PDA

View Full Version : Potential new large tower in Midtown (Roosevelt Hotel Site)



NYguy
February 5th, 2003, 09:15 AM
NY Post...

ROOSEVELT HOTEL GOING ON BLOCK
By LOIS WEISS

THE Roosevelt Hotel, where Guy Lombardo led his orchestra on New Year's Eve for many years, is for sale. An Eastdil group will begin marketing it as an office development site, sources said.

Named for President Theodore Roosevelt, the 22-story hotel takes up the full block bounded by Madison and Vanderbilt avenues and 45th and 46th streets, just south of the Bear Stearns Building.

Because it lies in the special Grand Central zoning district, the block could potentially be re-developed into an approximately 1 million square- foot office tower of a similar height and size to Bear Stearns.

But the question potential buyers will be asking is, "Can I afford it?" A developer would have to buy it for $150 million to $300 million, then lay out another $500 million or more to raze it and put up a new tower - all with war on the horizon, the economy tanking, office vacancies rising and no large tenant to anchor its construction.

The sellers are an entity of the state-run Pakistani International Airlines, which recently won its court battle against the Milstein family to exercise an old low-priced purchase option. Another $65 million was spent recently to freshen and tech-wire common areas and rooms.

Fabb
February 5th, 2003, 09:27 AM
I stayed at this hotel once. Before the construction of the Bear Stearns Bldg. Its architecture is mediocre. I wouldn't miss it.

Just Rich
February 5th, 2003, 12:21 PM
Hopefully this won't be another in the 700-800 foot range. *Skyline wise it would be a good spot for a 1000 footer or a nice 500 footer.

NYguy
February 5th, 2003, 02:00 PM
Quote: from Just Rich on 11:21 am on Feb. 5, 2003
Hopefully this won't be another in the 700-800 foot range. *Skyline wise it would be a good spot for a 1000 footer or a nice 500 footer.

The area isn't zoned for that; as it is reaching 800 ft is a bonus for the site....

NoyokA
February 5th, 2003, 04:48 PM
If im not mistaken this and the site at Bear Stearns were to be combined in what would be the Travelstead Tower. Maybe Im thinking of the wrong building though.

JerzDevl2000
February 5th, 2003, 04:50 PM
The Travelstead Tower, had it been constructed, would have been THE builing of the 80's because of it's height and very 80's looking design. One can only reminisce...

NoyokA
February 5th, 2003, 05:12 PM
Agreed. It was a masterpiece of that era. Here we will recieve another building of the same general height, it will not create an impact on the skyline. But there should be an interplay between the entities of Metlife, Bear Stearns.

JerzDevl2000
February 6th, 2003, 03:11 AM
Well thought Stern - I think Metlife and Bear Sterns play well off of each other. They are the same, just interpereted through the 60's and late 90s respectively. We have enough skyline "flatteners", it's time for more peaks. Chrysler, TWT, and Citicorp do well at it, but (maybe with the exception of Bloomberg) it just seems that most developers are contempt at stopping around 750-780 feet. I just dont' understand it!

dbhstockton
February 6th, 2003, 03:55 AM
Do developers have some kind of "formula" they use to determine economincally feasible height, or is it just superstition and guesswork? *What I hear most of the time is that the ratio of elevators and service space to leasable floor space becomes impractical after a certain point, usually 50-60 stories it seems. *

Residential buildings, for example, can be taller and narrower because they require smaller floorplates, allowing higher elevator/ leasable space ratios, etc. *Is there any one formula they use? *That is, before they start bending the zoning....

If Trump world Tower and the proposed New York Place are any indication (don't forget that the tops of AOL TW are resiedential, and good old John Hancock in Chicago), the next "peaks" on our skyline might be residential buildings. *I think that's realistically where our hopes lie in the next few years.

(Edited by dbhstockton at 2:57 am on Feb. 6, 2003)

NYguy
February 6th, 2003, 09:37 AM
I'm sure Trump's World Tower won't be the last or highest of his or any other developers plans for the skyline. *There's already the potential 90-story 1 NY Place tower downtown.
.................................................. .........................................

Valued 'South of $250M,' Hotel Roosevelt Hits the Market
By John Salustri

NEW YORK CITY-Sources close to the deal have confirmed that the Roosevelt Hotel, the time-worn Madison Avenue asset, is up for grabs, and Eastdil, vying with "several firms," has landed the marketing assignment. The property is currently owned by Pakistani International Airlines, doing business as PIA Investments Ltd. Eastdil officials did not return phone calls by deadline.

The confirmation ends a prolonged period of speculation about the future of the 1,000-room hotel, given "its location, its current condition and its age." But the question is how much can the 79-year-old lodging asset yield. The building underwent a recent renovation, but one contact characterizes the upgrades as "an effort to cure deferred maintenance issues. They were never of a nature that would completely reposition the property as a first-class hotel." He added that the property was valued at "well south of $250 million in 2000. It's certainly south of that now. But the question is what it's worth as an office site."

Probably on the lower end of the $150-million-to-$300-million range that has been bandied about, the source speculates, even though its characteristics are much better suited for office than lodging. These characteristics include an underground--and currently locked--passage to Grand Central terminal and a massive footprint. "All of this strongly suggests that an alternative use of the site as an office might be the highest and best use of the property."


http://www.globest.com/images/storyimages/roosevelt.jpg
Roosevelt Hotel

Fabb
February 6th, 2003, 05:03 PM
I don't totally agree.
Maybe that's true financially, but I think there's a risk of an excessive concentration of offices around that block.

Why not a mixed-use building with offices and a hotel that would replace the Roosevelt.
Well, I know developers don't like that kind of complexity.

dbhstockton
February 6th, 2003, 05:07 PM
I think mixed-use is the wave of the future -- AOL TW, Random House, New York Place proposal, etc.

Fabb
February 6th, 2003, 05:10 PM
The AOL-TW was known to be very expensive.
The Bloomberg Tower lost its hotel part in the process.
Definitely not an easy task.

DominicanoNYC
February 6th, 2003, 10:40 PM
Imagine if the next skyscraper battle becomes the battle of the highest residential tower. :) It's a crazy idea. If buildings were designed for the height and not for the comfort of the people then it turn into a contreversy.

Ptarmigan
February 8th, 2003, 06:00 PM
Sounds cool to me.

NYguy
May 26th, 2003, 07:55 AM
(NY Times)

Roosevelt Hotel, Near Grand Central, Goes on the Market

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

The Roosevelt, the dowager hotel near Grand Central Terminal, is being sold by its Pakistani and Saudi owners, who have controlled it for more than two decades.

Pakistan International Airlines, which is owned by the Pakistani government, and Prince Faisal bin Khalid of Saudi Arabia are putting the 1,013-room hotel on the auction block this week in the hope of raising about $225 million.

It is not the best time to sell a hotel, even one wrapped in limestone and antique French marble. Foreign tourists are scarce and room rates are down. But the 20-story hotel is being looked at by developers and hotel companies that see the rare opportunity to buy an entire block in the city's premier office district.

Some real estate executives said the Roosevelt, which sits on a one-acre parcel bounded by Madison and Vanderbilt Avenues, between 45th and 46th Streets, could even be demolished in the future to make way for a new skyscraper.

"You don't get much more prime real estate than this site," said John Fox, a senior vice president at PKF Consulting, a hotel consulting company. "The public areas are some of the nicest in New York, although the guest rooms are a little small. The question is: Is it worth more as something else?"

According to real estate executives, several hotel companies as well as developers like Donald J. Trump, Harry Macklowe, Sheldon Solow and Alan B. Friedberg are circling the hotel, which has a gilded ceiling in the lobby, marble floors and a brass pendant clock.

"I think the world's going to bid on it," said one developer, who added that he would be one of the bidders. "You could keep it as a hotel for a while and then do office development, but I think it works as a hotel."

The Roosevelt was to go on sale earlier this year, said Lawrence B. Wolfe, a managing director of Eastdil, the real estate investment bank representing Prince Faisal and Pakistan Airlines, but the process was delayed until after the war in Iraq.

The partners have decided to sell the Roosevelt, as well as the Hotel Scribe in Paris, to raise cash for the airline and to continue a government privatization effort in Pakistan.

The Roosevelt opened in 1924 as part of Terminal City, a complex of hotels and office buildings near Grand Central that were linked to the terminal by underground passageways. One of the first hotels to offer a health club, child care and a dog kennel, the Roosevelt was included in scenes from movies over the years, like "The French Connection," "Wall Street," "Malcolm X" and "Maid in Manhattan."

Like the railroad that built it, the hotel had fallen on hard times by the 1970's. The Loews Corporation paid $55 million to buy the Roosevelt in 1979 from the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad, along with two other railroad hotels, the Barclay (now the Intercontinental Hotel) and the Biltmore. Loews quickly resold the Roosevelt to Paul Milstein, a developer, for less than $30 million. (Mr. Milstein also bought the Biltmore, demolished it and built the Bank of America Tower.)

Nine months later, Mr. Milstein leased the hotel to a joint venture of the Pakistani airline and Prince Faisal for $2.7 million to $4 million a year in rent.

The airline and its partner, however, had more than $70 million in operating losses over the next 16 years, Aslam R. Khan, managing director of Pakistan Airlines Investments, said in an interview in 2000. The hotel took on a dowdy cast, with threadbare carpets and tarnished brass fixtures.

In 1996, the airline brought in a new management company and spent $58 million on renovation, and the hotel started to turn a profit. According to sales documents, the Roosevelt had a net operating income of $12.7 million last year and a 74 percent occupancy rate, down from $29 million in income in 2000 and an 84.8 percent occupancy rate.

The airline and the Saudi prince bought the hotel after becoming embroiled in a legal battle in 1999 with the Milstein family over the 20-year-old option to buy for $36.5 million. The Milsteins thought the property was worth about $250 million, but the State Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the airline.

Fabb
May 26th, 2003, 08:32 AM
I think it's too soon to build more offices. The market doesn't need much space right now, and I'm afraid the new building would be as mediocre as CIBC.
This site deserves better. Something of the size of the Chrysler building.

Evan
May 26th, 2003, 12:52 PM
Do you suppose a mixed use project similar to AOL Time Warner could rise at that site? *That area could use more than just offices, and a mixed use project will help justify a very tall skyscraper on that site.

Fabb
May 26th, 2003, 01:34 PM
That's true.
Would the zoning allow a very tall skyscraper ?
I'm afraid the project by KPF in the 80s was not authorized for that reason.

JMGarcia
May 26th, 2003, 02:16 PM
The neighborhood groups fought the KPF tower which used air-rights from neighboring buildings to legally get the proposed height but it was eventually lowered to become the Bear Stearns tower.

NYguy
May 26th, 2003, 03:52 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 7:32 am on May 26, 2003
I think it's too soon to build more offices. The market doesn't need much space right now, and I'm afraid the new building would be as mediocre as CIBC.
This site deserves better. Something of the size of the Chrysler building.

If a new tower were built on the site, it would be at least a few years before construction anyway. *As of yet, there are no plans for the site, and the building would have to be demolished.

Fabb
May 26th, 2003, 05:25 PM
You mean that in a few years the market would easily swallow the new offices ?
That's what I usually think.
But in this case, there are already several big projects on the waiting list : NYTimes, Pfizer... and the new WTC.

NoyokA
May 26th, 2003, 06:24 PM
Cross-block 237 Park Avenue has a better chance of getting off the ground first, it is further along atleast.

NoyokA
October 6th, 2003, 03:27 PM
nope, they own 237 already, the hotel is on Madison ave next to 225 park, another Max property. They are two different projects, and i doubt 237 will ever get that extension, doesnot make sense

kliq6:

Do you think its possible air-rights could be combined from the Helmsley Building, 237 Park Avenue, and maybe Grand Central, to create one super tower?

Derek2k3
October 17th, 2003, 07:05 PM
GlobeSt.com UPDATE: Roosevelt Hotel is Not for Sale
By Barbara Jarvie
Last updated: Oct 15, 2003 08:45AM

NEW YORK CITY-Proving the adage it ain't over 'til it's over, the sale of the Roosevelt Hotel has been called off, according to inside sources. A few weeks ago, all the bids were in for the 1,013-room property owned by a joint venture of Pakistan International Airlines and Saudi Arabia's Prince Faisal, but now refinancing is the favored course of action.
The joint venture had operated the hotel since 1979 and acquired the surrounding land in 1999.

In early February, GlobeSt.com reported that the value of the property was nearly $250 million, but questioned whether plans were in the works to demolish the property in favor of an office building. According to a report published last week in a Pakastani newspaper, a $244 million bid from Donald Trump was rejected, but a second lower bid was about to be accepted. Eastdil was the exclusive advisor on the sale.

Named for President Theodore Roosevelt, the 43,313-sf site is bounded by Madison Avenue, East 45th and 46th streets and Vanderbilt Avenue. The hotel has just completed a makeover, according to its website, with a $3 million soft good renovation to 1,013 guest rooms and suites; and a $100,000 renovation to the Madison Club Lounge lobby bar. That renovation updated its look with new carpeting, tables, chairs, lighting, artwork, couches and bar stools. The guest room makeover included the replacement of all carpeting, duvets, pillows, and drapes, plus the addition of a sofa chair, a desk lamp with Internet and DC plugs and an ergonomic desk chair.


Imagine what Trump would have done with all those air rights he could have bought too.

matt3303
October 17th, 2003, 11:45 PM
Ehhh.......that stinks. With this not happening and NY Times running into rocks, these last few days have been dissapointing from a building persepctive.

TLOZ Link5
October 18th, 2003, 01:14 AM
Eh, I'd prefer a renovated classic New York hotel to Trump Tower Grand Central.

kliq6
October 19th, 2003, 06:13 PM
Stern, i would have said yes to you, when i heard it thatway, but if the Hotel plan is off the shelf i guess nothing will happen, i just hope then now that 237 gets that 1 million sf extension.

kliq6
August 2nd, 2004, 07:24 PM
the building is no longer for sale so i assume this project is dead

kliq6
June 6th, 2007, 05:47 PM
In the near future, big news will come of the future of this hotel, stay tuned

Derek2k3
June 16th, 2007, 01:29 AM
This is a much nicer building than the Hotel Penn. Whatever they replace it with better be good.

BrooklynRider
June 17th, 2007, 11:08 PM
Bear Stearns had proposed to raze it and build a WTB on the site about 10 years ago, before they killed the idea and went with their new building next door.

antinimby
June 18th, 2007, 12:36 AM
Whatever they replace it with better be good.In this city? I wouldn't bet on it.

londonlawyer
July 11th, 2007, 09:02 AM
NY's decline is hastening. The following sad story is in the JUly 11th edition of the NY Post. I can't believe that Midtown's gems are being destroyed. Midtown sucks. It will look like Chicago with all new buildings.

ROOSEVELT'S UP FOR SALE AT COOL $1B July 11, 2007 -- NO sooner did we whis per the Roosevelt Hotel as being a potential development site last Friday then we were tipped that it was actually coming to market - and could sell for, gulp, $1 billion as an office development site. Just over a year ago, the Pakistani government, which owns the 1,013 room hotel as PIA Investments, bought out its 50/50 Saudi partner, Prince Faisal bin Khalid of Saudi Arabia.

Infighting and Pakistani political factionalism stopped an earlier sales effort in 2003 that would have brought in around $225 million slated to be used to purchase new jets for its airline.

Sources said Cushman & Wakefield will be marking the hotel through its Fab Foursome: Richard Baxter, Ron Cohen, Scott Latham and Jon Caplan. The company declined comment.

At a breakfast meeting at Michael's yesterday morning, C&W executives were bullish on the ongoing sales and leasing markets, as vacancy rates have dropped to 5.3 percent and asking rents are up to $75.79 a foot in Midtown, a 35 percent jump since this time last year.

The hotel occupies nearly a full-acre block just north of Grand Central Terminal bounded by 45th and 46th Streets, Vanderbilt and Madison avenues.

Its 43,000 foot site can be built to 800,000 feet as-of-right, but attorneys say that special district air rights can be piled on to create a skyscraper that could leap to 1.5 million feet.

Potential bidders are being advised to compare the hotel to the site next to the Museum of Modern Art which sold for $775 a buildable foot, but is mid-block near Sixth Avenue.

Over a number of years making strategic land and air rights purchases, Macklowe Properties paid around $950 a foot for the Swisshotel Drake New York at Park Avenue and 56th Street, which they have changed from a residential hotel to offices.

Office rents have since climbed markedly in the city with 18 deals completed at over $125 a foot this year alone versus 16 in all of last year.

Fabrizio
July 11th, 2007, 09:12 AM
Roosevelt Hotel "The City Review"

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thecityreview.com/roose1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.thecityreview.com/roose.html&h=396&w=267&sz=83&hl=it&start=11&um=1&tbnid=Yvfm-534JbE_RM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Droosevelt%2Bhotel%2B%26svnum%3D10%26u m%3D1%26hl%3Dit%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Dit-it%26sa%3DN


Bring it on! : dark, dreary, boring, flea-bag, run-down, no-big-deal, like-so-many-other-buildings-in-the-area, there-are-better-examples, we-need-the-office-space...


---

ASchwarz
July 11th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Based on a number of similar threads, I guess many at Wired New York vehemently oppose the development of any site that isn't a taxpayer or a parking lot. Quite sad, and completely antithetical to the idea of New York. I am very thankful that your opinion is rare; under your vision New York would be a giant Detroit. There would certainly be no Midtown, nor would the vast majority of existing landmarks been built.

It's especially ironic that LondonLawyer claims a 1.5 million trophy Grand Central office tower (guaranteed to be filled with bulge bracket firms and private equity and hedge fund shops, all paying massive corporate and income taxes and directly linked to the remainder of Grand Central and Terminal City) is indicative of decline, while the crappy Roosevelt Hotel, home of airline crews and tourists and languishing under absentee ownership, is somehow indicative of prosperity.

Recently, Wired New York seems less of an architectural and development forum, and increasingly just another NIMBY powwow.

londonlawyer
July 11th, 2007, 11:57 AM
...It's especially ironic that LondonLawyer claims a 1.5 million trophy Grand Central office tower....

The Roosevelt is a beautiful, old building that simply needs to be spruced up. I favor redevelopment of dilapidated sites. I can show you at least 100 in Midtown that should be redeveloped. In my opinion, this is not one of them.

ASchwarz
July 11th, 2007, 01:44 PM
There are many office development sites, but they all have substantial older buildings that will need to be demolished or extensively altered.
The various little isolated taxpayers and the like are not appropriate for office space, because modern office towers need big floorplates. Those little taxpayers will likely see hotel or residential construction, but not office space.

Scraperfannyc
July 11th, 2007, 07:01 PM
NY's decline is hastening. The following sad story is in the JUly 11th edition of the NY Post. I can't believe that Midtown's gems are being destroyed. Midtown sucks. It will look like Chicago with all new buildings.

ROOSEVELT'S UP FOR SALE AT COOL $1B July 11, 2007 -- NO sooner did we whis per the Roosevelt Hotel as being a potential development site last Friday then we were tipped that it was actually coming to market - and could sell for, gulp, $1 billion as an office development site. Just over a year ago, the Pakistani government, which owns the 1,013 room hotel as PIA Investments, bought out its 50/50 Saudi partner, Prince Faisal bin Khalid of Saudi Arabia.

Infighting and Pakistani political factionalism stopped an earlier sales effort in 2003 that would have brought in around $225 million slated to be used to purchase new jets for its airline.

Sources said Cushman & Wakefield will be marking the hotel through its Fab Foursome: Richard Baxter, Ron Cohen, Scott Latham and Jon Caplan. The company declined comment.

At a breakfast meeting at Michael's yesterday morning, C&W executives were bullish on the ongoing sales and leasing markets, as vacancy rates have dropped to 5.3 percent and asking rents are up to $75.79 a foot in Midtown, a 35 percent jump since this time last year.

The hotel occupies nearly a full-acre block just north of Grand Central Terminal bounded by 45th and 46th Streets, Vanderbilt and Madison avenues.

Its 43,000 foot site can be built to 800,000 feet as-of-right, but attorneys say that special district air rights can be piled on to create a skyscraper that could leap to 1.5 million feet.

Potential bidders are being advised to compare the hotel to the site next to the Museum of Modern Art which sold for $775 a buildable foot, but is mid-block near Sixth Avenue.

Over a number of years making strategic land and air rights purchases, Macklowe Properties paid around $950 a foot for the Swisshotel Drake New York at Park Avenue and 56th Street, which they have changed from a residential hotel to offices.

Office rents have since climbed markedly in the city with 18 deals completed at over $125 a foot this year alone versus 16 in all of last year.

Chicago today is building taller than in Midtown Manhattan. They have been having less issues with replacing well built buildings with short fat boxes. Chicago seems to find the right spots to build to begin with. The same is true with downtown NYC. Downtown NYC development impresses me, but midtown development depresses me.

BPC
July 11th, 2007, 07:06 PM
The Roosevelt Hotel is one of a dying breed of grand old hotels, of the sort that are not built now and will never be built again. This City has a chronic hotel shortage. Yes, it has an office space shortage as well, but as LL notes, there are lots and lots of developable parcels without destroying the City's elegant old buildings.

ASchwarz
July 11th, 2007, 07:07 PM
Scraperfan, Chicago is completely different from Midtown Manhattan.

Chicago has high commercial vacancies, low commercial rents and relatively little office space planned or U/C. If anything, they have too much existing office space relative to demand.

The tall Chicago buildings proposed, planned or u/c are residential.

Chicago also has completely different zoning and little or no NIMBYism.

Finally, Chicago doesn't have even a tenth of the historic streetscape of Manhattan. Most new buildings are built on one of the many surface parking lots.

There's no comparison.

ASchwarz
July 11th, 2007, 07:09 PM
The Roosevelt Hotel is one of a dying breed of grand old hotels, of the sort that are not built now and will never be built again. This City has a chronic hotel shortage. Yes, it has an office space shortage as well, but as LL notes, there are lots and lots of developable parcels without destroying the City's elegant old buildings.

Where are these "lots of lots of developable parcels" in Midtown East?

There are development parcels, but they are on sites with large existing buildings like the Roosevelt Hotel.

Scraperfannyc
July 11th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Scraperfan, Chicago is completely different from Midtown Manhattan.

Chicago has high commercial vacancies, low commercial rents and relatively little office space planned or U/C. If anything, they have too much existing office space relative to demand.

The tall Chicago buildings proposed, planned or u/c are residential.

Chicago also has completely different zoning and little or no NIMBYism.

Finally, Chicago doesn't have even a tenth of the historic streetscape of Manhattan. Most new buildings are built on one of the many surface parking lots.

There's no comparison.

OK, but even assuming everything you say is true regarding Chicago, this still does not explain the differences between Midtown and Downtown Development. I have a feeling, although I could be wrong, that Sheldon Silver has an interest in making sure Downtown keeps its wonderful old buildings and builds the tallest and most splendid buildings at the same time. I just believe that Midtown can build much better buildings and at locations that either do not have anything or at locations with rundown walkups that NYC has too much of.

ASchwarz
July 11th, 2007, 07:25 PM
I'm not sure I understand. The vast majority of future office space will be in Midtown. Hudson Yards alone will have a tremendous amount of space. How can you judge before we've even seen renderings?

MidtownGuy
July 11th, 2007, 07:29 PM
Based on a number of similar threads, I guess many at Wired New York vehemently oppose the development of any site that isn't a taxpayer or a parking lot. Quite sad, and completely antithetical to the idea of New York. I am very thankful that your opinion is rare; under your vision New York would be a giant Detroit. There would certainly be no Midtown, nor would the vast majority of existing landmarks been built.

It's especially ironic that LondonLawyer claims a 1.5 million trophy Grand Central office tower (guaranteed to be filled with bulge bracket firms and private equity and hedge fund shops, all paying massive corporate and income taxes and directly linked to the remainder of Grand Central and Terminal City) is indicative of decline, while the crappy Roosevelt Hotel, home of airline crews and tourists and languishing under absentee ownership, is somehow indicative of prosperity.

Recently, Wired New York seems less of an architectural and development forum, and increasingly just another NIMBY powwow.

^Bile.

ASchwarz
July 11th, 2007, 07:33 PM
^
Thoughtful response and entirely expected given its source.

MidtownGuy
July 11th, 2007, 07:58 PM
It's the only response that kind of post deserves.

NoyokA
July 11th, 2007, 08:48 PM
Let's be careful to refrain from personal insults.

ZippyTheChimp
July 11th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Finally, Chicago doesn't have even a tenth of the historic streetscape of Manhattan. Most new buildings are built on one of the many surface parking lots.It sure is cool that Chicago doesn't want to protect its landmark buildings.

There are preservationists in Chicago - or should we just give them the blanket name NIMBY.

http://lynnbecker.com/repeat/farwell/farwell.htm

Scraperfannyc
July 11th, 2007, 08:53 PM
I'm not sure I understand. The vast majority of future office space will be in Midtown. Hudson Yards alone will have a tremendous amount of space. How can you judge before we've even seen renderings?

Can't say much for the Con Ed site. And as developers will knock down famous buildings in more central locations to build 30 story boxes in midtown, the need for more office space in locations that need development, such as the hudson yards, lessons, and these grand plans might be scaled down or dissappear along with the famous art deco buildings. I see two big losses-- the famous art deco buildings in midtown, and the scaling down or elimination of great new buildings in locations that need development. Two birds killed with one stone.

JohnFlint1985
July 11th, 2007, 09:31 PM
I think this city has to take a deep breath and acknowledge that midtown is out of space. Developers should start developing Queens waterfront, Uptown, Brooklyn. At least more aggressively than now. Manhattan should be preserved with more zeal than it is done now. All these news about old hotels being tore down -- makes me feel like the whole city will be one giant office of glass. NO soul, no signature, no history. Sorry, but we should be more inclined to-wards style and design than simply height.

pianoman11686
July 11th, 2007, 10:42 PM
I have a feeling, although I could be wrong, that Sheldon Silver has an interest in making sure Downtown keeps its wonderful old buildings and builds the tallest and most splendid buildings at the same time.


And as developers will knock down famous buildings in more central locations to build 30 story boxes in midtown, the need for more office space in locations that need development, such as the hudson yards, lessons, and these grand plans might be scaled down or dissappear along with the famous art deco buildings. I see two big losses-- the famous art deco buildings in midtown, and the scaling down or elimination of great new buildings in locations that need development. Two birds killed with one stone.

What the hell are you talking about?


I think this city has to take a deep breath and acknowledge that midtown is out of space. Developers should start developing Queens waterfront, Uptown, Brooklyn. At least more aggressively than now. Manhattan should be preserved with more zeal than it is done now. All these news about old hotels being tore down -- makes me feel like the whole city will be one giant office of glass. NO soul, no signature, no history. Sorry, but we should be more inclined to-wards style and design than simply height.

This preservation business is getting to people's heads and is creating a collective sense of chaos on this forum. I echo most of what ASchwarz said: I cannot recall ever seeing as much anti-development sentiment here, or to as fierce an extent, as has come about over the past month or so.

NoyokA
July 11th, 2007, 11:05 PM
This preservation business is getting to people's heads and is creating a collective sense of chaos on this forum. I echo most of what ASchwarz said: I cannot recall ever seeing as much anti-development sentiment here, or to as fierce an extent, as has come about over the past month or so.

I agree with you to a large extent. The Roosevelt Hotel adds to the streetscape but does nothing for the skyline. Its architecture is rather unremarkable. Before I pass judgment I’m going to hold out to see what might replace it. If it’s a glass box than I’ll be upset to see it go, it’s not the Drake, so I won’t be infuriated, I’ll just be rather disappointed. If the replacement is architecturally significant, it doesn’t even have to be tall, than it’ll be a worthy replacement. New York City is defined by progress and progress is defined by growth and change, I support progressive development and architecture; that is new developments that are far greater than what it is replacing. Case in point Time Warner Center replacing the Coliseum and case in point of a detrimental project is the Drake; a 30 storey glass box replacing an architectural gem is not what NYC is all about. A landmark should replace a landmark. Time will tell how I feel about the development at the Roosevelt Hotel but the Roosevelt Hotel is not landmark worthy and I’m optimistic that perhaps a landmark building will replace it.

pianoman11686
July 11th, 2007, 11:09 PM
Honestly, I don't think it even adds to the streetscape at all. I walk by it fairly often in the mornings on the way to work, and it's a dark, foreboding streetwall, with some very unremarkable retail. I've actually been looking forward to hearing news about this hotel's potential demolition.

NoyokA
July 11th, 2007, 11:13 PM
The problem with my theory is that it is very idealistic and many times you don’t know if the new development will be “progressive” or not until it is already approved and the existing building is already demolished. Just as important as the Landmarks Commission New York needs an Architectural Review Board that could balance such concerns, I don’t see why countless nothing towns and cities have Architectural Review Boards and New York City doesn’t, especially considering that almost everything else about New York City development is socialistic anyway, its ashame that perhaps the most important aspect, the design, isn't.

NoyokA
July 11th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Honestly, I don't think it even adds to the streetscape at all. I walk by it fairly often in the mornings on the way to work, and it's a dark, foreboding streetwall, with some very unremarkable retail. I've actually been looking forward to hearing news about this hotel's potential demolition.

What I like about the Roosevelt Hotel is that the brick provides a nice contrast to all the glass. But now that I think about it, Vanderbilt Avenue and the base are rather dark and dreary. If the brick was cleaned it might alleviate the base's foreboding presence, but whose to say that whatever replaces it cant be an architectural statement with a brick construction, again we need an Architectural Review Board to make such suggestions.

NoyokA
July 11th, 2007, 11:32 PM
Chicago today is building taller than in Midtown Manhattan. They have been having less issues with replacing well built buildings with short fat boxes. Chicago seems to find the right spots to build to begin with. The same is true with downtown NYC. Downtown NYC development impresses me, but midtown development depresses me.

A couple of things; Chicago developed differently from the start, land was cheap and parcels were large enabling enormous loft and warehouse construction, it was defined by horizontal development, when property values appreciated it was easy to demolish existing brownfield properties and erect large buildings. New York City has strict zoning, a FAR hovering around 10-20, so unless you assemble a gigantic site and include a large low-rise or plaza feature or assemble an insane amount of neighboring air-rights you are going to have difficulty pushing 50 storeys. Most developments involve air-rights because New York developed differently, the grid ensured that parcels wouldn’t be too large and when they did naturally develop they were developed with small buildings, walk-ups, tenements, and brownstones, making it difficult to acquire large parcels. Lastly I have to nitpick, Chicago has had more than its fare share of architectural losses, and downtown development is not all that rosy, sure you have Beekman and the WTC and 50 West Street, but you have a lot of McSams and a lot of other new buildings like 2 Gold Street.

TREPYE
July 12th, 2007, 12:24 AM
There are many office development sites, but they all have substantial older buildings that will need to be demolished or extensively altered.
The various little isolated taxpayers and the like are not appropriate for office space, because modern office towers need big floorplates. Those little taxpayers will likely see hotel or residential construction, but not office space.


I'm not sure I understand. The vast majority of future office space will be in Midtown. Hudson Yards alone will have a tremendous amount of space.

The contradiction of the month folks :p:rolleyes:. If we are getting all of this office space in Hudson Yards why the HELL do we have to eliminate the historical texture of NYC?!?!:confused:

Derek2k3
July 12th, 2007, 01:06 AM
I agree with Piano, Stern, & ASchwarz. It's not a great building, it just provides a nice contrast to all the glass. Like Hotel Penn, my opinion on its demolition is dependent on what replaces it. I'm inclined to bet that a 1.5 msf tower will be much more of a landmark than what sits there now.

Rather than trying to save everything old for fear of what may replace it, we need to devote ourselves to getting better buildings. Remember, this and Hotel Penn demolished lots of older buildings for their own constructions.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1031/781900679_b08c7cbd82_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1222/781900707_e9f5dd4e26_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1111/781900645_02e3bc3aaa_o.jpg
Just being big goes a long way in this city. The Bear Stearns Building is not nearly as finely crafted as the hotel but is a more notable building. Would anyone support demolishing Bear Stearns for the Roosevelt? If only there was some way of guaranteeing greater replacements.

antinimby
July 12th, 2007, 01:25 AM
Is there any place where those air rights from the hotel can be transferred to instead?

This way the hotel can be saved while another, otherwise stumpy tower can grow taller, making it a win-win situation for the city.

ASchwarz
July 12th, 2007, 01:28 AM
The contradiction of the month folks :p:rolleyes:. If we are getting all of this office space in Hudson Yards why the HELL do we have to eliminate the historical texture of NYC?!?!:confused:

Midtown East isn't Hudson Yards, and Hudson Yards will serve an entirely different market. Hedge funds and Private Equity firms are in Midtown East.

BPC
July 12th, 2007, 02:35 AM
City planners should be encouraging development throughout the City, and not just sandwiching in a few more glaxss boxes withing walking distance of GC. This whole business is very short-sighted. If the City pushed a little more aggressively to rebuild Penn Station, it would all of a sudden find itself with a new transit hub with developable sites all around.

lofter1
July 12th, 2007, 03:17 AM
Would anyone support demolishing Bear Stearns for the Roosevelt?

What does such a (ridiculous) hypothetical question ^^^ have to do with anything that is being dicussed?

ZippyTheChimp
July 12th, 2007, 08:02 AM
This preservation business is getting to people's heads and is creating a collective sense of chaos on this forum. I echo most of what ASchwarz said: I cannot recall ever seeing as much anti-development sentiment here, or to as fierce an extent, as has come about over the past month or so.Thanks for clearing everyone's head.

Maybe what you call chaos is a sense that Manhattan is slowly giving up, not only its old buildings, but its development opportunities, replaced by disappointing banality that will transform it, not into a new Manhattan, but a new Anycity.

Maybe what you call development, we call chaos. In another thread, ASchwarz expressed support for Sam Chang and his personal architect. I find it strange, not only that these buildings are going up, but that they are going up now. What will historians conclude when they try to figure out why we got this "style" during an upswing in the city's fortunes?


Just being big goes a long way in this city.... If only there was some way of guaranteeing greater replacements.The solution would be easy if the city was interested in setting minimal standards, but it isn't. Some developers do it on their own, but they are in the minority.

ablarc
July 12th, 2007, 08:05 AM
^ So the problem is Bloomberg and Burden?

ZippyTheChimp
July 12th, 2007, 08:17 AM
^
You'd have to add the City Council.

I know it's not quite as simple as this, but the real estate market is a good barometer.

If we were having this debate in the 70s, it would be ridiculous for the city to make these demands on developers.

lofter1
July 12th, 2007, 11:10 AM
Recently, Wired New York seems less of an architectural and development forum, and increasingly just another NIMBY powwow.

IF that ^^^ were true (which I don't believe it is) blame can be laid to the fact that we find ourselves in mid-July -- and little of any great import is divulged development-wise from now through Labor Day.

Instead, the citizens of NYC recently have been presented with the overbearing design for 5WTC, Sam Chang's latest abomination, the destruction of the Drake Hotel and the impending doom of what many deem to be a Landmark-worthy building. Not to mention other rather depressing events (very well chronicled by LondonLawyer :cool: ).

Not much to sing about there.

Screaming and complaining does seem to be the more appropriate response. Letter writing, too -- although in most cases the horse is already out of the barn.

Meanwhile many here are singing the praises of Piano's Times Tower, cheering construction next door at 11 TS Plaza, and celebrating the topping out of the B of A Tower & 1 York.

All in all things at wny seem pretty balanced to me.

I guess it all depends upon how one sees it.

elfgam
July 12th, 2007, 11:48 AM
This preservation business is getting to people's heads and is creating a collective sense of chaos on this forum. I echo most of what ASchwarz said: I cannot recall ever seeing as much anti-development sentiment here, or to as fierce an extent, as has come about over the past month or so.

One can certainly be pro-preservation and pro-development. I usually tend to side with the pro-development crowd, but i know that this is because I am having a backlash to ny's preservationists's tendencies to reject everything. In general I think hotels like the Roosevelt and the Drake ought to be preserved, but incorporated into new structures that rise above them alla porter house or hearst. I also think on sites of little or no note, so such as on stretched of lexington avenue or 90% of midtown west, then adventurous architecture and vertigo inducing height should be encouraged.

But let's not turn this into a knee-jerk pro-development v. preservationist debate... again, one can certainly be both.

Scraperfannyc
July 12th, 2007, 12:16 PM
There are people on this forum that believe that any development must be the best. The majority here do not think that way. This is like saying any new restaurant replacement in NYC must be good. However, replacing Katz's Deli or a 5 star botique restaurant with a giant McDonalds when this McDonalds could have just as easily replaced one of the many dunken donuts in the city may not be such a good thing. Or replacing the 2nd Avenue Deli with a Bank does not bring smiles to most people. Not much to cheer about, but there are those who will believe that anything new is progress.

Taking away a good thing is never a good start when there are so many other better options.

BrooklynRider
July 12th, 2007, 02:50 PM
There are people on this forum that believe that any development must be the best. The majority here do not think that way...

Very interesting statements. Sorry I missed the voting for forum spokesperson. Was Scraperfannyc the only nominee?

Scraperfannyc
July 12th, 2007, 03:01 PM
Very interesting statements. Sorry I missed the voting for forum spokesperson. Was Scraperfannyc the only nominee?

There was a pole on another thread dealing with the Penn Hotel. I think the results were something like 60:40 favoring preserving the hotel which would make the developers build the office space on one of the kazillion duane reades or 5 story tenements, etc., etc., etc.

The response you gave is typical of one in denial, lack of knowledge or a sore looser and not one of fact based opinion. There is plenty of that to go around, but I think intellegent opinions based on fact are much more interesting.

stache
July 12th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Was it the North Pole or the South?

Jasonik
July 12th, 2007, 05:32 PM
This hotel, contrary to my opinion of the Penn (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175130&postcount=443), should be saved. It has fine detailing, massing and workmanship. It is a fine and relatively pristine example of the style. Allow the transfer of its air rights and scrub it clean.

http://www.jlmnj.org/ama/orig/Roosevelt-Hotel.jpg

antinimby
July 12th, 2007, 08:25 PM
^ So the problem is Bloomberg and Burden?

^
You'd have to add the City Council.
I know it's not quite as simple as this, but the real estate market is a good barometer.
If we were having this debate in the 70s, it would be ridiculous for the city to make these demands on developers.I don't understand how any of these people are responsible for what's going on lately with these hotels.




One can certainly be pro-preservation and pro-development. I usually tend to side with the pro-development crowd, but i know that this is because I am having a backlash to ny's preservationists's tendencies to reject everything. In general I think hotels like the Roosevelt and the Drake ought to be preserved, but incorporated into new structures that rise above them alla porter house or hearst. I also think on sites of little or no note, so such as on stretched of lexington avenue or 90% of midtown west, then adventurous architecture and vertigo inducing height should be encouraged.
But let's not turn this into a knee-jerk pro-development v. preservationist debate... again, one can certainly be both.Your position sounds a lot like mine.




This hotel, contrary to my opinion of the Penn (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175130&postcount=443), should be saved.I agree but why hasn't it?

On one hand, you've got some dubious structures all over the city that gets landmarked while many grander ones aren't. :confused:

JohnFlint1985
July 12th, 2007, 09:29 PM
On one hand, you've got some dubious structures all over the city that gets landmarked while many grander ones aren't. :confused:[/quote]

it is very possible that people who decide what to preserve are influenced by the Major or big business. So something that does not look good for prospective development - gets on the protected list. While real gems get the wrecking ball due to their high value, location, footprint and potential for future development.

ZippyTheChimp
July 12th, 2007, 09:48 PM
^
2cc

kliq6
July 16th, 2007, 10:36 AM
of the three, the Drake in my opinion is the biggest lose. While im a fan of this building, I do expect a decent tower to rise here, based on the two firms currently bidding to buy it. The Hotel Penn on the other hand is a mess and not that grand of a structure, thus I myself wont miss it

MikeW
July 16th, 2007, 01:10 PM
Landmarking is a political process. I'm sure that lots of campaign cash flows to influence this process.


On one hand, you've got some dubious structures all over the city that gets landmarked while many grander ones aren't. :confused:

it is very possible that people who decide what to preserve are influenced by the Major or big business. So something that does not look good for prospective development - gets on the protected list. While real gems get the wrecking ball due to their high value, location, footprint and potential for future development.[/quote]

Scraperfannyc
July 16th, 2007, 09:58 PM
Landmarking is a political process. I'm sure that lots of campaign cash flows to influence this process.



it is very possible that people who decide what to preserve are influenced by the Major or big business. So something that does not look good for prospective development - gets on the protected list. While real gems get the wrecking ball due to their high value, location, footprint and potential for future development.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I've seen the biggest garbage get protected. I remember Mayor Bloomberg going out to Williamsburg or closeby to protect the redevelopment of a shaddy warehouse because a few grumpy old men did not want to see the old factory/warehouse change the street scene they are used to seeing. Not to talk about the develop don't destroy brooklyn team opposing the Atlantic Yards which thankfully have not succeded yet. Geez.

I'd have to say, I would not be against demolition of these nice buildings if I liked the buildings going up, but I am constantly very dissappointed at what goes up. If these guys are going to put up blah, why can't they at least take down blah instead. There is more of that to take down around Manhattan. NYC should be built more grand than this.

JohnFlint1985
July 18th, 2007, 10:11 PM
Yep. I've seen the biggest garbage get protected. I remember Mayor Bloomberg going out to Williamsburg or closeby to protect the redevelopment of a shaddy warehouse because a few grumpy old men did not want to see the old factory/warehouse change the street scene they are used to seeing. Not to talk about the develop don't destroy brooklyn team opposing the Atlantic Yards which thankfully have not succeded yet. Geez.

I'd have to say, I would not be against demolition of these nice buildings if I liked the buildings going up, but I am constantly very dissappointed at what goes up. If these guys are going to put up blah, why can't they at least take down blah instead. There is more of that to take down around Manhattan. NYC should be built more grand than this.[/quote]

Nothing new about that. Landmark commision supposed to be filled with architects, art people - not politicians. Otherwise you only see one side of the medal. I went to the hotel on Saturday and look inside and around it. It needs some work, mainly dusting on the outside. But inside it reminds me Plaza hotel, maybe on a less grand scale. So in my mind there is no question that the hotel has to be preserved. I also visited Drake and Penn hotel. I am going to post pictures soon. Another matter is that developer may not live up to their promises on building as high as they say in the beginning. Looks at Drake site and the same maybe happening at Penn. I understand that they are trying to get the most out of their investment and as soon as possible, but someone should hold them responsible to their word. Otherwise we loose something which in my mind is a masterpiece and instead a get a pile of garbage.

londonlawyer
July 19th, 2007, 08:13 PM
Since the asking price for the Roosevelt is $1b, I don't see why someone doesn't pay a huge sum to buy a disgusting building like 530 5th Ave. and redevelop it.

Scraperfannyc
July 19th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Since the asking price for the Roosevelt is $1b, I don't see why someone doesn't pay a huge sum to buy a disgusting building like 530 5th Ave. and redevelop it.

I have a hunch that Hotels are easy prey as many of these are being bought and torn down by developers. Nobody lives in them, and nobody leases them. I cannot think of any other reason.

Derek2k3
July 20th, 2007, 03:18 PM
I don't really see why this building should be landmarked, can anyone name anything exceptional about this? If this is considered, nearly everything built before 1940 in Manhattan should as well.

Perhaps there should be separate category for nice buildings, such as this, where their demolitions would require a certain approval that is dependent on the replacement's design.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1153/859379175_08ce989fe2_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1304/859382305_0ccee10aaa_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1431/859379213_c87bb84fe8_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1282/859379249_97c7119258_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1232/859379231_ce8c611405_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1007/859379169_f71129fd7c_o.jpg
If the Roosevelt is landmark, shouldn't these across the street be considered as well? There are dozens of these types of buildings.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1182/859382329_31c5974fe0_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1242/859382319_0113d8d59a_o.jpg

ablarc
July 20th, 2007, 03:26 PM
It's the totality and consistency of the townscape, Derek. That was first compromised by the recladding of this hotel's brother on 42nd Street. The area is losing its character fast. The hotel is urbane and fits right in --just like the Pernnsylvania. I wouldn't mind if they added twenty or thirty stories on top.

I like your idea:

Perhaps there should be separate category for nice buildings, such as this, where their demolitions would require a certain approval that is dependent on the replacement's design.

londonlawyer
July 20th, 2007, 03:51 PM
If the Roosevelt is landmark, shouldn't these across the street be considered as well? There are dozens of these types of buildings.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1182/859382329_31c5974fe0_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1242/859382319_0113d8d59a_o.jpg

Yes. They should be landmarked.

antinimby
July 20th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Derek, you've got to completely get rid of the notion that a landmark building has to have a lot of ornamentation or have some sort of characteristic that makes it completely unique. While these two attributes certainly make an ideal case for landmarking, they should not be the only criteria.

To me, the Roosevelt's (as well as the Pennsylvania and the Drake's) age and the stately presence it projects warrants preservation and even the LPC, according to their own definition (http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/working_with/recommend.shtml), concurs:


The Landmarks Law requires that, to be designated, a potential landmark must be at least 30 years old and must possess "a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation".

It is a total shame and heartbreaking that those three beautiful hotels should go while this filthy Sheraton, as seen below above the red snowman ad, lives on.

http://i7.tinypic.com/4tsys2c.jpg

BPC
July 20th, 2007, 06:25 PM
The photos also don't show the stately old interior lobby, which is really a great space of the sort they don't make anymore.

londonlawyer
July 20th, 2007, 06:29 PM
...

It is a total shame and heartbreaking that those three beautiful hotels should go while this filthy Sheraton, as seen below above the red snowman ad, lives on.

http://i7.tinypic.com/4tsys2c.jpg

I totally agree. The Hilton on 6th should be razed too.

antinimby
July 20th, 2007, 06:33 PM
But of course, you know they wouldn't be. Ugly always manages to survive, at least in this snake-bitten city.

We lose the Pennsylvania, the Drake, the Roosevelt and gain a whole lot of McSams.

Yeah this place is getting more beautiful and classy with each passing day. :rolleyes:

Fabrizio
July 20th, 2007, 08:37 PM
It disappoints me greatly that there are those don't see the greatness in a grouping of buildings like this. Isn't this the NYC we fell in love with? What do YOU personally get out of seeing this exotic Gotham landscape destroyed? And exotic it is.

You want to know what I think when I hear some of the stuff that I do on this forum?

I think: what do these kids eat? Do they appreciate art? Do they know fine things? Do they enjoy the theatre, opera... the classics in the arts?

Do they look up when they walk around the city? Looking is easy.... but do you SEE?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1242/859382319_0113d8d59a_o.jpg[/QUOTE]

JohnFlint1985
July 20th, 2007, 09:46 PM
I have to repost this again pixtures trouble

lofter1
July 21st, 2007, 12:46 AM
The Roosevelt has been very well kept up (in the public areas anyway) and is beautiful inside.

Unfortunately the Hotel Penn lobby is a dump -- a match for a low-end mall somewhere near Topeka.

Scraperfannyc
July 21st, 2007, 02:54 AM
Hmm, to analogize this situation, it is like seeing old 1960's vintage mustang cars being replaced with new Hondas when there are alot more beat up ford taurus cars that could have been replaced instead. Yet, people love to see this happen on this forum.

lofter1
July 21st, 2007, 12:44 PM
Please clarify & expand upon this ^^^ statement ...

Not sure WTF you 're saying :cool:

ablarc
July 21st, 2007, 12:54 PM
^ Seems pretty clear to me. He's saying some folks on Wired New York favor replacing nice old buildings like the Roosevelt with up-to-date buildings of average merit, when there are plenty of desperately crappy buildings that could be replaced instead.

Derek2k3
July 21st, 2007, 03:37 PM
Hmm, to analogize this situation, it is like seeing old 1960's vintage mustang cars being replaced with new Hondas when there are alot more beat up ford taurus cars that could have been replaced instead. Yet, people love to see this happen on this forum.

No. I want to replace the old 1960's vintage mustang car with a Mercedes Benz SLR.

Though it often seems so, all future projects in this city aren't destined to be Hondas. We just need a way to guarantee this.

Scraperfannyc
July 21st, 2007, 03:52 PM
^ Seems pretty clear to me. He's saying some folks on Wired New York favor replacing nice old buildings like the Roosevelt with up-to-date buildings of average merit, when there are plenty of desperately crappy buildings that could be replaced instead.

Of course older buildings in poor condition can be fixed up as well. Look at 90 West Street after 9/11. So much of the original detail needed to be replaced to it's original condition. It was in much worse condition than any of these hotels being torn down.

Of course , I am 100% for seeing magnificent new buildings go up. I keep mentioning Downtown NYC is keeping it's old vintage buildings in good condition, and it is building the most magnificent new buildings in NYC as well. I think Midtown needs to improve on both of these.

Scraperfannyc
July 21st, 2007, 03:54 PM
[QUOTE=Derek2k3;177883]No. I want to replace the old 1960's vintage mustang car with a Mercedes Benz SLR.

I would agree with this, however, I like to have my cake and eat it too. I want both.

Fabrizio
July 21st, 2007, 03:55 PM
London gets to rival (some claim surpass) NYC as the world's business and financial capital ...with out tearing apart it's historic center.

Why is that?

ASchwarz
July 21st, 2007, 04:38 PM
London gets to rival (some claim surpass) NYC as the world's business and financial capital ...with out tearing apart it's historic center.

Why is that?

I strongly disagree. They have destroyed much of the City, both during the urban renewal area and in recent years. I don't understand why everyone always praises London office architecture. The typical London office building is a squat, brutalist bldg. from the postwar era. Recent years have seen some beautiful new buildings, but there's also lots of gimmicky crap that IMO will not age well.

Also, Midtown is not a "historic center". It was a residential district until the 1920's. I don't consider a 20th Century neighborhood to be a "historic center', equivalent to London's City or West End. The historic center of NYC is south of Midtown to the Battery, and is pretty well preserved.

Also, many of their trading floors are in Canary Wharf, which is equivalent to Jersey City and the overall Jersey waterfront, and workers generally dislike working in such isolated locations.

Finally, these are apples to oranges comparisons. In the UK, financial firms can only be in London. In The U.S., they can be anywhere, though IMO smart firms know they need a large presence in NYC.

I will be happy to see this dreary building demolished. This section of Madison was really tired looking until Bear Stears was built. To me, a new Foster, Pelli or even KPF would be icing on the cake.

If the 42nd/Madison S.L. Green site gets redeveloped, it will be even better.

Dan C
July 21st, 2007, 08:48 PM
http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/41/59/4/459418099206_0_ALB.jpg

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/91/20/7/720918099206_0_ALB.jpg

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/70/89/75/4/475897099206_0_ALB.jpg

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/21/79/6/679218099206_0_ALB.jpg

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/92/19/9/919928099206_0_ALB.jpg

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/12/31/1/131128099206_0_ALB.jpg

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/62/32/5/532628099206_0_ALB.jpg

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/32/26/6/626328099206_0_ALB.jpg

A few pictures from Roosevelt hotel I made - for those never been inside it reminds Plaza hotel on a lesser scale.

Your photos aren't loading for me, I'd love to see them. Anyone else having this problem?

dan c

tmac9wr
July 22nd, 2007, 12:27 AM
I can't see them either

stache
July 22nd, 2007, 02:46 AM
Me either.

lofter1
July 22nd, 2007, 11:38 AM
hmmm ... I can see them all, clear as day :confused:

stache
July 22nd, 2007, 01:00 PM
Which browser do you use?

lofter1
July 22nd, 2007, 02:40 PM
Internet Explorer

stache
July 22nd, 2007, 06:39 PM
Ah ha!

Derek2k3
July 22nd, 2007, 07:38 PM
Yea, I couldn't see them using Firefox either. If you copy the url (don't copy "[url]") and paste it into your browser they'll show up. They're nice pictures, I'm persuaded to jump on the preservation bandwagon. Since demolition won't be happening for some time, you guys have a better chance of getting organized and getting the commission to landmark this. Of course it depends on how much you and other New Yorkers care...


[url]http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/91/20/7/720918099206_0_ALB.jpg

[url]http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/70/89/75/4/475897099206_0_ALB.jpg

[url]http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/21/79/6/679218099206_0_ALB.jpg

[url]http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/92/19/9/919928099206_0_ALB.jpg

[url]http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/12/31/1/131128099206_0_ALB.jpg

[url]http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/62/32/5/532628099206_0_ALB.jpg

[url]http://images.kodakgallery.com/photos3950/2/99/80/32/26/6/626328099206_0_ALB.jpg

macreator
July 23rd, 2007, 12:21 AM
Beautiful lobby. It's funny, the building looks sort of shabby from the outside with the mishmash of retailer signs and dirty facade, but if it were given a good scrubbing, a new main awning, and a uniform style of signs for its ground floor retailers, it would look like a million bucks. It's the small things that often add up.

JohnFlint1985
July 23rd, 2007, 12:28 AM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1229/865038303_776d215740_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1085/865038229_10b7acc768_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1298/865894706_a95f53a74d_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1319/865037705_8c99268d89_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/865037461_b7b9a57bc2_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1114/865893564_56267e8867_b.jpg

I am very sorry, I had some trouble with pictures and now I am reposting them. This is mostly inside of the hotel. I also have outside pictures - if someone is interested please let me know.

lofter1
July 23rd, 2007, 12:55 AM
Just try to re-produce that fantastic black & white stone which is found all the way around the Roosevelt at street level ...

Such work will never be seen again in our lifetimes.

JohnFlint1985
July 23rd, 2007, 01:05 AM
Just try to re-produce that fantastic black & white stone which is found all the way around the Roosevelt at street level ...

Such work will never be seen again in our lifetimes.


I think it is some sort of marble. I think it is possible to reproduce, but highly unlikely any company will want to do this since it costs extra. We live in a very cheap age by my standards so... nothing to be surprised with.

lofter1
July 23rd, 2007, 01:33 AM
Of course it COULD be done -- it's just that it WON'T be done.

Which is just ONE reason to strongly consider saving the Roosevelt.

londonlawyer
July 23rd, 2007, 11:09 AM
I wonder why no one is looking to raze the POS Roger Smith on Lex. It is the only ugly hotel on Lex in the 40's.

kliq6
July 23rd, 2007, 11:48 AM
I totally agree. The Hilton on 6th should be razed too.

Actually there are possible plans to do just that.

As for the quote from landmarks, thats true except that it is one of the most easily bought organizations in the city and there upper class membership really only care about preserving certain residential buildings, most of them can care less what happens in the central business districts, especially Midtown

macreator
July 23rd, 2007, 06:37 PM
While I hate the base of the Hilton on Sixth, and its slab form factor, I have to say that I like the tower section's glass facade. Perhaps I'm alone with this feeling. I also like the Time & Life building's facade.

Derek2k3
December 22nd, 2007, 01:24 PM
The New York Observer

Roosevelt Hotel's Rough Ride Toward Sale Could Be A Lot of Bull Moose
Its prime location could fetch serious rupees—but does Pakistani government even want to sell?

http://www.nyobserver.com/files/imagecache/article/files/Tales-PervezMusharraf1H.jpg

by Chris Shott
December 18, 2007

Four years ago, the proprietors of the old Roosevelt Hotel planned to put the place up for sale.

Revenues were down, as the city’s tourism industry still had not fully recovered from Sept. 11. But the owners were sitting on a veritable gold mine: a whole one-acre block with a fancy Madison Avenue location, rising right around the corner from Grand Central Station.

Forget the horrendous hospitality business. Talk about a prime spot for a new office tower!

All the big names were rumored suitors for the seemingly doomed hotel lot. Among them: Donald Trump, Harry Macklowe, Vornado Realty Trust, the Related Companies. Mr. Trump, for one, reportedly offered $244 million for the location.

The sale never happened.

Instead, the hotel simply made do with a mere $3 million worth of so-called “soft” renovations, including a spruced-up bar area, rooms outfitted with ergonomic chairs and old bedspreads replaced with far more fashionable duvets. (It has since made further upgrades, including even newer duvets.)

The improvements seemed to come at the right time, as tourism soon rebounded. “The hotel has generated more revenues in the last couple of years than it has in its existence,” said Kevin Croke, the Roosevelt’s director of sales and marketing.

The Observer camped there on Sunday night for $195, plus tax. On another night, the same room could cost as much as $700.

So why is ownership yet again mulling a sale?

Perhaps the duvets provide too simple a solution.

The off-again, on-again, long-rumored dumping of the 20-story Italian Renaissance-style limestone and marble building at 45 East 45th Street, erected in 1924 in tribute to former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, has been called, in the words of one prominent politician, a “national tragedy.”

Not in the United States—but in Pakistan.

For the past 27 years, the historic hotel has operated under the auspices of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), whose biggest financial backer is, of course, the Pakistani government. Hence, why the Roosevelt’s swanky, 3,900-square-foot Presidential Suite seems so routinely occupied by visiting Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (and also why the streets outside are, at similar times, filled with demonstrators).

At first, the Pakistani airline, in partnership with Saudi Prince Faisal bin Khalid, only leased the hotel. But, in 1999, the partners exercised an option to buy the property from Manhattan developer Paul Milstein for $36.5 million, a sum that Mr. Milstein unsuccessfully contested in court, asserting the site was ultimately worth a whole lot more—as much as $250 million.

Two years ago, the PIA increased its ownership stake, acquiring nearly full control of the hotel; its Saudi partner now holds a mere 1 percent of the stock.

That’s good news for the airline, because the hotel, which reportedly lost tens of millions of dollars over the first 16 years under Saudi-Pakistani control, is about the best thing going for it.

Turns out, Pakistan’s air-travel industry isn’t all that different from America’s, saddled as it is with rising oil prices, higher salary demands of its workforce and increasing competition. “The financial health of the airline has progressively deteriorated so that today the situation has reached alarming proportions,” PIA chairman Zaffar A. Khan has stated.

The airline’s most recent quarterly report pegs operating losses through the first nine months of 2007 at 5.9 billion rupees. (That’s roughly $96 million.)

No wonder, then, that the Pakistani government’s Privatization Commission has often discussed selling the hotel—making as many as 15 contradictory decisions over the years, according to one Pakistani news outlet—as a way to raise funds for the foundering airline.

This past summer, the Pakistani government enlisted New York-based banking giant Citigroup and New York-based real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield to act as financial advisers on a possible sale.

Various reports have placed the recommended price tag anywhere from $400 million to upward of $1 billion.

A source close to the advisory group told The Observer that virtually anything could be done on the site. (The old hotel isn’t landmarked or anything.) It could remain a hotel. Or it could be converted into offices. It could also slowly evolve into an array of uses—part-condo, part-hotel, part-retail.

But, so far, nothing has changed. The property hasn’t even made it to market.

The issue has become a political football back in Pakistan, marred by allegations of cronyism. Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, it turns out, used to work for Citigroup.

And there are financial considerations as well. Selling the property made a lot of sense when the hotel wasn’t making money; not so much now that the lodge has become the most lucrative part of the state-sponsored airline’s otherwise unremarkable portfolio.

According to multiple reports in Pakistani newspapers, the hotel is expected to generate profits in excess of $7.5 million this year, and future estimates predict that sum increasing to about $22 million annually over the next decade.

This past September, airline boss Zaffar Khan himself traveled to New York to check out the hotel operation firsthand. When he got back, he urged the government not to rush it to market, noting that the hotel had improved dramatically since the renovations.

Love the duvets!

In recent weeks, the political situation in Pakistan has only intensified, with frequent hotel guest President Musharraf at one point declaring martial law. The controversial sale, needless to say, has slipped considerably down the country’s list of legislative priorities.

“You’re dealing with a crazy part of the world,” a source close to the advisory group told The Observer. “This could go on for years and years.”
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
This article was published in the December 24, 2007, edition of The New York Observer.

ablarc
December 24th, 2007, 09:48 AM
“You’re dealing with a crazy part of the world,” a source close to the advisory group told The Observer. “This could go on for years and years.”
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
This article was published in the December 24, 2007, edition of The New York Observer.
Where are all the Pakistanis rising in righteous indignation?

lofter1
December 24th, 2007, 11:04 AM
The Citizenry rising in righteous indignation does not seem to be the way of the world these days, no matter where one looks.

Turning away in disguntled complacency might be a better description of where The People be at now :(

macreator
December 24th, 2007, 01:54 PM
I've grown to like this hotel a great deal. It would be a real shame to lose one of the last remnants of Terminal City.

MidtownGuy
December 24th, 2007, 02:45 PM
If THAT building, with THOSE incredible interiors is torn down, I will lose all faith in the future of this city. How revolting to think that this is what we have come to.
I hope the Pakistanis don't sell, and if they do that it is to someone that is actually a human being and not one of these destructive wolves we call developers nowadays. Tearing this down to put up a glass tower with cardboard interiors is a f88cking disgrace and I don't care how tall it would be.

ablarc
December 25th, 2007, 10:44 AM
It's a short, simple form (http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/forms/request_for_evaluation.pdf) and it'll only take a few minutes of your time. Just print it out, fill out some information and then send it out. Easy as 1, 2, 3.
Just did this, but will it carry any weight coming from (way) out of state?

antinimby
December 25th, 2007, 09:36 PM
It's hard to say. While they don't mention anything about restricting the petition process to only city residents, you'd have to think that it does have some influence, considering how the LPC seems to respond well only when there is heavy public (community) pressure.

Nevertheless, since it doesn't take much effort, I don't think it hurts to give it a try anyway. I also believe that, regardless of where the pressure comes from, as long as they are flooded with requests for a certain building, you stand a better chance of getting their attention. That's why others here have to help out also.

By the way, as evidence that this petitioning does work, earlier this year, when there was word that the Lord & Taylor building might be on the chopping block, we did the same thing and lo and behold a few months ago, we find out that building will finally get landmarked so I know it does work.

Thanks to you ablarc and anyone else who might have also sent in the form.

Christopher667
December 28th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Thank you antinimby for providing the information and link. I sent in a "Request for Evaluation" form and will get other people I know to do so as well. It certainly can't hurt. Great pictures of the building, which appears to be in beautiful condition (unlink the Pennsylvania) are available on the hotel's website.
http://www.theroosevelthotel.com/

Wouldn't it be a good idea for us lovers of NY buildings to identify buildings that we love, that are not landmarked and are not threatened with demolition? The least we could do is bring such buildings to the attention of the LPC while there's ample time, instead of a last ditch effort which always seems to end unhappily. A wave of evaluation requests backing one particular building may get our voices heard once in a while. Would anybody be interested in such an endeavor?

MidtownGuy
December 28th, 2007, 10:23 PM
Most definitely!

Alonzo-ny
December 29th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Can a sticky thread be opened for this? Specifically for people who want to identify buildings and combine our efforts on them.

stache
December 29th, 2007, 07:15 PM
I will try.

Edit - Mission accomplished. If y'all will PM me with thread titles and post #'s I will move any other info on petitions for other buildings into our new sticky.

Christopher667
May 30th, 2009, 02:34 PM
I received a response this morning in reference to the evaluation request form I submitted sometime last year for the Roosevelt Hotel. Does this mean things are going in the right direction, or is it just a standard issue response?

It reads:
In response to the information you submitted concerning the property referenced above, a senior staff committee of the LPC has reviewed the property for consideration as a potential individual landmark. The property referenced above will be presented for further discussion to the Commissioners, who will determine whether to calender a designation hearing for this property.
At this time, the interior rooms of the property will not be recommended to the full Commission for further considerion as a NYC interior landmark. The decision not to recommend further consideration is based on the current priorities. This decision could be reconsidered at a later date should additional information about the property's significance become available.
We want to thank you for your interest in histric preservation and in the work of the LPC.

Sincerely,
Mary Beth Betts

RandySavage
May 30th, 2009, 02:45 PM
That sounds like they actually thought about your proposal. The responses I get are typically more boilerplate.

^Kudos for getting in touch with them. Interior definitely deserves landmarking:
http://www.hotelsoftherichandfamous.com/hotels/the-roosevelt-hotel-new-york-city/the-roosevelt-hotel-new-york-city-default.jpg

Derek2k3
August 27th, 2012, 04:17 PM
There was a plan a few years back to tear down the hotel to build a tower with a Nordstrom in the podium.
Surprisingly SOM designed a 670' BOX. Now with the upcoming upzoning on hand, expect a new proposal for an even bigger box in a few years.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5632801726_432cd4a440_b.jpg


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5378410775_006dc29cfa_b.jpg

Massforma

http://massforma.com/arch/nordstrom-tower/#panel-1

Alfred Huang was the Senior Designer responsible for the schematic design and planning for the project. This mixed use proposal was an attempt to bring retail giant Nordstrom into Midtown Manhattan. Situated on the prominent retail corridor of Madison Avenue, the the seven story podium animates the streetscape, adding 280,000 square feet (26,000 square meters) of exciting retail opportunities. The project takes full advantage of the zoning envelope as it rises to 670 feet (200 meters) above the retail podium with typical office floors at 22,500 square feet (2,100 square meters). The design accounts for existing MTA Metro North railroad underground by offsetting tower infrastructure and generating a dynamic interlocking of programs and services.

Alfred Huang designed the project in 2008 while employed with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP.

Images by Philip Michael Brown Studio

londonlawyer
August 27th, 2012, 05:47 PM
Thank goodness that tragedy was averted.

lofter1
August 27th, 2012, 07:10 PM
... the the seven story podium animates the streetscape, adding 280,000 square feet (26,000 square meters) of exciting retail opportunities.


Really? REALLY???

Looks more like Corporate Hell to me.

Way too much Kool Aid at SOM and elsewhere.




http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5378410775_006dc29cfa_b.jpg

stache
August 27th, 2012, 07:42 PM
The Roosevelt has so much character at the base. I would hate to see it go.

Christopher667
February 15th, 2014, 04:52 PM
Any updates on this? Are there still plans for this site? Did the LPC ever make a determination?

londonlawyer
February 15th, 2014, 05:17 PM
Any mullah that razes this tower warrants torture by the Taliban.

BPC
February 15th, 2014, 06:57 PM
The Roosevelt Hotel's lobby is really lovely -- something from another era. But the owners of the hotel don't seem interested in renovating the rest of the hotel, I am guessing because it will be a tear-down at some point. (I have had friends stay there and the rooms are crap.) Ultimately, its location is just too valuable for there to be anything on the site other than a giant glass rectangle. The LPC could save it, but as the LPC email writer above points out, the agency has far more important "priorities", such as saving the escalators at 510 Fifth Avenue. What an incredible loss to the City's architectural heritage that would have been.

antinimby
February 15th, 2014, 08:20 PM
It is amazing how all the callous, philistine developers always seem to gravitate towards the most beautiful treasures in this city with the sole intent of razing them. Aren't there enough crappy sites around for them to build on?

Christopher667
February 15th, 2014, 10:31 PM
Interesting article about some of the building's architectural features.
http://hdc.org/hdc-across-nyc/manhattan/proposed-east-midtown-rezoning-proposed-individual-landmarks/attachment/roosvelt-hotel-web

Christopher667
February 15th, 2014, 10:35 PM
Midtown East buildings at risk. Includes the Roosevelt Hotel.
http://www.nylandmarks.org/advocacy/preservation_issues/proposed_midtown_east_rezoning_targets_historic_bu ildings

Stroika
February 16th, 2014, 11:37 AM
Ultimately, its location is just too valuable for there to be anything on the site other than a giant glass rectangle.

I agree this is the most likely result - and this makes me sick. However, I don't understand the logic behind your statement. Why does a valuable location mean we are damned to a miserable, mind-numbingly dull glass box? Wouldn't one think that a highly valuable location would (should) merit higher, not lower, investment in architecture? That a developer is effectively guaranteed high-paying tenants when building in prime real estate, and the more "trophy-like" the building the more likely he is to both lure the most attractive tenants and to be able to get a premium out of them?

Don't the least-valuable locations merit the more poorly designed/constructed buildings, not the most-valuable ones?

antinimby
February 16th, 2014, 12:04 PM
You didn't get the sarcasm?

mariab
February 16th, 2014, 01:14 PM
That's "new money" for you.

ramvid01
February 17th, 2014, 11:05 PM
Money doesn't buy good taste that's for sure.

RoldanTTLB
February 18th, 2014, 07:34 PM
I think we are strongly handicapping the general public's appreciation of architecture while severely discounting how generally pleasant glass boxes are to actually have to live and work in. They have great views, are really bright, and are reasonably easy to make attractive from the inside even as they age. The same cannot, generally, be said of storied prewar architecture, as nice as we make it out to be.

stache
February 18th, 2014, 07:59 PM
There's a whole thread somewhere here about the Roosevelt being demolished. I think it goes back to before the bubble burst etc.

antinimby
February 18th, 2014, 10:17 PM
Lord knows there are plenty of all-glass options out there for anyone who prefers to live in a fishbowl. As for offices, there are less and less non-glass buildings everyday as they either get converted (or in this dumbass city, demolished to make way for yup you got it, more glass boxes!) so that is a non-issue.

At some point, if not already, glass office buildings will outnumber the non-glass ones so that is hardly a problem.

And I think we are overestimating the demand or love that are out there for glass. Maybe in many developer's minds they think glass is the latest and greatest but many prewars (and new non-glass buildings like 15 CPW) get some of the highest prices in the city.

I'm sure most people wouldn't pick living in a glass tower in Dallas over a prewar in Paris.

RoldanTTLB
February 18th, 2014, 10:44 PM
Well two things. One, it'd probably be an office, and there is near limitless demand for glassy offices. Developers aren't building stuff they can't make money on, and masonry heavy office buildings are out. Two, it's all about location. Sure one would prefer a prewar in Paris to a glass tower in Dallas, but what about a glass tower in Paris. Amazing. Anyway, 15CPW certainly has high prices, and is clearly desirable, but so are TWC, and One57, and 432Park. And they're all quite glassy. Also, even though it is not all glass, even 15CPW is mostly glass, and the living spaces are particularly glassy.

antinimby
February 18th, 2014, 11:01 PM
Limitless demand for glass offices? Tell that to Silverstein, he'd love to hear about that. Anyway, isn't it silly for you to argue for glass office buildings since that is all you'll be getting anyway? It's like you preaching to the choir (who in this case, are developers).

My argument instead rests with residentials. I am not convinced there is such a love affair with all-glass as you might think. 15 CPW may or may not be mostly glass (who's going to actually measure every square inch of facade surface?) but importantly, it is NOT ALL-GLASS.

RoldanTTLB
February 18th, 2014, 11:58 PM
Well, again, it's about location. There's no limitless demand for anything downtown. Downtown is just not great for office space. Anyway, I am on the fence about whether there is huge demand for all glass in residentials. I think at the high end, where heating/cooling/window treatmenting the things, the demand is actually just fine. On the other hand, all glass is a HUGE pain in the middle and low end, and where I don't think there is as much of it there, and why when it is built, it's not as popular. When, in this case marginal, owners/renters are hit with the expenses of an all glass building, the tension is great. Think the whole 110thirdworld fiasco a number of years ago. It's almost like the added challenges of owning sports cars. They're a tough row to hoe for any but the most well healed purchasers.

BBMW
February 20th, 2014, 06:00 PM
You're crossing the commercial and residential markets. There's a 98.678% chance that when the Roosevelt site gets redeveloped, it will be commercial. Who knows, maybe there'll be some hotel element included in the site. But I REALLY doubt that they'd build residential in that location.

Masonry wall construction is now more expensive than glass wall. Masonry is also heavier, so it creates a need for a heavier, and therefor more expensive structure. For something like 15 CPW, where they're selling the building (and for tippy top dollar), they can use it as a selling point. Commercial renters don't care. They want as flashy as possible, with the best views possable, at the lowest rent possible. The cost savings with glass curtain wall construction gives the landlord more margin to play with. No one actually involved in the transaction cares what the curtain wall is made of, other than how it effects cost.


Lord knows there are plenty of all-glass options out there for anyone who prefers to live in a fishbowl. As for offices, there are less and less non-glass buildings everyday as they either get converted (or in this dumbass city, demolished to make way for yup you got it, more glass boxes!) so that is a non-issue.

At some point, if not already, glass office buildings will outnumber the non-glass ones so that is hardly a problem.

And I think we are overestimating the demand or love that are out there for glass. Maybe in many developer's minds they think glass is the latest and greatest but many prewars (and new non-glass buildings like 15 CPW) get some of the highest prices in the city.

I'm sure most people wouldn't pick living in a glass tower in Dallas over a prewar in Paris.

antinimby
February 20th, 2014, 08:10 PM
What are you talking about? Neither one of us was talking about the Roosevelt.

BBMW
February 21st, 2014, 02:52 PM
^
Sorry. It IS a Roosevelt thread.

ajs0503
February 21st, 2014, 07:45 PM
You're crossing the commercial and residential markets. There's a 98.678% chance that when the Roosevelt site gets redeveloped, it will be commercial. Who knows, maybe there'll be some hotel element included in the site. But I REALLY doubt that they'd build residential in that location.

Masonry wall construction is now more expensive than glass wall. Masonry is also heavier, so it creates a need for a heavier, and therefor more expensive structure. For something like 15 CPW, where they're selling the building (and for tippy top dollar), they can use it as a selling point. Commercial renters don't care. They want as flashy as possible, with the best views possable, at the lowest rent possible. The cost savings with glass curtain wall construction gives the landlord more margin to play with. No one actually involved in the transaction cares what the curtain wall is made of, other than how it effects cost.

At this point, I don't think it's a matter of "when" the Roosevelt site gets redeveloped, but rather "if". The New York Landmarks Conservancy included the Roosevelt Hotel along with 15 other Midtown buildings that they will "push to be designated as landmarks". Considering that the Conservancy is the only advocacy organization that the LPC seems to take seriously, there is a good chance that most, if not all the buildings, will be protected. Furthermore, as evidenced at Wednesday night's CB5 meeting, there's beginning to be quite a backlash against excessive development in Midtown (ie super-tall skyscrapers). Many high up officials including David Garidnock and the Manhattan Borough President seemed pretty adamant about tempering Midtown development. Finally, the hotel received a major multi-million dollar upgrade a few years ago and apparently it is a significant cash cow. So, perhaps this thread isn't particularly relevant after all.