currently have East River views: if you don't own the land that still affords you those views, you have no right to dictate what is built there. Period.

“He took a little bit of the top off of the buildings but did not change the density,” said City Councilman Daniel Garodnick, who represents the area. “They are too tall and too dense; there’s not a single unit of affordable housing; and from a services perspective, the number of people who could be introduced into the neighborhood—it is like dropping the entire population of Kennebunkport between 34th and 41st Street.”

And Tudor City, not to mention all of the East Side, isn't already dense? Give me a break. Again, it's one thing to complain about a development like this if the surroundings were tree-lined streets with townhomes; it's completely different when you're talking about Midtown Manhattan, arguably the densest commercial district in the world.

Furthermore, to add to the complete lack of logic in all of this: if there's going to be affordable housing, the buildings should be taller and/or denser. That's the tradeoff. How can you possibly expect the developer to make the buildings smaller and replace market-rate units with affordable housing? Again, are people forgetting this is Manhattan, and how much it costs to build anything here at all?

The one place that Mr. Solow has budged is height. The luxury towers, which are being designed by David Childs and Richard Meier, once reached as high as 864 feet, or 57 stories; the tallest one is now about 700 feet, according to individuals who have seen the latest plan. That’s still taller than the 505-foot United Nations Secretariat building a few blocks north, and Mr. Solow has made up for the lost floors by making the buildings wider and adding an eighth tower.

Again, very disappointing, especially considering that Trump has already broken that barrier by going almost 400 feet taller than the UN. Why does it matter so much to these people? What is so desirable in having a table-top? You don't have to be contextual with height to be contextual.

“The community board took the position that other buildings that have been built between 34th and 41st Street are all about 400 feet tall,” said John West, the co-chairman of the Board 6 subcommittee on the Con Ed site. “That’s still a substantial apartment building, but 400 feet is enough shorter than 500 feet that we consider them to be deferentially shorter than the Secretariat. We like that word deferentially shorter, because it conveys what we are trying to express.”

That has to be one of the most nonsensical quotes I've heard come out of a NIMBY's mouth, and that's saying something.

Mr. West and others on the community board say they do not substantially disagree with the density that Mr. Solow is proposing. In fact, an alternative rezoning plan that Board 6 has formally proposed calls for just 25 percent less square footage, and none of it would be office space.

The board’s own plan would require affordable housing to reach that density, though, as well as improving the esplanade along the East River.

So if the board is not calling for substantial downsizing, where is all the pressure coming from? Certainly not the United Nations, and even if it were coming from Mr. Annan, like it did regarding TWT, Trump still managed to build to the maximum allowable height. I see absolutely no reason to scale these down.

As for the benefits to the community: what makes most sense to me is going through a compromise. If Solow can build as of right based on rezoning, and the community wants it cut down by 25%, cut it down. But then, no affordable housing, and no waterfront/streetscape improvements. Increase the density/height back up by 12.5% for each of those, and then the developer gets what he wants, and he fulfills reasonable requests by the community.

Now, am I deluded, or does that seem like a relatively easy way of resolving this?

[NYguy]

These scrapers should be scaled down even further than 700 feet

I am usually for tall scrapers but this is one case I believe that the scraper should be shorter. Mostly becasue they are in the waterfront positions that if build tall enough could block the views of other scrapers and sections of the skyline. Thats why I despise the trump world tower so much (besides the banal design issues); at that waterfront position at that height it blocks the great midtown scrapers.


The Trump World Tower is exactly what a skyscraper should be in my opinion. A tower that soars to the heavens. Does it block anything? Perhaps. All skyscrapers block something, and in an area as dense as Manhattan, its a given that something will be blocked. On the contrary, these towers should be built in a prominent location, and not hidden like most Manhattan towers. These towers along the east river won't block views of anything that matters. What you won't see from one angle, you can always see from another. Besides, as far as views being blocked, the vast majority of the city won't get those views anyway.

http://www.adzstock.com/Upload/Stock/Previews/18151.jpg


http://www.membres.lycos.fr/axphotos01/New%20York%202004/Dscn23257.jpg

[pianoman11686]

These scrapers should be scaled down even further than 700 feet

I am usually for tall scrapers but this is one case I believe that the scraper should be shorter. Mostly becasue they are in the waterfront positions that if build tall enough could block the views of other scrapers and sections of the skyline. Thats why I despise the trump world tower so much (besides the banal design issues); at that waterfront position at that height it blocks the great midtown scrapers.

Trump Tower gives you something to look at, not the other way around. It makes a powerful addition to a piece of East River skyline that for years was relatively flat and uninteresting; it provides a peak, and peaks are good.

Now, look at this picture, and tell me exactly which great Midtown skyscrapers the Solow development will block:

http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/queens/lic/hunterspt/skyline/winter/icyeastriver.jpg

[sfenn1117]

They are crying over open space, yet by lowering the heights of the towers, they have lost substancial amounts due to the increased footprints, and a completely new tower. I swear, they have no brain sometimes, and only ruin things further for the whole city.

If it was up to me, I would have one icon super tall, positioned somewhere on the south side of the site, away from the UN. It would have an observatory and restaurants, a hotel and office space. Then I would have buildings 200-500 feet, a-la Rockefeller Center. I would also include an icon piece of open space, something unique to the city. Everyone would win. It would be a new landmark.

Instead we are going to get 8 towers around the same height in an extreme cluster. I seriously wish I had the money and resources to be a developer in this city.

[NYguy]

They are crying over open space, yet by lowering the heights of the towers, they have lost substancial amounts due to the increased footprints, and a completely new tower. I swear, they have no brain sometimes, and only ruin things further for the whole city.

If it was up to me, I would have one icon super tall, positioned somewhere on the south side of the site, away from the UN. It would have an observatory and restaurants, a hotel and office space. Then I would have buildings 200-500 feet, a-la Rockefeller Center. I would also include an icon piece of open space, something unique to the city. Everyone would win. It would be a new landmark.

Instead we are going to get 8 towers around the same height in an extreme cluster. I seriously wish I had the money and resources to be a developer in this city.

That makes better sense, but I wonder if the NIMBYs would come to such a realization. A similar situation with Ratner's Beenkman St tower resulted in a taller, more slender tower. The increased height resulted in the tower being stepped back away from neighboring buildings.

The NIMBYs here should be given a plan C (or D? E?) - one 1,100 ft tower and maybe two or three towers of 30 to 40 stories. But sometimes its hard to tell if its the buildings and their heights or the people those buildings will bring that the NIMBYs hate most.

[sfenn1117]

The Beekman tower only became taller because the residents of the building behind it did not want the new building to directly abut their windows. They wanted a plaza in between. The only way to go was up, much to the dismay of other residents, specifically those in the Southbridge Towers. I'm still shocked we went from a 50 story building to one that is 876 feet.

There is no situation like that here. And as long as they are height obsessed, you can forget about tall towers here. It was a bad move by Solow to lower the heights of the buildings already....he should have tried to hold out longer. There's no way he'll be able to raise them again without neighborhood furor. Frankly I wouldn't mind if Solow put off the project and waited to sell it to another developer who could possibly give us something better than a glassy BPC.

On another note I wish the FDR would be demolished and replaced with a West Side Highway type road, at least to the QB bridge. The entire coast of Manhattan really should be lined with parkland.

[TREPYE]

Yes it reaches for the sky but that all and its fine if its in a field of flatlands. But this isn't the plains, its a city with a myriad of skyscrapers that by virtue of their crowns, spires, slanted roofs gives the city emblems for which to identify it. What does it contribute to the skyline besides obstructing other much more nice scrapers and an attempt to plateau out the skyline??

As far as a design, guys please its a black box there is not much to it. Well I guess some people are into boxes and all. But ultimately for me its a monolith that can be characterized as a simpleton, banal design and ultimately its biggest insult to NYC- OBTRUSIVE. It is built in the worst possible spot for a tower of its bland design. TWT is a grotesque example of a tower that has no disregard for the existing skyline. I mean, specially at night from Queens you see the midtowns tower that light up being literally blacked out by this monstrosity.

Now this con-ed site should not do what TWT did. It should contribute a good architectural design that weaves it into the existing skyline not block it. Zoning laws should be put in place for waterfront areas to preserve the skyline views.

[pianoman11686]

Putting aside subjective design issues on what makes a building attractive or iconic, can you please explain to me (as I've already asked you) what "great Midtown skyscrapers" will be blocked by Solow's plans?

[NYguy]

The Beekman tower only became taller because the residents of the building behind it did not want the new building to directly abut their windows. They wanted a plaza in between. The only way to go was up, much to the dismay of other residents, specifically those in the Southbridge Towers. I'm still shocked we went from a 50 story building to one that is 876 feet.

There is no situation like that here.

That's the very definition of NIMBYism, and its exactly what these people don't want here. They fear these buildings will block views of the river, even from street level, even though those street level views are blocked today (by the plant).


And as long as they are height obsessed, you can forget about tall towers here. It was a bad move by Solow to lower the heights of the buildings already....he should have tried to hold out longer.

I think there's a good chance that if he went for half the amount of towers in exchange for increased height and more open space, he could get support. I think there are community mouthpieces involved that don't speak for everyone. There are reasonable people everywhere, and I think that with a little more talking, a balance can be reached.

[NYguy]

Yes it reaches for the sky but that all and its fine if its in a field of flatlands. But this isn't the plains, its a city with a myriad of skyscrapers that by virtue of their crowns, spires, slanted roofs gives the city emblems for which to identify it. What does it contribute to the skyline besides obstructing other much more nice scrapers and an attempt to plateau out the skyline?? As far as a design, guys please its a black box there is not much to it.

Exactly. There's no pretense to it. Its just a beautiful, soaring skyscraper. The way skyscrapers are meant to be. Contrary to popular belief, it does contribute to the skyline. It joins the Citicorp Center in adding a peak to what is otherwise a very flat and evened out skyline...

http://www.queenswest.com/neighborhood/pictures/20040911_qw_sunset.jpg?display=small


http://www.queenswest.com/eastcoast/pictures/20020925_3.jpg?display=small

[LeCom]

Are non-community members allowed at those meetings? I would love to attend one of them, or possibly know that WNY sent a well-prepared representative there. I could just imagine standing there, making a case for city improvement and that added height. I could also see them making remarks about me living in the suburbs and having no interest nor knowledge of the area besides seeing "pretty buildings" on the skyline, and that I am ignorant of their community. Then I see myself replying that they are the ignorant of the community of the NYC as a whole, and that they want to block a project that would truly aid the city just because it is in their immediate vicinity. I would add that some of their suggestions do seem sensible, but others, like height limitations, are ridiculous and would even be able to prove to them that they are unable to tell the difference between a 700 and 850-footer. I would also bring up the issue that their own highrise projects once invaded the lowrise community that existed there before.

That would be pretty awesome.

[pianoman11686]

And the nighttime view is nothing to sneeze at either:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=109152&postcount=286

[sfenn1117]

We're going to get another one on the east side anyway. It probably won't be as tall as TWT, but it should be taller than the UN.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7822

[RS085]

is this not already one of the DENSEST parts of Manhattan?

[kliq6]

anyone can go to a open community board meeting, however when its just the commitee itself, its usually closed door.

Ive attened hundreds of these, they are eye openers

[sfenn1117]

I found this pic on flickr... http://flickr.com/photos/82426448@N00/

Now what will be blocked in this photo? A sliver of the ESB, yes, but the hulking Corinthian already takes care of that from most angles. The UN already effectively blocks Chrysler.

http://i6.tinypic.com/244qrup.jpg

Drab brick backround buildings will soon be blocked by modern, glassy high rises. It's just the details we wait for. The two in the foreground await this development...haha

[LeCom]

anyone can go to a open community board meeting, however when its just the commitee itself, its usually closed door.

Ive attened hundreds of these, they are eye openers
How do you know when and where they happen?

We really need to send our reps to those. Nimbys are going to hate our asses for it (and probably spam us with viruses or something, those guys really know how to hate), but we don't have to tell them where we're from, do we?

At least it would be more productive than simply discussing the projects on this board with individuals whose viewpoint is pretty much already very similar.

[pianoman11686]

Community board meetings (especially the more important ones on developments like this, the Trump Soho Tower, and Atlantic Yards) are usually announced publicly. Got to scour those newspaper articles, or probably just the websites of the community boards.

I don't know why you'd be worried about retribution. This is an anonymous forum, for the most part. If you went to one, there's no law that says you have to give them your full legal name, address, etc. Make up something just to get a chance to speak, that's all. If there's another one before the summer ends, I'll join you. I'd love to "enlighten" some of these morons. :D

[lofter1]

Manhattan Community Board List: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/cb_manhattan.shtml

Manhattan Community Board 6
Stuyvesant Town, Tudor City, Turtle Bay, Peter Cooper Village, Murray Hill, Gramercy Park, Kips Bay, Sutton Place866 UN Plaza, Suite 308
New York, NY 10017

Phone: 212.319.3750
Fax: 212.319.3772

Email: mn06@cb.nyc.gov (mn06@cb.nyc.gov)
Website: www.cb6mnyc.org (http://www.cb6mnyc.org)

Chair: Ms. Carol Schachter
District Manager: Ms. Toni Carlina
Board Meeting: Second Wednesday
Cabinet Meeting: Fourth Thursday

From the CB6 website it looks like the last "Land Use Committee" meeting on the Con Ed site was last Wednesday (8/02/06).

August is always a slow month at CBs. So far no schedule posted for September.

Check the CB6 website for meetings & info

[TREPYE]

Exactly. There's no pretense to it. Its just a beautiful, soaring skyscraper. The way skyscrapers are meant to be. Contrary to popular belief, it does contribute to the skyline. It joins the Citicorp Center in adding a peak to what is otherwise a very flat and evened out skyline...

http://www.queenswest.com/neighborhood/pictures/20040911_qw_sunset.jpg?display=small


http://www.queenswest.com/eastcoast/pictures/20020925_3.jpg?display=small


I guess we are at odds in scraper taste. I hardly considers this flat top scraper a peak even if it appears to be taller due to proximity. The farther away you get the more it flattens out the skyline.

Hopefully none of the Con Ed site buildings will look nothing like it.

[BrooklynRider]

I guess it is a peak in the overall height of the skyline, but I tend to agree with you. I like something that sort of punctuates the building, making it instantly recognizable.

[lofter1]

An Idea (http://www.archinode.com/tall.html):

http://www.archinode.com/ClusterConEDnew1.jpg

[BrooklynRider]

A giant picket fence along the river!

[LeCom]

An Idea (http://www.archinode.com/tall.html):

http://www.archinode.com/ClusterConEDnew1.jpg
If that's what they want, then I understand the nimbies...

[LeCom]

Community board meetings (especially the more important ones on developments like this, the Trump Soho Tower, and Atlantic Yards) are usually announced publicly. Got to scour those newspaper articles, or probably just the websites of the community boards.

I don't know why you'd be worried about retribution. This is an anonymous forum, for the most part. If you went to one, there's no law that says you have to give them your full legal name, address, etc. Make up something just to get a chance to speak, that's all. If there's another one before the summer ends, I'll join you. I'd love to "enlighten" some of these morons. :D
Please do join. I'd love to attend, but i'm somewhat of a chicken shit to go to these things all by myself.

[stache]

LeCom, actualy a good way to get your feet wet for this kind of thing is to go to a meeting as an observer, then you get the hang of procedure.

[krulltime]

An Idea (http://www.archinode.com/tall.html):

http://www.archinode.com/ClusterConEDnew1.jpg


What kind of idea is this? Looks too horrible to me! Oh I wish is just stays as an idea and stops there.

[lofter1]

Go to the link and read --

[krulltime]

Go to the link and read --


I know I haven't. I am too afraid of what it might say. But I will. ;)

[lofter1]

Have no fear, it's just a "study" ...

[PHLguy]

[Self-Edit]

[PHLguy]

5-700 does not bother me as much as the 'fat' aspect. We have too many fat buildings going up in NYC as is. I'd take a slender 700 foot tower over a grossly overweight 900 foot tower anyday.

[ablarc]

And he has made a politic concession—however slight, the first one yet in evidence—to his opponents. He has agreed to lower the height of the buildings and increase their footprints to make up for the lost space.
Gotta love those NIMBYs; they like their buildings short and fat.

[kurokevin]

Gotta love those NIMBYs; they like their buildings short and fat.

To go along with our country's children?

[infoshare]

If there's another one before the summer ends, I'll join you. I'd love to "enlighten" some of these morons. :D

Please PM me if/when this happens. I would like to join you....and bring my digital camera for a fun photo op:D :D :D :D

[pianoman11686]

PHLguy, that same article was posted two pages ago.

[PHLguy]

Oh... wow, sorry. I'll delete it.

[Deimos]

I can't believe it's been a whole year since the last meeting..... just got this in email:

EAST MIDTOWN COALITION FOR SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING


MONDAY, October 23, 2006
at 7:00 p.m.

NYU MEDICAL SCHOOL
(First Ave. @ 33rd St.)
AUDITORIUM “ALUMNI - B” (STREET LEVEL)


Bring a picture ID – NYU requires it!

* The latest news about the Con Edison site
* What lies ahead
* What we plan to do about it
+ Your own comments

Election of the Board of Directors will follow the discussion

[ld876]

To go along with our country's children?

Well, they have to fit in with the rest of the country's population...

[NYguy]

(NY Post)

'BUILDING' TENSION ON EAST SIDE

By BILL SANDERSON
October 30, 2006

Demolition is underway on the site of Manhattan's largest ongoing real-estate project after Ground Zero, with the builder and neighbors squaring off over the height, size and use of buildings in the 9.8-acre development.

The industrial properties on the East River just south of the United Nations, once home to Con Ed plants, will have to be rezoned if Solow Properties is to build its planned 5-million-square-foot residential and office complex.

That has given residents an opening to push their own ideas for the project, including cutting the height and size of the proposed buildings.

"The scale is much too great," said Ed Rubin of Community Board 6's land-use committee.

Solow has lowered the height of the buildings since its original proposal a year ago - the tallest, an office building next to the U.N., would be cut from 864 to 633 feet.

Neighbors say the buildings should be no taller than 400 feet, in deference to the 505-foot U.N. Secretariat Building.

The company plans to add retail to the currently "uninviting" stretch of First Avenue, and develop a promenade on the eastern side of the project's northern three blocks to "allow future connection to the waterfront."

It will also provide corridors through its land that extend 39th and 40th Streets from First Avenue toward the East River. Neighbors like that idea, but some want the streets deeded to the city so Solow can't restrict their use.

[lofter1]

Neighbors say the buildings should be no taller than 400 feet, in deference to the 505-foot U.N. Secretariat Building.

It will also provide corridors through its land that extend 39th and 40th Streets from First Avenue toward the East River. Neighbors like that idea, but some want the streets deeded to the city so Solow can't restrict their use.

That neighborhood's vision for a future NYC:

Shorter, stubbier buildings.

More traffic nearby.

oy .....

[TimmyG]

Solow has lowered the height of the buildings since its original proposal a year ago - the tallest, an office building next to the U.N., would be cut from 864 to 633 feet.

This is getting old.

[pianoman11686]

http://static.flickr.com/111/287873995_db5818026a.jpg

Stu_Jo's photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15937237@N00/)

[NYCDOC]

I don't mean to agree with community groups because I think for the most part they are negatively impacting the development of great buildings in NY, but if there is one place in the city that height restrictions make sense, it seems somewhat logical to me that the UN should be the tallest building within the area (I know Trump already ruined that). But I think even more importantly than looking at getting super talls built here I would like to see alot of attention paid to the street level. That stretch of 1st avenue between 34th and the UN is completely dead. None of the towers currently there provide an engaging street level and so I think Solow would contribute most to the area by constructing these towers so that there is space that would create a dynamic and engaging street life.

[ablarc]

UN doesn't need to be the tallest, just iconic. It's already that, with its broad sides at right angles to all the others.

[Derek2k3]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/413148172_7cbbb4df06.jpg
f.trainer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fiveoftoast/)

[lofter1]

A clean slate ^^^

A moment where one can imagine greatness -- before the philistines move forward :(

[antinimby]

Clean slates are not necessarily a good thing in this city.

Look at the Queens/LIC waterfront developments. :(

[ramvid01]

Clean slates are not necessarily a good thing in this city.

Look at the Queens/LIC waterfront developments. :(

There is still a lot of waterfront to develop, so I wouldn't get too depressed quite yet.

[londonlawyer]

A clean slate ^^^

A moment where one can imagine greatness -- before the philistines move forward :(

Don't you find it amazing that Solow was prepared to construct masterpieces in this dump, and yet people went ballistic and forced him to plan a mediocre project? By contrast, Macklowe has carte blanche to raze The Drake and nice buildings on Madison and replace them with mundane P's O S that would have appealed to Robert Moses.

PS: Before anyone freaks out, but for Tudor City, the area by Solow's project is a dump. A stroll down First and Second Avenues in that vicinity is utterly depressing. Even Macklowe's planned POS on Madison and 53rd would be an improvement to this blighted area near the Midtown Tunnel.

P.P.S.: If these schmucks wanted to protest, they should have protested Solow's razing attractive Con Ed plant in the first place.

[ablarc]

Don't you find it amazing that Solow was prepared to construct masterpieces in this dump, and yet people went ballistic and forced him to plan a mediocre project?
People WANT boring!

[londonlawyer]

People WANT boring!

I disagree. People love the TWT, the Hearst, etc.

[ablarc]

People love the TWT, the Hearst, etc.
Only after they're built.

[lofter1]

Macklowe and Chang are simply greedy schmucks with as much taste as Robert Moses.

You should qualify that to read "as much taste as shown in Robert Moses' late period" -- or something of the sort.

The Jones Beach structures and others that he built in the '30s are really quite stunning and of a great human scale. It was only circa post-WW2 that Moses went whacko (design & planning wise).

[pianoman11686]

Vornado hired Pelli, not some hack like SLCE, to build a nice structure for Bloomberg.

Ironically, SLCE were the architects of record for 731 Lex.

Macklowe and Chang are simply greedy schmucks with as much taste as Robert Moses.

I think grouping these two is going a little too far. Chang is far worse.

[TonyO]

People WANT boring!

No, people don't want change and, more importantly, don't want anyone else to have something better than what they have. Nimbyism is about jealousy and exerting power.

[infoshare]

Nimbyism is about jealousy and exerting power.

And power (it seems) is the ability to complain louder & longer than everyone else! :confused: :p

[pianoman11686]

It's even more than that.

Anyone can shout and try to make a big fuss about something. The key to getting what you want is asserting your higher moral position. Once you do that, there's little chance the real people in charge will ignore you.

[ablarc]

It's even more than that.

...The key to getting what you want is asserting your higher moral position.
Hitler knew that. He couched his claims in moral assertions; he could count on this for popular support to cow his adversaries.

Who can be against the moral position?

[pianoman11686]

Short answer: you prove that your position is of a higher morality. Not the easiest thing to do.

[TREPYE]

People WANT boring!

No, in this case people wanted reduced height. The developers want boring because its more profitable. Which is basically the story of NY architecture after the movement started by Seagrams Building.

[Chrysler New Yorker]

Is this project EVER going to be built or canceled?:confused:

[londonlawyer]

Is this project EVER going to be built or canceled?:confused:

I hope that it gets cancelled and is replaced with a park. Sadly, it will be constructed and thanks to NIMBYS who live in this dumpy area dominated by filthy rent-regulated tenements, the buildings that will rise there will be lame.

PS: I used to live in the area when my wife worked on the far East side and hated it. I moved there from CPS when I got engaged and hated it. It is a dump. I was always depressed when I returned from the airport and emerged from the Midtown Tunnel into this disgusting area. Solow would have transformed this dump, but perhaps NIMBY'S thought that increased real estate values would threaten their rent regulated leases.

[pianoman11686]

Six Architects To Compete For East River Esplanade Design Rights

By ANNIE KARNI
Special to the Sun
June 5, 2007

As the city mulls an expansion of the United Nations campus onto city park space and the state moves forward with plans to rebuild the Midtown segment of the FDR Drive next door, elected officials and community members are seizing the opportunity to open up access to the East River with a new waterfront esplanade.

Six prominent landscape architects, including the architect of the High Line, the architect of the Museum of Modern Art roof garden, and the architect of the Brooklyn Bridge Park, will participate in a design competition on Friday to create a sweeping vision for a waterfront park that would stretch to 63rd Street from 34th Street along the East River.

The proposed 35-story U.N. office tower would be built on the current site of the 1.3-acre Robert Moses Playground. The loss of parkland would require the creation of more open space nearby, and officials have said a new waterfront esplanade would be an appropriate trade. A new tower would require approval by the state Legislature, and the esplanade would require approval from the developer of the former Consolidated Edison power plant site just south of the United Nations, Sheldon Solow, who owns the land. Officials from the state's Department of Transportation and from the city's parks department, as well as representatives from Mr. Solow's office, are expected to meet on Friday for a briefing on the proposed waterfront esplanade.

The 12-hour design competition is being sponsored by elected officials who represent the Upper East Side, including Assemblymen Jonathan Bing and Brian Kavanagh, state Senators Liz Krueger and Thomas Duane, and numerous civic groups. The winning design is expected to be unveiled to the public on Sunday and would serve as a makeshift blueprint for future construction.

State support for the city's plan to expand the U.N. campus has been hard to come by. "I don't believe the Senate's there," a state senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden, said in an interview. "One would have thought the city would have moved on at this point. The U.N. doesn't curry favor with us. They are a useless group that is at best anti-American."

© 2007 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. (http://www.nysun.com/article/55880)

[Eugenious]

State support for the city's plan to expand the U.N. campus has been hard to come by. "I don't believe the Senate's there," a state senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden, said in an interview. "One would have thought the city would have moved on at this point. The U.N. doesn't curry favor with us. They are a useless group that is at best anti-American."

© 2007 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. (http://www.nysun.com/article/55880)


Goddamn fools, if anything UN contributes millions to the NYC economy, why would you not try to keep that ? Who cares if UN is not pro-american, it's not supposed to be. The world would be a worse place without UN and if NYC didnt have UN it would lose millions of revenue.

[kliq6]

Goddamn fools, if anything UN contributes millions to the NYC economy, why would you not try to keep that ? Who cares if UN is not pro-american, it's not supposed to be. The world would be a worse place without UN and if NYC didnt have UN it would lose millions of revenue.

The dont contribute as much as you think, ive seen the numbers. On top of that they often dont pay the bill at bars and resturants, as with there tickets

[TonyO]

The dont contribute as much as you think, ive seen the numbers. On top of that they often dont pay the bill at bars and resturants, as with there tickets

Share them with us then. And rumors as to not paying bills at bars and restaurants are just that. Sure, they don't pay parking tickets as a lot of NYers don't.

Being anti-UN in NY is just as self-defeating as being anti-tourist and anti-immigrant.

[krulltime]

Residents push to open up East River waterfront



http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-06/30426042.jpg
Current East River look.

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-06/30426025.jpg
Rendering of possible East River plans.



By Justin Rocket Silverman
June 11, 2007


A vision to transform the postindustrial no-man's land along the East River in midtown into a vibrant public space was embraced Sunday by elected officials and hundreds of concerned residents.

"There are 154,000 people living in this area, and I don't think [anyone] can remember what it was like to be able to walk down to the river," said Kent L. Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society. "River access has been sealed off for decades."

The society organized a meeting of top architects last week to come up with a plan for the stretch of waterfront running from East 34th to 63rd streets. There is currently no way for pedestrians or cyclists to access this part of the city -- a fact all the more problematic because the area has only one acre of open space for every 5,000 residents, the least amount anywhere in the city.

A major portion of the area in question, a former Con Ed site that stretches from 34th to 41st streets, is the site of a massive development project spearheaded by Sheldon Solow, ranked the 746th richest person in the world by Forbes.

The developer's plans include millions of square feet of residential, commercial and retail space in a waterfront complex.

The vision unveiled Sunday represents the "beginning of a long, complicated process," according to Borough President Scott Stringer, to reconcile Solow's plans with the community's desire for more open space and public river access.

Specs presented Sunday include a large park area elevated over the FDR -- much like the Brooklyn Heights Promenade extends above the BQE. A pedestrian ramp would provide a way to reach the water below. Architects estimated the elevated park between 34th and 41st streets would add 142,600 square feet of open space, at a total cost of $224 million.

"In the 20 years I've lived in New York, access to the rivers has been one of the greatest improvements to the city," said Nelson Smith, 55, a longtime East Side resident. "What exists at this site now is extremely discontinuous and frustrating."

Officials said they are hopeful their design proposal will be considered by the developer and the city's Planning Commission.


Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc. (http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-east0611,0,1369136.story?coll=am-topheadlines)

[krulltime]

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-06/30426025.jpg
Rendering of possible East River plans.


I hope that those renderings are not what the towers will actually look like!!!

http://www.cyber-cats.com/images/cards/suicide2.jpg

[macreator]

I hope that those renderings are not what the towers will actually look like!!!

No, this community event had barely anything to do with Solow so I doubt that those tower placeholders look anything like what we'll get. Especially since one of the towers sits above Robert Moses playground and another seems to assume the de-mapping of 41st street.

[BPC]

No, this community event had barely anything to do with Solow so I doubt that those tower placeholders look anything like what we'll get. Especially since one of the towers sits above Robert Moses playground and another seems to assume the de-mapping of 41st street.

Their picture also assumes the 42nd street exit ramps gets torn down.

[stache]

Here's another map/chart from Curbed -

[alonzo-ny]

Do the nimbys actually want that? they are more stupid than i thought, it makes me sick.

[pianoman11686]

I'll take it if it means Solow can build his development as planned.

[stache]

It sounds to me like it's just an idea that's being floated.

[antinimby]

More 21st century towers-in-the-park. This city will never learn despite having so many of these already in the city and seeing firsthand how they don't work.

How ironic that today's NIMBYs advocate more of the Robert Moses type of developments than the Jane Jacobs type.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I was actually at the press conference and one thing that was stressed was that this is just an IDEA. There are no plans set in stone. This is just a visual representation of different ideas for the site. The reporter of that article failed to properly convey that.

[Skylimitone]

I've realized that Manhattan has 3 large blank spots, the Hudson Yards, WTC site (work in progress) and this one the Con Ed Redevelopment. I've become really interested in this one recently, I hope something gets build soon. Something nice, here are some pics I took of the site on 07.14.07:

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/424/dsc03450si7.jpg
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3669/dsc03449vi9.jpg

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/3193/dsc03451bf0.jpg

Oh did I forget any spots, in Brooklyn there's the Atlantic Yards.

[Dynamicdezzy]

I always thought the 4/5 projects that would help shape towards a broader midtown would be: 1) The Hudson yards/West-side development (including moynihan), 2) The 7 train extension, linking the west side , 3) The con ed site development, 4) the 2nd avenue line (w/ a stop at 42nd street) and 5) the 42nd street light rail, which would run from river to river along 42nd street and 34th street. I think the project is dead now. Many people say the shuttle is more than enough, but only links the 2 sides, from madison (i believe) on 1 end and 7th ave on the other. But it would be nice to be on a newly developed con ed site, hop on the light rail and ride towards a newly developed west side.

[Hamilton]

I've realized that Manhattan has 3 large blank spots, the Hudson Yards, WTC site (work in progress) and this one the Con Ed Redevelopment. I've become really interested in this one recently, I hope something gets build soon. Something nice, here are some pics I took of the site on 07.14.07:

Oh did I forget any spots, in Brooklyn there's the Atlantic Yards.

There are several other large undeveloped waterfront lots in Manhattan:

--There's those lots between 59th and 72nd west of West End Avenue and east where Trump's development has been going up. It's more than halfway done, but there's still a huge undeveloped section from 59th to 63rd. It's cool to see them covering the Amtrak tracks down there, and rebuild the street grid one street at a time.

--Uptown (way Uptown, as in Pleasantville, East Harlem) there's a very large lot between 116th (?) and 119th Streets east of Pleasant Avenue and West of the FDR. i think there are big-box stores going in over there, with the name East River Plaza, which is a shame, because Pleasant Avenue between 110th and 120th Streets has some of the most architectural character I've seen in Manhattan outside of the Village. A great mix of different walk-up apartment, mansion, and townhouse styles from throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as some interesting renovations.

[londonlawyer]

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-06/30426025.jpg
Rendering of possible East River plans.


I hope that those renderings are not what the towers will actually look like!!!

http://www.cyber-cats.com/images/cards/suicide2.jpg

The residents of this disgusting area that's filled with broken down tenements, did a nice job in stonewalling what would have been a great plan. Indeed, the pulled a Sheldon Silver.

[ablarc]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3669/dsc03449vi9.jpgThe beginnings of a skyline.

[LeCom]

Ugh. I can't follow this project. Don't want to drag myself into this disappointment.

[Derek2k3]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/947232754_e7979389dc_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1208/947232728_429b8f38b4_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/947232962_3be43f0070_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/947233008_a904f8638d_o.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1218/947233100_2d6376a5d1_o.jpg

[RandySavage]

^ Is that a scoop on the new proposed development. If so, bravo!

[Derek2k3]

That was before the Nimby's got to it. Now the towers are all shorter and there's one extra.

Totally unrelated, but I had a post count of 1985 earlier, my birthyear. Thought that was momentous for some reason...

[RandySavage]

That was before the Nimby's got to it. Now the towers are all shorter and there's one extra.

Crying shame. Great find, none-the-less. Where did you come upon them?

[Dynamicdezzy]

Why the heck did the nimby's say no to this again!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

[Skylimitone]

WOW that would have been so nice!

[macreator]

The NIMBYs are worried about the development being contextual enough. Contextual my ass, look how tall The Corinthian is across the street, or how tall the buildings of Tutor City are on the bluff. Those renderings show a grouping of classy, tall, sleek towers that would have done a lot to improve that area. Instead, we'll probably end up with some squat, bulky (because the space has to go somewhere if you don't want to allow height), and drab "contextual" buildings. Shame.

[posterboy]

... we'll probably end up with a mirror image of what's across the river. sad.

[londonlawyer]

As I've said, for the most part, this area is an utterly dump. Ergo, the NIMBYS suffer from dementia if they think that nice buildings will detract from their busted down row of tenements. This is not Rosen's Madison Avenue site. When one arrives from JFK and enters this dump from the Midtown Tunnel, it looks like an absolute slum.

[Dynamicdezzy]

^AMEN. When I worked in midtown I would take the express bus in. Coming out of the midtown tunnel I always thought it really looked like sh*t. I do not see how shorter, stumpier (possibly uglier) looking towers will be BETTER than the above renderings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we take the renderings of the end result and put it side by side with the above (and if it doesn't live up) and the residents still pick the latter...then they are dumbest flock of retards possible...

[SilentPandaesq]

^^
No. They just can’t conceive of a situation where someone else’s gain won’t be their loss. They would rather live in dumpy row houses than cotton new neighbors with better apartments and better views.

The sad part is that in trying to “contextualize” the project they will end up with a newer version of their dumpy bland apartments that will still block their views….

[phuklok1]

Does anyone happen to have any of the latest renderings for this project? Thanks for the above post with the architectural models.

[infoshare]

Now that the demolition is complete the largest section of (east of 1st AV.) the Con Ed site is being cleared of the last remnants of debris. What exactly will eventually rise from this blank slate still remains to be seen. This (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/947232754_e7979389dc_o.jpg) would have been great.

Attached are two recent photos of the (old) Edison Site.

[macreator]

The skating rink would have been neat too. What was the reason again that the community gave about why the project shouldn't have a skating rink? Was it that it was just too nice to have for the area? Not contextual enough? :rolleyes:

[RandySavage]

Does anyone happen to have any of the latest renderings for this project?

I don't think any were ever made public.

[TranspoMan]

The skating rink would have been neat too. What was the reason again that the community gave about why the project shouldn't have a skating rink? Was it that it was just too nice to have for the area? Not contextual enough? :rolleyes:

There used to be a skating rink in front of the Rivergate Apartments on First Avenue and 34th Street. This was rarely used and never made out financially. The rink subsequently closed and was converted to a park (you can still see it next to the M15 bus stop.) The community wanted to develop public space that would be better utilized. Plus, now with the free skating rink at Bryant Park, there is even less demand for a rink in the neighborhood.

[antinimby]

U.N. Area Development Plan Draws Fire



By ANNIE KARNI
Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 8, 2007 (http://www.nysun.com/article/60083)

A battle is looming on the East Side as a developer is set to begin the formal approval process for his proposal to construct six large residential towers, one office tower, and 1,550 public parking spaces just south of the United Nations headquarters. Real estate analysts said the ambitious development plans could transform Manhattan's Midtown East area into an international community of diplomats.

On August 20, the Department of City Planning is expected to certify a development proposal by Sheldon Solow that would rezone a nine-acre industrial site along East River between 35th and 41st streets, formerly used by Con Edison, for residential and commercial development.

Mr. Solow's proposal includes six residential buildings between 37 and 69 stories high, as well as a 666-foot-tall commercial tower. Currently, the iconic 505-foot Secretariat of the United Nations complex is the tallest building in the area. The new development is expected to attract up to 10,000 new residents and 5,000 office workers.

According to City Council Member Daniel Garodnick, who represents the neighborhood, Mr. Solow's proposed rezoning "would allow buildings that are too big, too dense, and could include a commercial office building that does not belong there." Alongside Mr. Solow's proposal, the city planning department will also consider an alternative plan submitted by the community, which seeks to minimize the size of the proposed parking garages, open up access to the waterfront, and add affordable housing units and a public school to the mix.

The state senator who represents the neighborhood, Liz Krueger, said she thought the school "was one thing the developer had committed to verbally, but we don't see any reference to space for schools in his plans."

Mr. Solow is also encountering strong opposition to his proposed public parking garages in a climate in which the city has expressed interest in boosting mass transit and removing vehicles from congested streets. The large garages could attract commuters entering the city from the FDR Drive and encourage more drivers to enter the city, transit experts said.

"His plan seems counterintuitive to the mayor's congestion pricing plans and the city's overall desire to decrease the volume of cars" in Manhattan, Ms. Krueger said.

A spokesman for Mr. Solow declined to comment for this story. Real estate analysts, meanwhile, said the development would be more lucrative if it included more office space, and perhaps even a hotel.

" Mr. Solow has the ability to create his own environment there Â-- it's almost like a suburban town," a managing director of Real Capital Analytics, Daniel Fasulo, said. Diplomats and international clients conducting business with the U.N. would be attracted to the location, Mr. Fasulo said, and wealthy medical professionals who work at nearby hospitals could also be interested in the condominiums.

Condominiums in the neighborhood now fetch about $1,500 a square foot, and analysts said new condominiums with waterfront views could sell for far more.

Mr. Solow, who is known as an "as of right" developer Â-- that is, one with little experience in the seven-month-long public review process needed to rezone a site Â-- purchased the Con Edison site in 2004 for $630 million.

"The greatest public interest is not creating impenetrable wall between the city and the river," the president of the Municipal Art Society, Kent Barwick, said. In the past, the United Nations has cited security concerns in closing the waterfront to the public, but has recently shown a new willingness to open up access there, Mr. Barwick said.

© 2007 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC

[Derek2k3]

Mr. Solow's proposal includes six residential buildings between 37 and 69 stories high, as well as a 666-foot-tall commercial tower. Currently, the iconic 505-foot Secretariat of the United Nations complex is the tallest building in the area.

They need to stop spouting off this lie. The Corinthian, Paramount, and TWT are all taller. The real issue here is their views will be blocked.

Funny how they feel offices are inappropriate for the area, yet they use the U.N. building as the precedent for height. Someone should bitch-slap some sense into that councilman.

[ramvid01]

666 foot tall office building. What is that going to be like 40 floors maybe? Seems like a waste to me and the 69 story buliding will probably only reach a pitiful 750 feet. Not really sure why the city allows NIMBY to roam free in this city. Just sickens me completely.

[kliq6]

Dont expect anything close to what is out there now planned to actually be built. There def wont be any office space and you can chop 15 floors off each tower atleast

[ASchwarz]

Dont expect anything close to what is out there now planned to actually be built. There def wont be any office space and you can chop 15 floors off each tower atleast

Kliq, I disagree, and I have heard about the status of the project from a project manager at City planning. The development has already been considerably shortened, though the overall square footage has remained constant. City Planning has been clear that it supports the commercial building and the overall size of the project.

The NIMBYs already got their height reduction and the main issues are now not related to height.

Notwithstanding the wacky councilman's comments, the real issues on the table are supposedly waterfront access, schools, affordable housing and parking. I think the developer will have to offer significant concessions on these four issues. He has already made big concessions on height, and you can't go any shorter without sacrificing square footage, and the city has been clear that the overall size is appropriate.

[londonlawyer]

While I would have preferred taller towers, this can still be a nice cluster even with the tallest at 750 feet if the buildings' designs are nice.

In the City of London's rising cluster of 5 or six buildings, the new Leadenhall tower will be the tallest (exclusing Bishopsgate), and it's about 750 feet. The awesome Willis building is only about 400 feet tall, and Swiss Re and the Walkie Talkie are about 600 feet.

[MikeW]

They should hire Trump. He rammed through the Trump World Tower despite all the jumping up and down by the NIMBYs.

666 foot tall office building. What is that going to be like 40 floors maybe? Seems like a waste to me and the 69 story buliding will probably only reach a pitiful 750 feet. Not really sure why the city allows NIMBY to roam free in this city. Just sickens me completely.

[antinimby]

Some of these people in the city are so retarded. Why would you want the city that you live in, the one that you should take pride in and be proud of, why would you want it to look like more this:

http://i7.tinypic.com/4pee345.jpg

...instead of like this:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/947232754_e7979389dc_o.jpg http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/947233008_a904f8638d_o.jpg

Are the shorter towers suppose to be better for the city? Is height really that horrible? Do these people really think they are saving New York from something evil here?

It just never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can get.

[Dynamicdezzy]

Ok, let me get this straight. Please correct me if I have the facts wrong. So the residents of the area do not want their views blocked. Ok. So the buildings will be cut down. So, that means that an xtra building will have to be built in the same area, or fatten the existing ones to compensate for the lack of height, right???? If so, that means their is less space available for a school or housing????? If so, then wouldn't that mean it would be more beneficial to have taller buildings to increase the chances of more housing and schooling to be available with this project? They want more with less??

[Derek2k3]

They want less floor area too. So shorter buildings with less bulk. The Nimby's don't infuriate me as much as the politicians listening to them. The more attention the city and the press give Nimby's the more vociferous they'll become.

[ramvid01]

Some of these people in the city are so retarded. Why would you want the city that you live in, the one that you should take pride in and be proud of, why would you want it to look like more this:

http://i7.tinypic.com/4pee345.jpg

...instead of like this:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/947232754_e7979389dc_o.jpg http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/947233008_a904f8638d_o.jpg

Are the shorter towers suppose to be better for the city? Is height really that horrible? Do these people really think they are saving New York from something evil here?

It just never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can get.


Just to be fair the two examples are completely different as the first is blocking no ones view and the height is actually a product of the zoning for the area more than NIMBYs wanting shorter stubbier buildings. In fact the people of the area actually allowed Avalon North to add ten more floors if they payed for the new library.

[kliq6]

Kliq, I disagree, and I have heard about the status of the project from a project manager at City planning. The development has already been considerably shortened, though the overall square footage has remained constant. City Planning has been clear that it supports the commercial building and the overall size of the project.

The NIMBYs already got their height reduction and the main issues are now not related to height.

Notwithstanding the wacky councilman's comments, the real issues on the table are supposedly waterfront access, schools, affordable housing and parking. I think the developer will have to offer significant concessions on these four issues. He has already made big concessions on height, and you can't go any shorter without sacrificing square footage, and the city has been clear that the overall size is appropriate.

We will all see

[elfgam]

They want less floor area too. So shorter buildings with less bulk. The Nimby's don't infuriate me as much as the politicians listening to them. The more attention the city and the press give Nimby's the more vociferous they'll become.

I agree -- i honestly think in speaking to people that at this point most people are not nimby's -- they are pro-development, it's just that nimby's are always so much more vocal and organized, while everyone else just shrugs and lets happen what happens. In Atlantic City for example what astounded me about the whole debate was that throughtout the entire argument, poll after poll after poll showed that the vast majority of people were for the project not against it. I wonder, if ordinary people were shown photographs of the originally proposed models and the shortened schemes which scheme people would pick... obviously the NIMBY's wouldn't stand a chance, especially once average people realized that so many of them aren't even acting in what they perceive to be the city/neighborhood's best interest -- just their own (i.e. views).

[antinimby]

^ It's amazing everyone knows that except the politicians. Their offices get flooded with calls from the NIMBYs giving them the impression that is the public speaking and so they feel like they have to act on their behalf.

ramvid, I was only using the LIC pics for aesthetic purposes only. I could have used photos of any fat towers from anywhere to make my point but the ones in LIC were the easiest to find around here (thanks sfenn).

[Derek2k3]

The towers in the model are hardly inspiring, is there any reason a Murray Hill/Turtle Bay resident would come out to support a giant box in his/her neighborhood? Instead, it should solely be up to the city to evaluate the economical and aesthetic impacts of the development towards the entire city.

Being that this is last large site in Midtown East, the city should be asking for something even larger and more daring. However, too often officials are blinded by these community groups who oppose anything that is out of line to what currently exists. I'm convinced, we'd be a city of brownstones if it were up to our current residents.

The city needs to take full advantage of the few Midtown and Downtown sites it has left. I question that once the West Side is built out, will skyscraper construction in Manhattan end? We're already at the point in Midtown where a developer must tear down an old tower or some kind of historic structure to throw something up.

I doubt we'll ever see low-mid rise residential neighborhoods usurped by skyscrapers again although I hope after the 2nd Ave line is done they'll upzone Kips Bay and those tower-in the park areas along the East River.



Anyway, here's a look back...


A Complex Plan's Aim: Simpler Zoning Rules

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DF133CF933A05752C0A9669C8B 63

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
Published: January 30, 2000

IN what may be the single boldest zoning proposal since 1961, New York City's planning chief, Joseph B. Rose, says he wants to simplify the rules governing the size of new buildings.

But even a simplified zoning proposal is not simple. Groups as sophisticated as the Real Estate Board of New York and the Municipal Art Society have had to hire zoning consultants to help them figure out what the amendment will do.

It is meant to curtail ''tower in a park'' zoning that yields buildings vastly out of scale with their neighbors, too tall and set apart on barren plazas from the street wall formed by older structures. The new zoning would impose height limits from 35 to 720 feet in most areas outside mid-Manhattan and lower Manhattan. And it would encourage buildings closer to the street wall.

Generally, current zoning rules impose no height limits. Buildings can rise as high as necessary to accommodate the floor area permitted on the site. For example, in R7 districts of small apartment houses, current rules encourage buildings of 14 to 16 stories, set back from the street line. The new rules would require a building with more of a street wall, rising no more than 80 feet, or seven to eight stories.

''What this does,'' Mr. Rose said, ''is give the comfort and security that buildings like this Trump thing aren't going to pop up.''

The Trump World Tower at First Avenue and 47th Street to which Mr. Rose was referring will be 856 feet tall, where the new rules would impose a 495-foot cap. It covers only 13 percent of the merged zoning lot from which it derives its development rights, where the new rules would require a minimum coverage of 33 percent. And it uses the development rights from one kind of zoning district (C1-9) to build in a different district (C5-2) -- a transfer that the new rules would prohibit.

Another project allowed under current zoning that would have been affected by the amendment is the Regal Cinemas multiplex and Barnes & Noble bookstore that Forest City Ratner is building at 100 Court Street in Brooklyn, which rises to 195 feet. Under the proposal, it would be capped at 140 feet. And the 50-story Madison Belvedere at 10 East 29th Street would not have benefited from a 20-percent development bonus for providing a plaza.

Next month, at the beginning of his seventh year as chairman of the City Planning Commission and director of the City Planning Department, Mr. Rose will formally send out the amendment for review by community planning boards. It is expected to reach the City Council by summer.

Both the real estate industry and civic watchdogs have tentatively given Mr. Rose and his colleagues an A (or at least a B+) for effort. But just as instructively, neither side has wholeheartedly embraced the proposal, partly to give themselves maneuvering room and partly because they are really not sure what land mines are buried, even inadvertently, among the 536 pages of revisions.

''When they talk about the devil being in the details, he's really hiding in this one,'' said Councilman Walter L. McCaffrey, Democrat of Queens, who heads the zoning subcommittee. ''On the other hand, Joe is being very bold, and I say that in a very positive sense, in trying to address this. He has to be lauded for the scope of this.''

Mr. Rose insists there is no hidden agenda masked by arcana. ''There are assumptions that you need to pore over it to see where the Trojan horse is,'' he said. ''There are no Trojan horses in this document.''

But even he admits, ''It's not 1 + 1 = 2.''

A broad amendment of the 1961 zoning resolution is long overdue, said Norman Marcus, former counsel to the planning department and a member of the zoning committee of the American Planning Association. ''We're dealing with a document that's nearly 50 years old and is carrying the intervening years on its back the way a whale carries barnacles,'' he said. The new rules, he said, will produce a ''more predictable, no-surprises kind of development.''

The Municipal Art Society is still studying the fine print, but its president, Kent L. Barwick, applauded the spirit of the proposal. ''The need to rezone New York is paramount,'' he said. ''Therefore, we're appreciative of the Giuliani administration's willingness to take it on.''


One of the savviest zoning experts in the city, Michael Kwartler, confessed to doubts about the ''19th-century format'' of regulations that try to anticipate every possible condition in advance. But he said generally about the proposal: ''It's a step in the right direction. It puts to rest the 'tower in a park' and that's a real plus. It takes the view that the city is a mature place and we ought to pay attention to that identity.''

The Real Estate Board, meanwhile, is scrambling to understand the practical implications of the zoning amendment. ''We're still in the process of digesting,'' Michael Slattery, the senior vice president for research, said last week. ''In some ways, this is kind of like a blueprint. You have to see how it works in reality.''

In an advertisement earlier this month, Steven Spinola, the president of the board, was quoted as saying, ''We see this as more positive than negative.''

Among the positive points, at least for the real estate industry:

* The exemption from many of the new rules, including height limits, of most of mid-Manhattan between Third and Eighth Avenues, 40th and 58th Streets, and much of lower Manhattan below Chambers Street.

* The elimination of a formula known as ''packing the bulk'' in high-density residential districts, which requires that 55 percent of the floor area on a zoning lot be located below 150 feet. Intended to curtail the transfer of development rights, this rule is despised by developers. (Ever see a condominium ad boasting third-floor views?)

* A rezoning of downtown Brooklyn that would preserve the right to build towers up to 495 feet in areas around Metrotech, Flatbush Avenue and Livingston Street where there would otherwise be a 140-foot limit. It would increase by up to 74 percent the allowable residential density in a nine-block area between Court and Smith Streets. A rezoning along Lexington Avenue, from 54th to 57th Street, would permit slightly taller buildings than are now allowed.

* A generous limit of 720 feet (fewer than 30 buildings in New York reach this height) for zoning district C5-3, which is mapped in the Court Square area of Long Island City, Queens, and might be used elsewhere.

Among the negative points for developers is the abolition of the 20 percent bonus granted as a matter of right for plazas in high-density residential districts.

''Residential plazas, even when well designed, have by and large not been a success,'' Mr. Rose said. ''We're uninterested in providing bonuses for non-amenities.''

One of the last projects in the pipeline with such a plaza is the Madison Belvedere near Madison Square. The developer, Adam R. Rose, president of Rose Associates, is the planning chief's cousin. But he said that as a matter of family policy, he and Joseph Rose never discuss public policy.

The plaza at the Madison Belvedere has been designed by Thomas Balsley Associates, Adam Rose said, and will be a boon to the neighborhood, including residents of the former Prince George Hotel, now a supportive housing project by Common Ground Community, across the street.

While acknowledging the problems of some plazas, Adam Rose said: ''The new ones really are maintainable and manageable. New York has never had enough green space. It's hard not to like them.''

Buildings like the Madison Belvedere, Trump World Tower and 100 Court Street that are under construction will not be affected by the new zoning. Neither will those that have a building permit and completed foundations when the measure is voted on by the City Council. This would presumably include the Alexander's site at Lexington Avenue and 59th Street, which would otherwise be subject to a 495-foot height limit, quite a bit shorter than the tower envisioned by the developer Steven Roth.

The Con Ed property south of the United Nations would have to be rezoned in any event. Mr. Rose said that a 495-foot height limit is contemplated on that site.

But the industry wonders what will happen to projects caught in zoning limbo. ''Grandfathering could be a serious issue,'' said Samuel H. Lindenbaum of Rosenman & Colin, the dean of the land-use bar and author of the zoning strategy that allowed Trump World Tower. ''You have some buildings that have been designed, where people have spent enormous sums on architectural plans and the financing is in place, but for some reason they can't get their foundations in time.''

Asked about the possibility of an intermediate ''grandfathering'' period in which buildings could conform to past zoning rules if it suited them better, Joseph Rose replied simply, ''What grandfathering?''

That is not say the planning chairman is ignoring objections raised by the industry.

For instance, in the rules as first drafted, the 120-foot height limit on community facilities like schools, medical centers and cultural institutions in medium-density districts such as R7 would have made it practically impossible to build double-height floors for an auditorium, cafeteria or gymnasium without sacrificing some of the overall floor area allowed on the site.

Mr. Rose said last week that the height limit would be adjusted to 140 feet.

The ease with which the adjustment was made, he said, underscored the appeal of the system. ''If you want to limit height, you don't need a complex formula,'' Mr. Rose said. ''You only need a simple number.''

ALTHOUGH height limits have received much public attention, the control that most worries the real estate industry may be the requirement that a tower occupy at least 33 percent of the total merged zoning lot from which it draws development rights.

This is intended to prevent the harvesting of air rights up and down a block for the purpose of piling up bulk on a single site, as was done in the case of Trump World Tower.

A merged zoning lot includes the parcel owned by a developer on which the new building will rise and those adjacent parcels owned by others from whom the developer has purchased unused development rights, which represent the difference between the size of the existing building and the maximum size that zoning would permit on the site. A 10,000-square-foot church on a site where a 100,000-square-foot tower could be constructed would have 90,000 square feet of unused development rights to sell.

But the Real Estate Board's zoning consultant, H. Thomas O'Hara, calculated that on a 20,000-square-foot merged zoning lot, half of it occupied by an existing building, the setback requirements would yield a tower with floors of 6,450 square feet -- or 32 percent of the lot -- which is below the allowable minimum of 33 percent.

''A very large church may not be able to transfer its development rights'' under the 33 percent rule, said Paul D. Selver of the law firm Battle Fowler.

One example is the Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul the Apostle at Columbus Avenue and 60th Street, which sold its air rights to the Brodsky Organization, developers of a 41-story tower next door at 2 Columbus Avenue. ''That tower was nowhere near 33 percent of the zoning lot,'' said Peter Claman of Schuman Lichtenstein Claman Efron, the architects of 2 Columbus Avenue.

Mr. Claman said the 33-percent rule ''definitely would affect the value of the property that the archdiocese has.''

And Mr. Slattery asked, ''Do you need 33 percent if you have a height limit?''

Mr. Rose seems unconvinced by such entreaties. ''It comes as no surprise to us that the industry would like to get rid of things that complicate their life and have as few substituting restraints as possible,'' he said. ''We're aware of their desire to build ever-taller buildings.''

''Does 33 percent have an implication for the transfer of air rights? Yes. Does it prevent them? No.''

Another aspect of multiple-lot development addressed by the new rules are sites that straddle more than one zoning district. The current rules are ''indecipherable,'' said Sandy Hornick, deputy executive director of the planning department.

As a result, they can be manipulated in such a way that a developer gets the benefit of the more liberal provisions from one district to build in another. The new rules would clarify which districts would be regarded as interchangeable. ''A Talmudic massaging of the zoning resolution shouldn't yield different answers for the same piece of property,'' Mr. Rose said.

Bruce S. Fowle, the co-chairman of the zoning task force of the American Institute of Architects, said, ''The concept of going to minimum lot coverage and height limits is a good one as far as controlling zoning lot mergers is concerned.

''But what really scares me is that we're saying that every building on the Upper East Side is going to be the same height and go straight up with a 33 percent lot coverage, have a flat top on it and be ugly as sin.''

Not at all, the planners respond. There is room within the prescribed envelope for variety and there is a special permit process to encourage exceptional architecture.

Height limits, lot coverage requirements and setback rules could all be modified by the planning commission and the City Council for a project if it ''exhibits superior design quality,'' in the language of the zoning text, and the modification ''significantly enhances'' the relationship between the new building and its surroundings.

The new building would also have to be designed in a way that ''maximizes sunlight on public parks and playgrounds'' nearby and permits ''adequate access of light and air to surrounding streets and properties.''

''To the extent that people want to do things that go beyond the box, let architects be the ones to earn it for developers, not lawyers,'' Mr. Rose said.

How will superior design quality be determined? With the help of a seven-member advisory panel appointed by the planning director and composed of ''persons with knowledge and experience in the areas of architecture and urban design.''

''It's an area where additional professional input could be beneficial,'' said David Karnovsky, counsel to the planning department. Mr. Rose said neither the commission nor the Council would be bound by the recommendation of the proposed panel.

Mr. Rose said he is certain this process will be used. ''We've already had requests from potential applicants,'' he said.

Others are less sure that good architecture will result or that developers and lenders, keenly conscious of time equaling money, would voluntarily undertake a discretionary review procedure.

''Great designs do not come out of committee sessions,'' said Costas Kondylis, the architect of Trump World Tower. ''Also, I think it's going to be an unpredictable process and most developers will shy away. It will take six months to a year, without any certainty of outcome.''

AS a ''ticket to something outside zoning,'' the notion of an advisory panel concerns the community group Civitas. But overall, said its president, Genie Rice, the proposed amendment is a ''wonderful initiative and very, very welcome.''

Her words were echoed by Mr. Barwick. ''The spirit of it is exactly right,'' he said. ''We'd like to support this package.''

In a new manifesto, ''Zoned Out,'' the society outlined its greatest concerns with the regulations as they now exist: the proliferation of overscaled towers and lifeless plazas; unrestricted zoning lot mergers; an allowance that permits educational, medical and cultural institutions to build structures in rear yards and the exemption of mechanical space from zoning calculations, even though it can add enormously to a building's bulk.

Among the questions it has raised about the zoning proposal is whether it might increase the development pressures in Midtown and downtown Manhattan, since they would not have height caps, while peripheral areas would be regulated. ''If you push the edges down, you may be pushing the middle up,'' Mr. Barwick said.

The planning department said that height limits would effectively cap the amount of unregulated mechanical space at about 10 percent. But Mr. Barwick said the Bear Stearns headquarters now rising on the block at Madison Avenue and 46th Street, which has more than twice that much mechanical space, would not have been affected since it is in a district without height limits. In any case, Mr. Rose does not want to try to regulate mechanical space too closely. ''You tread in this area at a great risk of standing in the way of technological innovation,'' he said.

Clearly, there will be much maneuvering in coming weeks, on and off stage. ''The hope,'' Mr. Lindenbaum said, ''is to get a proposal that each side will find better than what we have today.''


Copyright New York Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Given that the amount of tower development in 2000 pales to what it is now (especially in fringe neighborhoods), I'm surprised noone has been pushing for something like this again. I guess we can thank Bloomy and our new planning commissioner for that. Too bad they've downzoned nearly everything outside of Manhattan instead.

[BrooklynRider]

The towers in the model are hardly inspiring, is there any reason a Murray Hill/Turtle Bay resident would come out to support a giant box in his/her neighborhood?

Probably because they live in some of Manhattan's ugliest buildings and they'd probably like to be able to say, "At least I don't live THERE!!"

[ablarc]

Given that the amount of tower development in 2000 pales to what it is now (especially in fringe neighborhoods), I'm surprised noone has been pushing for something like this again. I guess we can thank Bloomy and our new planning commissioner for that. Too bad they've downzoned nearly everything outside of Manhattan instead.
This will result in bigger footprints, more parcel assembly and more demolition of smaller, older structures.

(Only way for a developer to get the profitable square footage, since height is blocked.)

Though the intention of this revision is good, the unintended consequences will outweigh the intended.

[Scraperfannyc]

OK, more sh-ty news.


"The Trump World Tower at First Avenue and 47th Street to which Mr. Rose was referring will be 856 feet tall, where the new rules would impose a 495-foot cap."

OK, I suppose they like them short and fat, like what they see in the mirror?

"Another project allowed under current zoning that would have been affected by the amendment is the Regal Cinemas multiplex and Barnes & Noble bookstore that Forest City Ratner is building at 100 Court Street in Brooklyn, which rises to 195 feet. Under the proposal, it would be capped at 140 feet."

Great accomplishment!

"A generous limit of 720 feet which is mapped in the Court Square area of Long Island City, Queens, and might be used elsewhere."

I would love to see a 1000+ footer rise in Queens to show people that Manhattan should strive in height, and not submit to the height limits of midtown.

"The Con Ed property south of the United Nations would have to be rezoned in any event. Mr. Rose said that a 495-foot height limit is contemplated on that site."

I wish they would advertize that "We like them short and fat, like the people who will work here." I'm sure the public will love it.

[ASchwarz]

Scraperfan, your quotes are ancient history.

That article dates from early 2000, and describes a proposal by Giuliani's head of City Planning. EVERYONE hated the idea (developers, politicians, community groups and supposedly even Giuliani) and so the idea was scrapped.

[Scraperfannyc]

Scraperfan, your quotes are ancient history.

That article dates from early 2000, and describes a proposal by Giuliani's head of City Planning. EVERYONE hated the idea (developers, politicians, community groups and supposedly even Giuliani) and so the idea was scrapped.

Oops, only read the bold. Glad to see that I am not the only one who hated these ideas. Still, I'd love to see a 1000+ footer rise in queens to spur on some height competition.

[kliq6]

Question: I question that once the West Side is built out, will skyscraper construction in Manhattan end?

Answer: for the most part yes.Enjoy this boom as the nest 20 years wil be the best this city will see in pure overall commercial construction

[elfgam]

Question: I question that once the West Side is built out, will skyscraper construction in Manhattan end?

Answer: for the most part yes.Enjoy this boom as the nest 20 years wil be the best this city will see in pure overall commercial construction

No -- firstly, it'll take more than 20 years, and secondly even when that is done, there will be sites in Brooklyn Downtown, Queens LIC, and so-on... and these are as much a part of "New York" as is Manhattan... the center may fill, but the city won't be done in our lifetime. ;-)

[sfenn1117]

With all the downzonings it wouldn't surprise me if the city was fully built out by the end of the century. Midtown could be within 50 years. Then what?

[alonzo-ny]

Answer:NO

No one can accurately predict what will happen, Manhattan is the most desirable location in the WORLD on a small island so imo it will not be over, old structures can be taken down, in the future maybe tall buildings will be taken down for much taller structures.

I wish they could knock down many of Moses projects on the waterfront for development.

[Scraperfannyc]

Well, when Manhattan runs out of office space, they will think in retrospect, and someone will think of a brilliant idea and say, gee, perhaps we should have built taller. There is no use in trying to rent out the spire either.

[stache]

^ Extremely good point.

[Jim856796]

The Con Ed development site consists of three blocks (four if you count the small orange-coloured building) all bounded by 39th Street, First Avenue, 42nd street, and Franklin Roosevelt Drive. The three blocks may be able to accommodate three 500 to 850-ft buildings.

[NewYorkDoc]

What about uptown? 125th?

[TonyO]

East River project moves forward

by amy zimmer / metro new york

> email this to a friend
AUG 23, 2007

MANHATTAN. Midtown’s East River waterfront is poised to undergo a massive facelift, but not without a fight from elected officials and residents.

Developer Sheldon Solow’s plans to transform the 9-acre former ConEd parcel between 35th and 41st streets with six luxury residential towers ranging from 37 to 69 stories, a 688-foot-tall office building and 1,500 parking spots. His application to change the area’s zoning passed an initial hurdle this week when the Dept. of City Planning kicked off the formal review process.

“It is far too big and far too dense for this neighborhood,” City Councilman Dan Garodnick told Metro yesterday.

He doesn’t support an office tower in a residential area, nor does he want the proposed buildings to dwarf the United Nations’ Secretariat. He’s also confused by the proposed number of parking spaces at a time when the city is trying to reduce Manhattan traffic.

But Garodnick also sees an opening.

With more construction on the horizon — the United Nations’ nearly $2 billion renovation and expansion of its headquarters is under way, and the state Dept. of Transportation is rebuilding the adjacent segment of the FDR Drive — he and other officials are calling for an overall plan for the area to include a grand waterfront park.

“Life doesn’t provide many opportunities like this,” said Kent Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society. “The public has been denied access to the waterfront for a long time. The industrial park of Con Edison had a forbidding chain link fence, and the U.N. was walled off even before 9/11.”

In June, the MAS brought together six leading landscape architects — including designers of MoMA’s roof garden and the High Line — to brainstorm. The group will present visions this fall.

Using a guiding principle to “elevate people, not cars,” the designers presented preliminary renderings with a deck over the FDR Drive, extending the ground level of First Avenue from 42nd to 38th streets.

While Solow’s application includes a platform, the developer’s 4.3 acres of open space falls short of what the community wants. Solow’s office did not return calls for comment.

“Nobody needs to lose” here, Barwick said. “It’s not like we’re asking Solow to go away or the U.N. not to build.”


Park plans

The U.N. has been pondering a possible waterfront esplanade with the Parks Dept. Parks officials plan to meet with Garodnick on Sept. 10 to discuss potential park plans.

[sfenn1117]

Plans for redevelopment of Con Ed sites near UN certified

Community Board 6 will hold six meetings next month of the plans by Sheldon H. Solow to redevelop the former Con Ed facilities along the East River south of the United Nations complex that the proposal notes was "built on Abbatoir Center, an area of slaughterhouse and stock yards."

The plans were certified into the Uniform Land Use Review Process August 20 by the City Planning Commission.

In June, 2006, Mr. Solow presented a significant revision of his plans to the community board that lowered the heights of the planned towers and repositioned a major park space with an oval pool closer to the eastern edge of the site. His previous plan called for several towers, the tallest of which would have been 864 feet high, 27 feet shorter than the Trump World tower on First Avenue and 47th Street, which aroused tremendous community opposition because it broke through the area's unofficial height limit of the United Nations Secretariat Building, the city's most important building along the East River that is 505 feet tall.

Earlier last year, the community board had submitted to the planning department its own specific development plan for the site that calls for much lower buildings, no commercial office space, the inclusion of affordable housing, a school, and public ownership of cross-streets, shadow studies and a comprehensive plan that envisioned the removal of the 42nd Street exit ramp from the FDR Drive and the decking over of the drive to create new park land and waterfront access.

Mr. Solow's plan has been designed by Richard Meier and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Margaret Taylor of SOM told the community board in June, 2006 that the housing units on the site will "likely" be a mix of rental and condominium units, adding that it then did not call for any "affordable housing." She said that the plan includes a five-story community facility of about 120,000 square feet that conceivably could be a school. Ms. Taylor said that the plan created a three-block-long promenade overlooking the East River at a height where the FDR Drive could be bridged over to create more public space and access to an esplanade along the river.

The development consists of two separated parcels fronting on First Avenue between 35th and 41st Streets and requires numerous public approvals.

The larger of the two parcels is T-shaped and comprises about two-thirds of the block between 39th and 40th Streets on the west side of First Avenue, identified as 685 First Avenue, and the three blocks to the east of First Avenue between 38th and 41st Streets and the FDR Drive, the southern part identified as 700 First Avenue and the northern part identified as 708 First Avenue. This parcel will be developed, according to papers filed with the city in June, with 2,267 apartments and a "significant amount of commercial office space, retail space," parking and "publicly accessible open space."

The 685 First Avenue development would consist of a 718-foot-tall, 69-story apartment building with a 110-space accessory parking garage.

The 700 First Avenue development would consist of three apartment buildings, a 689-foot-high, 66-story building, a 602-foot-high, 57-story building, and a 631-foot-high, 60-story building.

The 708 First Avenue development would be a 666-foot-high, 45-story building with 1,369,567 square feet of office space.

Below grade at 700 and 708 First Avenue would be a 651-space public parking garage and a 499-space accessory parking garage.
The second "parcel" of the proposed Solow plan is identified as 616 First Avenue and consists of the full block bounded by 35th and 36th Streets east of First Avenue and would contain 827 residential units in a 505-foot-high, 47-story building and a 431-foot-high, 37-story building with 113,063 square feet of community facility area in a five-story.


http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/

[Scraperfannyc]

At least there is some progress. 700 feet seems to the accpetable max. height in Midtown these days. Not anything at all astounding, but very respectable for a residential building. Thank you Mr. Trump for breaking the Nimby created UN height limit.

So what is Solow's track record with nimby's. Does he typically give in, or does he like to stick with his plans?

[Derek2k3]

I guess this can be considered good news. Of course the "community" will not be happy with this.

[alonzo-ny]

the unofficial height limit is ridiculous, the secretariat isnt famous for its height so whats wrong with building taller, its just stupidity. Im losing interest in this project, could have been monumental so unless the buildings are of create architectural merit im signing off on this one.

[Derek2k3]

So we get shorter buildings and an extra tower...

Old...
616 First Ave. 45 floors 578 feet - residential
685 First Ave. 67 floors 836 feet - residential
700 First Ave. A 63 floors 792 feet - residential
700 First Ave. B 50 floors 643 feet - residential
708 First Ave. A 57