PDA

View Full Version : 200 Chambers Street - Tribeca - Condo - by Costas Kondylis



Pages : [1] 2

ZippyTheChimp
June 5th, 2003, 09:42 PM
Article in the Tribeca Trib

City Plans 40-Story Tower on Site 5C

by Ronald Drenger

A second front has just opened in the battle against large-scale development near P.S. 234.

The city told Downtown community leaders last month that it wants to construct a 40-story residential tower with 540 apartments on the city-owned lot, known as Site 5C, behind P.S. 234 and across the street from P.S./I.S. 89 and Washington Market Park. The proposed building is three times as tall as the previous design for the site.

Community leaders were already prepared to fight the city’s plans to put up a huge building on Site 5B, across Warren Street from P.S 234. For that site, the city wants to oust Edward J. Minskoff, whom it chose in April 2001 to develop a 600-foot commercial building, and find a new developer for what could be an even taller residential tower, up to 700 feet, according to community board representatives who were briefed by city officials.

On Site 5C, bounded by Chambers, West and Warren streets, the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and developer Scott Resnick want to put up a 460,000-square-foot building designed by Norman Foster, the British architect who was a finalist in the design competition for the World Trade Center site.

The community representatives say that the development, like the one proposed for Site 5B, would bring stifling congestion to the area, overburden local resources and cast shadows on Washington Market Park. They are urging the city to modify the plans and up for a fight if it refuses.

“We’ve gone from a 135-foot building to a 408-foot building, an attractive-looking building but one that is completely out of context with the rest of the neighborhood,” said Madelyn Wils, chairwoman of Community Board 1.

The community has fought many proposals for Site 5B that were later abandoned. But with so much energy being focused on the redevelopment of Downtown, and the Bloomberg administration’s desire to create thousands of new housing units in the area, the city is expected to push hard to bring the latest plans to fruition.

The previous, smaller project for Site 5C, also with Resnick as the developer, was in the works when the terrorist attack occurred. But in January 2002, the 40-year-old Washington Street Urban Renewal Plan, which limited the size of development on the site, expired, allowing for a much taller building.

The 40-story tower, slightly taller than the Independence Plaza buildings, would be along West Street. It is taller than would be allowed under current zoning, but the city wants to give Resnick the extra height in exchange for creating a 12,000-square-foot public plaza on the Warren Street side of the site. The building’s east wing, along Chambers Street and next to P.S. 234, would be 94 feet high.

As in Resnick’s earlier plan, the building would include an 18,000-square-foot community center, with a gym in the basement and offices and classrooms on the second or third floors. A pedestrian path would run through the building from the plaza to Chambers street, and there would be 14,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space and underground parking for 114 cars.

Community board members who met with EDC officials and Resnick said that they had several major concerns, first and foremost that the development is much too big.

“You’re bringing 500 or more new units right square onto probably the busiest block of Tribeca,” said Bernard D’Orazio, a CB1 member and president of Save Our Space, a group that has opposed large developments on Site 5B. “We would like to significantly reduce the height of the building.”

The project’s possible impact on nearby local schools is likely to spark heated opposition.

“It’s going to overpower the school,” said George Olsen, who has been PTA president at P.S. 234 for the past two years. The city’s plans, which he called “shortsighted and greedy,” will “choke and choke and choke the neighborhood until it’s not livable anymore,” he said.

At both P.S. 234 and P.S. 89 there are grave concerns about classroom space. Olsen said that P.S. 234’s enrollment for September is already 60 students over capacity and more registrations are expected.

“We’ve become this little community that is going to be so overcrowded and hemmed in by these big buildings,” said P.S. 89 principal Ronnie Najjar. “We can’t accommodate that many new families.”

Shadows, particularly on Washington Market Park, are another concern. “By about three in the afternoon, depending on the time of year, there would be a shadow covering the heart of the park,” D’Orazio said.

The project will require an extensive public review (the Universal Land Use Review Procedure, known as ULURP) and an environmental impact study; the meetings last month were the start of negotiations between the EDC, Resnick and community leaders, who said they were pleased that the city sought their input.

“I think they want to see if they can resolve some issues, bridge some of the gaps, before they formally start the review process,” said Paul Goldstein, CB1’s district manager.

Wils said that the community is interested in cooperating with the EDC and Resnick, but that there need to be “major changes” in the project.

“I’m hoping that they are willing to work with us in way that’s meaningful,” she said. “But whether or not that happens, we will be prepared to do what we have to do.”

She was disappointed when the city informed her late last month that a public scoping meeting, a prelude to the environmental impact study, scheduled for June 26 (see Community Calendar) will be based on the original plan, without any modifications requested by the community. The community board was planning to encourage residents to speak at the meeting against the project’s size.

In response to questions about community worries, EDC spokeswoman Janel Patterson said, “That’s what the public process and the scoping session are intended for, to hear the community’s concerns.” Resnick declined to comment on the project.

The developers probably will apply for Liberty Bonds, a program set up after Sept. 11 to encourage Downtown development. In this case, the building plan, including a completed public review, must be in place by the program’s deadline at the end of next year.

Bob Townley, director of Manhattan Youth, which runs most children’s programs Downtown, including after-school programs and activities on Pier 25, hopes to manage the community center in Resnick’s building. He said it should be a partnership with other community-service organizations, arts groups and schools in the neighborhood that need space.

Townley said he would like to see a pool added to the community center plans, but that he was not involved in the discussions with the EDC.

For Site 5B, now a parking lot and one of the most valuable city-owned properties in Manhattan, if the EDC does scrap Minskoff’s commercial project, it would then request new proposals from other developers for a residential building. Minskoff’s plan would join a long list of abandoned proposals for the site, from a southern sister for the Independence Plaza North residential complex to offices for the now-defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert financial firm and a new building for the Mercantile and Commodities Exchanges.

But in a brief phone interview on May 30, Minskoff said that he was still planning to develop the site. “We’ve been meeting with the EDC and working closely with them on our plan,” he said. He added that “there will be some modifications” in the project and that the building would be “mixed-use,” but declined to discuss details.

Last summer, while CB1 and Tribeca residents were rallying in opposition, Minskoff was aggressively seeking tenants for his 600-foot office building, which he promised to start building this spring. The community plans to similarly oppose the city’s new plan for a massive residential tower.

“I don’t care who the developer is, as long as we get something we can work with here,” Wils said. “We cannot work with something that big.”

Goldstein questioned whether city officials, in their rush to bring residents Downtown, were taking quality-of-life issues into account. “On one hand, we want more residents in Lower Manhattan, but on the other hand, we want to make sure we can maintain our community as a very desirable place to live. So it’s a balancing act.”

http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/june03/40-storytower.jpg






(Edited by Stern at 8:52 pm on June 5, 2003)

NoyokA
June 5th, 2003, 09:53 PM
I edited the bold-face, lots of bold talk happening. Great find Zippy....

Zoe
June 5th, 2003, 09:57 PM
This would be great! *IMO the more Foster projects we can get in this city, the better!

tugrul
June 5th, 2003, 09:58 PM
*watches his blood boil at the sillyness from CB1*

I went to high school across the street from that site. Given its proximity to the WTC, Woolworth & downtown, the significant developments of northern Battery Park City, and the relatively big housing projects just to the north of the site, a 408ft residential tower would not be out of context. In fact, anything less probably wouldn't have a shot of river views on lot 5C.

135ft building vs this 250+ft tower across the street....

http://www.skyscrapers.com/files/transfer/6/2002/01/137714.jpg
Tribeca Bridge Tower (http://www.skyscrapers.com/re/en/wm/bu/114356/)

And what must be around a 400ft residential tower down the street:

http://www.skyscrapers.com/files/transfer/6/2002/10/166602.jpg
Tribeca Pointe (http://www.skyscrapers.com/re/en/wm/bu/116074/)

Oh, and, I almost forgot. Its a bloody Foster. Yeay!!

ZippyTheChimp
June 5th, 2003, 10:18 PM
I was against the Miskoff project on 5B for 3 reasons:
1. I didn't want to see competition with 7WTC for tenants.
2. With the proximity of schools, and the east side of Greenwich being residential, a residential building was more appropriate.
3. It would help mute talk of residential development at WTC.

This area is a natural for Bloomberg's vision, but it will be a tough road.


(Edited by ZippyTheChimp at 10:10 pm on June 5, 2003)

tugrul
June 5th, 2003, 10:51 PM
Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 9:18 pm on June 5, 2003
I was against the Miskoff project on 5C for 3 reasons:
1. I didn't want to see competition with 7WTC for tenants.


What difference does it make for 7WTC? 7 is under construction, tenants or not.

Perhaps if you said you were worried about consuming demand that could go towards making sure the main WTC site as big as possible, thats another matter.

ZippyTheChimp
June 5th, 2003, 11:16 PM
It wasd at a time before construction of 7 WTC began, and it appeared that Minskoff was going ahead. It became evident that he was having trouble - now he says mixed-use.

Besides, I think it's important that the buildings that go up are financially successful.

Edward
June 5th, 2003, 11:24 PM
The 4-story building on the corner of Warren and West Streets, on the site 5C, where New York City’s Economic Development Corporation and developer Scott Resnick want to put up a 40-story building designed by Norman Foster. Woolworth Building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/landmarks/woolworth/) in the background. March 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/real_estate/200chambers/5c_warren_west_woolworth_2march03.jpg

chris
June 5th, 2003, 11:27 PM
This is great stuff!

We should all stay on top of this and if (no, when) the NIMBYs attack this. Stay on top of the "event"... IE. The Community Board meetings and anything else. People have to show up to support this. Don't let the NIMBYs be the only voices.

Derek2k3
June 5th, 2003, 11:43 PM
To show that noone visits the real estate section, I posted this yesterday and got no replies. Oh well, can't wait to see what it looks like like.

ZippyTheChimp
June 5th, 2003, 11:44 PM
Save that photo Edward. The building is gone.


The Fall of 179 West Street

by Carl Glassman

One-seventy-nine West Street, the little brick building that stood alone for so long, now stands no more.

On May 20 crews arrived to demolish this last of the Downtown houses where, long ago, dockworkers drank and slept along the once-busy waterfront.

For many in today’s Tribeca, 179 West Street stood there, near the corner of Warren Street, as a symbol of defiance against the incursion of wealth and change.

Seated in her principal’s office across the street at P.S. 89, Ronnie Najjar watched sadly as crowbar- wielding workers pried apart floor boards, bricks and joists and heaved them to the ground.

“I loved that house. I look at it every day,” she said. “It’s almost like the Little House That Could, standing up unscathed to all the changes. Even to Sept. 11.”

The building went up around 1870, but not much is known about its early use. A banana merchant occupied the basement in 1927 and nine years later, city records show, he was gone, and the third and fourth floors were empty. A joint called El Green Bar & Grille occupied the ground floor.

In 1960, a 21-year-old sculptor and painter named Mardig Kachian moved into 179 West Street above what then was McClusky’s Liquor Store. The neighboring buildings were still standing then, housing mostly longshoremen’s bars, hotels and rooming houses. In an interview with the Trib several years ago, Kachian recalled approaching the proprietors of the liquor store, who owned the building, to ask about renting the floors above. “They just looked at each other. They thought I was crazy.”

Kachian got the three floors for $75 a month and took over the building after the government bought the property, which was to be condemned with the rest of the buildings west of Greenwich Street, between Hubert and Murray streets, in what was called the Washington Street Urban Renewal Project.

By the late 1960s nearly all those buildings were gone. But Kachian’s still stood. The artist and three tenants of 360 Greenwich Street, near Franklin, had joined together in a suit defending their right to remain in their buildings, now the property of the city. In 1970, a U.S. district judge ruled that the city could not evict the tenants until new buildings were ready to go up on their sites.

“What the city tried to do was scare people or evict them before they had the approved plans,” the late artist Joe DiGiorgio, one of the tenants of 360 Greenwich Street, said in an interview with the Trib several years ago.

DiGiorgio, however, did not stay long in his $32-a-month studio. His building was torn down in 1971 to make way for Independence Plaza. But Kachian had the good fortune to be living on a city-owned property called Site 5C that, to this day, has yet to be developed. (See page 4 for the latest plans, revealed last month.)

Kachian had come to own buildings on Chambers Street and Harrison Street, but continued to call 179 West Street his main residence. For years the city left him alone. (Rent: $160 a month, parking included.)

Kachian said in the 1999 Trib interview that the the roof leaked, the ceiling was always wet, the living area was “decimated” and the tiles were coming off the kitchen floor. “I can’t wash there. I have no water. I go there to sleep, to lay claim to my presence there.”

It was in that year that the state Department of Transportation said the building was in the way of regrading and paving for the reconstruction of West Street, then underway.

The city, seemingly unaware of the ruling nearly 30 years earlier, began eviction proceedings against Kachian. But the DOT, in the meantime, managed to work around Kachian’s building. The tenant’s legal hold on the building apparently kept the city at bay and Kachian never went to court.

“The public good comes first,” he said at the time, “and I have no problem with leaving if they have a specific proposal in sight.”

Following negotiations two years ago with the city, Kachian left 179 West Street for good. According to Carol Abrams, spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, he received a “relocation allowance” of $142,890.

Abrams said the building was torn down last month for an “interim use”: a parking lot.

Asked to comment on the demise of his long-time home, Kachian declined to share his thoughts.

“They’re private,” he said.

tugrul
June 6th, 2003, 02:08 AM
The project’s possible impact on nearby local schools is likely to spark heated opposition.

“It’s going to overpower the school,” said George Olsen, who has been PTA president at P.S. 234 for the past two years. The city’s plans, which he called “shortsighted and greedy,” will “choke and choke and choke the neighborhood until it’s not livable anymore,” he said.

At both P.S. 234 and P.S. 89 there are grave concerns about classroom space. Olsen said that P.S. 234’s enrollment for September is already 60 students over capacity and more registrations are expected.

“We’ve become this little community that is going to be so overcrowded and hemmed in by these big buildings,” said P.S. 89 principal Ronnie Najjar. “We can’t accommodate that many new families.”

This was bugging me when I was taking an evening walk. While this is a value issue, I don't think its a valid criticism. The fact they are opposing the introduction of more families instead of pushing for more schools to be built is telling IMHO.

Why not argue that the developer should integrate another school into the base of his building like the Tribeca Bridge Tower I posted a picture of above? Forget the city's greed, these people want to hog the area for themselves.

I can't wait to move in as soon as I can build up my life to afford it.

Kris
June 6th, 2003, 02:05 PM
Derek, I'm sorry you got no replies. If there's a chance for noteworthy architecture, you can post here. But if we do so with all building projects, the real estate section will definitely be deserted.

BrooklynRider
June 10th, 2003, 10:51 AM
“We’ve become this little community that is going to be so overcrowded and hemmed in by these big buildings,” said P.S. 89 principal Ronnie Najjar. “We can’t accommodate that many new families.”

AAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!! - That quote. *Talk about elitism. *They've become this "little community"? *And what? They decide who gets to join their exclusive little club? *It just makes my blood boil.

emmeka
June 11th, 2003, 09:01 AM
Most of them talk bull anyway.

Derek2k3
July 7th, 2003, 05:22 PM
From The Tribeca Trib
\http://www.tribecatrib.com/newsjuly03/counterproposals.htm

CB1 Gives Counterproposals for Site 5C

by Ronald Drenger

Community Board 1 last month presented three building proposals that it said would be more appropriate for Site 5C, behind P.S. 234, than the 35-story residential tower that the city wants to see built there.

Frank Fish, a planning consultant hired by CB1, presented the alternatives at a June 26 hearing on the scope of a study that the city is preparing of the development’s impact on traffic, congestion, schools, parks and public services in the neighborhood.

The tallest of the community’s proposals would be for a 25-story building along West Street, between Chambers and Warren streets, with four-story wings extending along the side streets toward P.S. 234. Its other suggestions are for a 13-story building with 10-story extentions or a 23-story tower with one eight-story portion on Chambers Street.

The city and its chosen developer, Jack Resnick and Sons, have trimmed the size of the plan that they presented to CB1 in May, cutting five floors off the 40-story tower and reducing the number of apartments from 540 to 488. The development also includes an 18,000-square-foot community center..

*
But CB1, P.S. 234 parent leaders and local elected officials said that the project is still much too big. They warned that the project will choke already congested streets and sidewalks, cast shadows on Washington Market Park and overwhelm P.S 234 and P.S. 89 with new students. (See story, page 5.)

“The size of the building being proposed for 5C is taller than buildings in Battery Park City, and Battery Park City is no comparison to Tribeca,” said Madelyn Wils, CB1’s chairwoman. Tribeca became a successful residential neighborhood through zoning and landmarking changes in the 1990’s that preserved the low-rise character of the neighborhood, Wils said

Community representatives said Murray Street should be considered the boundary between the high-rise Financial District and Tribeca, and that the impact of the 5C plan must be considered together with an even bigger building, up to 65 stories, that the city wants to build on Site 5B, across Warren Street from P.S. 234.

“The welfare of over 700 Tribeca families who choose to send their children to their neighborhood school will be greatly impacted by any development of these two sites,” said Tim Johnson, the incoming PTA president at P.S. 234.

George Olsen, Johnson’s predecessor, suggested moving the dog run behind P.S. 234 to part of Site 5C where the city’s plan calls for a public plaza, to make room for the school’s expansion.

Janel Patterson, spokeswoman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation, which is overseeing development on Sites 5B and 5C, declined to comment on the community’s suggestions. *

the community's proposal
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/july03/5C-fish-bw.jpg

Foster's proposal
http://www.tribecatrib.com/photos/news/july03/5c-rendering-w.jpg

(Edited by Derek2k3 at 4:23 pm on July 7, 2003)

NyC MaNiAc
July 8th, 2003, 08:23 PM
*Looks at the Foster Proposal*

*Looks at the community's proposal*

*Smacks himself in the head*

TLOZ Link5
July 8th, 2003, 10:01 PM
If you want my opinion, neither of them are all that exceptional.

Agglomeration
July 8th, 2003, 11:59 PM
“We’ve become this little community that is going to be so overcrowded and hemmed in by these big buildings,” said P.S. 89 principal Ronnie Najjar. “We can’t accommodate that many new families.”

AAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!! - That quote. *Talk about elitism. *They've become this "little community"? *And what? They decide who gets to join their exclusive little club? *It just makes my blood boil.
-BrooklynRider

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm betting that some of these 'tight-knit' low-rise NIMBY's went over repeatedly to the WTC meetings over the past several months chanting loudly "NO TALL BUILDINGS! NO TALL BUILDINGS!" :angry: Just the thought of that pisses me off. I mean, what do these people want for New York?

(Edited by Agglomeration at 11:00 pm on July 8, 2003)

NyC MaNiAc
July 9th, 2003, 02:34 AM
Seriously, New York City was not meant to *house Nimby's....


The City and Nimby's don't match...whatever, I just hate Nimby's

chris
July 9th, 2003, 02:39 AM
I agree with you, TLOZ Link5, I expected more from Foster. That said... to Agglomeration's point...

I know what you mean and I feel the same way...

So, get involved...

If you walk down the street and ask New Yorkers, 'Hey, do you like skyscrapers?' Even in a post 9-11 world most say, "Yeah!" And if you ask if they'd like to see more, "absolutely, build them taller!" New Yorkers are competitive by nature, it's what attracts people to the city, and Skyscrapers and New York are almost synonymous in most people's minds. But the flip side is that they're not evangelical about it the way the vocal minority of nay-sayers are.

So, don't sit around on your computer and fuss on a skyscraper forum, you're preaching to the choir. Goto the community board meetings, bring some friends, and speak up. Kick up a fuss where it might make a difference.

ZippyTheChimp
July 9th, 2003, 08:51 AM
Not an inspiring rendering, and will probably get nitpicked
to death.

The debate has been about building height, but with the reality that the downtown population will dramatically increase anyway, it should be about where to build the school.

The city owns both sites 5B and 5C. I know they want to maximize profit, but maybe a compromise. Build/expand a school on one site, and a tall building on the other.

Chris is right about CB meetings. The CB members are influenced by the audience, and they in turn influence the City Council.

BrooklynRider
July 10th, 2003, 10:41 AM
I asked this in another thread...

Are CB votes binding or can the city override?

ZippyTheChimp
July 10th, 2003, 02:09 PM
CB votes and City Council votes are different domains. The City Council is the city's legislative body; CBs are advisory bodies. The members are non salaried, and appointed by the borough president. Half are nominated by council members whose districts include the CB.

There are provisions in the City Charter on how city government officials must interact with CBs. For example, all land-use issues must come before the CB. *

Kris
July 25th, 2003, 09:38 AM
July 25, 2003

Plans for 2 Towers Near TriBeCa Raise Concern

By DENNIS HEVESI

A 35-story residential building is planned for a long-vacant lot two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, and an even taller apartment tower is being considered for the adjacent parcel, leaving residents of the low-lying 19th-century buildings in nearby TriBeCa concerned about crowding.

The 35-story building is being designed by Norman Foster, the British architect who, among other projects, remodeled the Reichstag in Berlin and designed London City Hall.

Bernard D'Orazio, president of Save Our Space, a neighborhood nonprofit group, said he was "gravely concerned about enormous residential towers beside what is predominantly a low-rise historic district."

"The community's position is that both of these sites should be planned and developed together in order to preserve our community," he said.

The two parcels — officially referred to as Sites 5B and 5C — are remnants of what for more than 100 years was the Washington Street Market, the city's primary fruit and vegetable district until the 1960's, when the market was moved to Hunts Point in the Bronx. Soon after, an 11-block-long, 3-block-wide swath of mostly cast-iron mercantile buildings stretching from Barclay Street on the south to Hubert Street on the north and from Greenwich Street on the east to the Hudson River was leveled.

And over the years, on what was designated as the Washington Street Urban Renewal Area, large buildings and complexes were built, including the towers of Independence Plaza North, a 1,500-apartment Mitchell-Lama development; Manhattan Community College; the St. John's University Manhattan campus; and the Citigroup Building. Also built on the site were Public School 234 and a one-acre oval of green space called Washington Market Park, with a wrought-iron gazebo, a wading pool and a community garden.

Across Greenwich Street from the park is TriBeCa, where late-19th-century corniced loft buildings with arched windows are now interspersed with new 10- and 12-story apartment buildings with terraces and bay windows that evoke the style of the older buildings.

What remains on the urban renewal property is Site 5B, a 90,560-square-foot lot, and Site 5C, at 34,257 square feet, where the Norman Foster building is planned. In 2001, the New York City Economic Development Corporation chose Minskoff Equities to develop 5B as a commercial building. But development did not proceed, because no major tenant was found.

Now, said Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corporation, "on 5B, we are examining our options to develop it as residential, with some retail." Mr. D'Orazio contended that zoning for the lot would allow construction of a building as high as 60 floors.

The designated developer for the smaller site, 5C, is Jack Resnick & Sons. Under the provisions of the 40-year urban renewal plan, a 135-foot-high residential building was allowed for the site. However, on Jan. 1, 2002, the plan expired. And at a public meeting held by the Economic Development Corporation on June 26, the plan offered by the Resnick company called for a 360-foot-high, 35-story market-rate rental building with about 480 apartments, 12,000 square feet of retail space, a 90-car parking garage and a community facility.

Madelyn Wils, chairwoman of Community Board 1, is worried about overpopulation. In 1980, according to census figures, there were 15,918 people living in the community board district; by 2000, that had more than doubled to 32,116. "We're all for housing," Ms. Wils said. "But Lower Manhattan has been burgeoning. We have 12,000 units coming on line since the 2000 census, which would increase our population by 75 percent by 2005."

Scott Resnick, president of the Resnick company, declined to comment on his company's proposal for Site 5C. Pointing out that the plan for Site 5C must still go through a public review process, Ms. Patterson of the Economic Development Corporation said, "In our negotiations, we are responding to community desires."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

JACKinNYC
July 26th, 2003, 11:49 AM
Foster's proposal is boring. It looks like it's straight out of 1962. Even architects who are considered "world class" produce boring schlock.

Gulcrapek
July 26th, 2003, 12:25 PM
Just so you don't completely bash the design, remember that it's from one side only and not exactly closeup. It looks a bit like a rendering designed to give the public a massing idea, with a note of a glass facade.

JACKinNYC
July 26th, 2003, 06:38 PM
With all due respect, it looks like a finished rendering to me. Then again how could I possibly know one way or the other?

TLOZ Link5
July 26th, 2003, 07:50 PM
This building was only recently proposed, at least in real estate terms. *The initial renderings generally don't make for final designs.

ZippyTheChimp
July 26th, 2003, 08:19 PM
From the Downtown Express:

Community leaders cool to P.S. 234 expansion idea

By Elizabeth O’Brien

http://www.downtownexpress.com/DE_13/lower.jpg
Drawing of a proposed two-story expansion of P.S. 234 which includes six new classrooms. The dog run behind the school would move to Site 5C, a proposed new residential site.


With the population of Lower Manhattan expected to balloon over the next several years, the community has begun debating the merits of building an addition to P.S 234 to accommodate the anticipated influx of new students.


George Olsen, outgoing president of the P.T.A. at P.S. 234, has led an initiative to add up to six new classrooms to the Tribeca school. He recently asked an architectural firm to sketch rough plans for the expansion. One scheme would involve two stories of three classrooms each, and the other would involve three stories of two classrooms each.


While most community members agree that overcrowding poses a serious threat to P.S. 234, not everyone is certain that an addition represents the best way to address it.


“I think the answer to the problem is another school,” said Paul Hovitz, chairperson of the youth and education committee for Community Board 1.


Hovitz worried that building an addition would appear to justify the increased enrollment at the school. He also wondered if substantial growth would dilute the strength of the top-ranked elementary school.


As early as this fall, P.S. 234 will likely have more than 700 students, over 100 students above its capacity. Even more students are expected to enroll over the next few years, as at least 8,173 new residential units are built south of Canal St. Some of the units will be built right on P.S. 234’s doorstep: about 500 apartments are slated for construction on the Site 5C development just west of the school.


Under the expansion idea, the dog run behind the school would be moved to part of Site 5C and the school yard would shift to the south to make room for the expansion.


Madelyn Wils, chairperson of C.B. 1, said that P.S. 234 has found ways to accommodate its expected enrollment this fall, but she stressed that long-term solutions would still be needed to alleviate the overcrowding. Wils said she had seen the architectural sketches Olsen provided for the 234 addition but declined to comment at this time.


P.S. 234 is converting office space to classrooms in order to accommodate the expected overcrowding this September.


Olsen, a member of C.B. 1 and a real estate attorney, said that he supports the idea of building a new school. But he argued that the community should also push the developers of the neighboring lots to help fund and build an addition to P.S. 234. In addition to 5C, the 5B lot across the street from P.S. 234 is slated for a 38-story commercial development.


“If you look at [5B and 5C] together you can look at what the community should get.” Olsen noted that both P.S. 234 and P.S./I.S. 89 in Battery Park City were built by developers as concessions to the community. He did not have a cost estimate for the expansion.


Scott Resnick, the developer of 5C, has already included plans for an 18,000 sq. ft. community center in the site plans. Bob Townley, executive director of Manhattan Youth, a non-profit organization that runs after school programs at P.S. 234 and other schools, said that the center would become “the anchor community amenity,” and he declined to comment on the possible school expansion.


Olsen said that the large scope of the planned projects near P.S. 234, and the resulting pressures on the local infrastructure, mean that the developers should help fund both the community center and the P.S. 234 addition.


Scott Resnick declined on Monday to address the possibility of his funding the P.S. 234 expansion, but said, “We’re very anxious to work with the community in a productive fashion.”


Olsen acknowledged that Anna Switzer, the former principal of P.S. 234, and Sandy Bridges, the incoming principal, would prefer working with the Department of Education to limit the school’s enrollment instead of building an extension. Neither Switzer nor Bridges was available for comment.


Olsen stressed that while a new school was a good long-term goal, the community should not lose the opportunity to pressure developers for more concessions.


Elizabeth@DowntownExpress.com

Evan
July 27th, 2003, 01:41 PM
Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 7:19 pm on July 26, 2003
From the Downtown Express:

“I think the answer to the problem is another school,” said Paul Hovitz, chairperson of the youth and education committee for Community Board 1.

Hovitz worried that building an addition would appear to justify the increased enrollment at the school. He also wondered if substantial growth would dilute the strength of the top-ranked elementary school.


Does anyone else see community board 1 as being narrow minded and selfish? *Obviously, a new school would be welcome, but I don't know how feasible that is. *The short term answer to expand the school to alleviate its present overcrowding, and the future influx of new students.

BrooklynRider
August 1st, 2003, 12:13 PM
Maybe CB1 should be turned into a child-free zone. *

matt3303
August 1st, 2003, 05:02 PM
Seriously, where do the NIMBYs think they live? This is New York City, and it goes hand in hand with tall buildings. If they want a small, quiet community, then move to the 'burbs

Derek2k3
August 1st, 2003, 08:32 PM
Here's the area.
http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Derek2k3/Battery_Park_City_5.sized.jpg

Edward
August 1st, 2003, 08:58 PM
The 179 West St building on the lot 5C is still standing in this picture, I guess it was taken before May 20th.

emmeka
August 17th, 2003, 11:15 AM
Tell me about it, we should scare them all away with some huge masterplans for the villages. Although the villages hold a special kind of homlyness, so forget what i just said. Just build at the penn station area, around columbus circle area and downtown as well.

Kris
September 22nd, 2003, 04:40 PM
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com

Tribeca apt. tower fight
By LORE CROGHAN
DAILY NEWS BUSINESS WRITER
Monday, September 22nd, 2003

It's just too tall - even if a world-famous architect is coming all the way from London to make a case for it.
That's what residents of southern Tribeca are saying about the 35-story apartment tower that the Resnicks, a prominent New York developer family, plan to build on city-owned land three blocks north of Ground Zero.

They've hired celebrity architect Sir Norman Foster, whose distinguished work won him a knighthood and lifetime peerage in his home country.

Community Board 1, which represents downtown, is trying to get the city to lower the skyscraper's proposed height of 360 feet. The board has opposed construction at this site and a nearby city property for 15 years.

"We would like to have these sites put to bed," said board chairwoman Madelyn Wils, "but we are not going to roll over."

Tonight at 6, Lord Foster himself will give a presentation about the project at a public meeting at 455 North End Ave. He's expected to hear plenty about why a skyscraper doesn't belong in an area where the buildings average six or seven stories.

It would be built on West Street between Chambers and Warren streets, where it would overshadow the only park in Tribeca - as well as nearby ballfields, and the playgrounds of PS 234 and PS/IS 89. It would further snarl traffic in an area where 30,000 students attend five schools.

To compound residents' worries, an even taller building could go up at a second city-owned site, on the opposite side of Warren Street.

Minskoff Equities was picked two years ago to build a 600-foot office tower there. That project's future is in flux.

"We're meeting with the community and the developer to come up with a revised plan," said Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the city Economic Development Corp.

The considerable star power of Lord Foster of Thames Bank could help soften residents' objections to his planned development. The winner of architecture's Nobel Prize, known as the Pritzker Prize, he's gained notoriety from designing a London office building the British press calls the "Erotic Gherkin" because its curved structure makes it look like a giant pickle - or worse.

His debut project in New York City, a more sober design, is the office tower Hearst is building on top of its landmarked headquarters at 959 Eighth Ave.

Lord Foster was a contender for the job of master planner of the World Trade Center redevelopment, which Daniel Libeskind ultimately won.

Now, on West and Chambers streets, "he may get a shovel in the ground before Libeskind," said Judy Duffy of Community Board 1.

Kris
September 22nd, 2003, 08:58 PM
The "Erotic Gherkin" (Swiss Re tower):

http://home.btconnect.com/strategy/Buildings/30StMaryAxe.jpg
http://home.btconnect.com/strategy/Buildings/30StMary-Cluster.jpg

kliq6
September 24th, 2003, 06:15 PM
Community Board one sucks, they stopped the rezoning of the seaport area to only allow 150 foot buildings and no they have decided that 5-c 5-b and site 26 in BPC are off limits. There the worst board in NYC and have the money to back themselves up

TLOZ Link5
September 24th, 2003, 07:23 PM
Isn't there also a tentative plan for a 700-foot residential tower in that area? I'd love to see that go up.

ZippyTheChimp
September 24th, 2003, 08:42 PM
Downtown Express http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_22/shadowstudies.html


Shadow studies released for Tribeca development

By Elizabeth O’Brien with Josh Rogers


http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_22/market.gif
Proposed Site 5c development shadow diagram for March 21 and September 21 at 2 p.m. By 3 p.m. most of the lawn of the Washington Market Park will be in shadow.


The developer and the designer for the proposed Site 5C on Chambers St. presented the results of their shadow study to the public Monday night and heard the community’s concerns about the building’s likely impact on the neighborhood.

Plans for the city-owned 5C lot, bounded by Chambers, Warren, and West Sts., have met with resistance from community members who feel the proposed residential development is too big for the neighborhood. At Monday’s event, a special meeting of the Battery Park City committee of Community Board 1, planners explained how shadows from the proposed 360 ft., 35-story building would fall over the surrounding area, and how delivery trucks would drop off goods for the building.

The prevailing community sentiment against the proposed development did not change after a presentation by Brandon Haw, a representative from the London-based architectural firm of Foster and Partners. Norman Foster, one of the finalists in the competition to design the World Trade Center site, was scheduled to attend the meeting but was “otherwise engaged” on Monday night, Haw said. Foster had proposed the so-called “kissing towers” for the W.T.C.

Haw explained that the Site 5B building’s bulk had been reduced to maximize sight lines and minimize shadows. But some community members were not convinced.

“I think it’s out of scale with the surrounding buildings,” Assemblymember Deborah Glick said of Foster’s design.

Community members expressed particular concern about the shadows that the building would cast over neighboring P.S. 234 and Washington Market Park. Shadows would affect the school the most in the late afternoon, Haw said. Even though school lets out before 3, students participating in after-school programs remain in the building until 6, community members said. The building would also cast shadows on the P.S./I.S. 89 schoolyard on most mornings.

Haw presented afternoon shadow studies for the months of March, June, and September. In June, shadows will not darken much of Washington Market Park, but at 3:00 p.m. in March and September most of the park’s lawn will be in shadow, according to the designer’s drawings.

Albert Capsouto, a member of C.B. 1 , asked the designer and developer to consider the impact of the delivery trucks that are planned to pick up and drop off on Warren St. This means that trucks like those of the popular Fresh Direct grocery delivery service will likely make many stops to service the people living in the building, Capsouto said.

Community members also raised the long-standing concern that families moving into the development would strain the already overburdened P.S. 234 even further. The school is currently 24 percent over capacity, according to Sandy Bridges, the school’s principal, who attended Monday’s meeting.

“I’m worried about it,” Bridges said of the development’s anticipated impact on her school.

Scott Resnick, the developer, said that the building’s 450 to 480 units would be a mix of studios and one and two-bedroom apartments. He did not have the exact breakdown of the type of units, but said he expected a “limited number of families in the building” based on the maximum two-bedroom configuration.

Resnick stressed that the development’s design was not final. He also called the public’s attention to the 18,000 square feet of community space that will be built on two floors of the development and the nearly 12,000 square foot public plaza.

The environmental impact study of the development has begun, said officials from the Economic Development Corporation. The city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, a process the city follows whenever it considers building on its land, is scheduled to begin at the end of the year, officials said. This process will allow for more community feedback.

Economic Development Corporation officials said on Monday that there were no plans yet finalized for developing site 5B, just south of 5C. The city had considered putting a 600-ft. commercial building on the site, across Warren St. from P.S. 234, but now it is shifting towards a residential proposal, officials said. But because no plans have been finalized yet for 5B, the designers of that site must take into account what is going up on 5C and not the other way around, E.D.C. officials said.

The city is considering a building of about 350 feet for Site 5B, but has indicated a willingness to reduce the size at least by a little.

Resnick has applied to the city for $200 million in post-9/11 Liberty Bond financing for site 5C. The bonds under this federal program must be issued by December 31, 2004, but construction on the project does not have to begin at that time, according to Tracy Paurowski of the New York City Housing Development Corporation.


Shadows in March :roll:

emmeka
October 4th, 2003, 01:04 PM
[quote="Christian Wieland"]The "Erotic Gherkin" (Swiss Re tower):

http://home.btconnect.com/strategy/Buildings/30StMaryAxe.jpg

The swiss Re tower is a marvel, its even better in real life! and the plaza and the veiw from the top is amazing!

diggin
November 17th, 2003, 03:25 PM
As someone who is trying to move to Tribeca because I am looking for good schools, and a safe, small community environment for my kids that isn't teeming with people and cars, I think you are very mistaken. Clearly you don't have children, or you would understand that "building more schools" does not replicate one of the BEST public schools in the nation. You can't just "buy" more caring teachers, or families that care about a community and close knit environment. These things are priceless, and worth sacrificing your ugly skyscraper for. Why not develop Tribeca North in a historically sensitive and beautiful way, rather than putting in an ugly glass office behemoth that will congest an area that is ONE BLOCK away from where a bunch of five year olds go to school! Grow up, people.

ZippyTheChimp
November 17th, 2003, 03:42 PM
As someone who is trying to move to Tribeca because I am looking for good schools, and a safe, small community environment for my kids that isn't teeming with people and cars, I think you are very mistaken.
If you are looking for a small community, why are you looking here? The density predated the complainers. I chose to raise my children elsewhere before moving to lower Manhattan.

The planned building is not commercial, but residential, to accommodate people like yourself who wish to move here.

Maybe someone else should be growing up.

kliq6
November 17th, 2003, 04:12 PM
these people should be happy, that area is North Financial District and should have two office towers built on it like to the West and South of the site being the WFC annd WTC area. But since the Bloomberg administration is ruining gLower Manhattan as a business area, they turned the site residnetial.

he'll probally make the far west side all residential as well.

To make my point know however im not against residnetial development, just all this city builids is luxury buildings, if it was middle income id stay quiet.

TLOZ Link5
November 17th, 2003, 04:28 PM
When the existing office buildings downtown start to fill up, then there will be new office buildings. Most of the projects under construction in Midtown began before 9/11 and already have anchor tenants, some of which later pulled out of their deals (Arthur Anderson at XSq Tower) or scaled back the number of employees they were going to move in (CIBC). The emphasis currently is on residential, retail and culture for the time being, but in due time there will be office development. I'm still hopeful for the East River Plan.

kliq6
November 17th, 2003, 04:34 PM
Out of curisoty, our there any planned office devlopments dowtown that anyone knows of, is there really any space left besides those two lots and site 26 in BPC. And from what i know the east river plan has no commercial elements. When they ruled in favor of CB1 zoning the seaport area with heights only of 120 feet that killed that area off as well. WHats the plan for this East River area?

NyC MaNiAc
November 17th, 2003, 05:51 PM
Yes, what exactly is going on with with the East River Plan?

I have not heard much about it recently.

And for sites where buildings can still go up...

Where is the spot they are building/were going to build One New York Place?

Also, Kliq, when was this Crazy Seaport rule put into effect, and is it concrete, or are there ways around it?

kliq6
November 17th, 2003, 06:04 PM
its concrete the Bloomberg Adminstration supported it. A few months back Howard Milstein wanted to build a 500 foot residnetial tower at 250 Water street, and Community Board 1 as always fought to blockit and restict building height, they won. nothing over 120 feet in a 18 block area. Pro business Bloomberg, bullshit

billyblancoNYC
November 18th, 2003, 10:34 AM
Until the 12 mil sq. ft. from the WTC is filled (including 7 WTC), no towers are going to be proposed, I would think. Who knows, but a lot will be coming to the market in the future.

kliq6
November 18th, 2003, 10:39 AM
If you really think that all those towers they are proposing wilactually be built at the WTC site, you must be in another city. WIth all the NIMBY's in Lower Manhattan and on CB1, be prepared for a 20 plus year fight to see even half thatsite developed.

billyblancoNYC
November 18th, 2003, 10:43 AM
I guess we'll see.

ZippyTheChimp
November 18th, 2003, 11:14 AM
If you really think that all those towers they are proposing wilactually be built at the WTC site, you must be in another city.
Statements like that, and yes they will or no they won't reponses are pointless - no one really knows with certainty what will happen.

What can be said is that 12 million sq ft of office space is either being constructed or proposed. Don't expect office towers to pop up elsewhere in lower Manhattan unless demand improves.

The Dept of City Planning website has a land use map (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/lucds/mn1profile.pdf) in pdf. You may need Adobe Reader 6 (free download) to display it.

kliq6
November 18th, 2003, 11:53 AM
well chimp your right on everything but the 12 million sf number, thats what was lost, and another 2.5 million more has been lost with 90 west being converted and 130 liberty be demolished. All that is actually being proposed is about 8 million sf including building on the 130 Liberty site. Thats a net decrease of 6.5 million square feet and most of the freedom tower wil be open air space.

ZippyTheChimp
November 18th, 2003, 12:28 PM
It is also pointless to take the situation back pre 09/11/01. What you have now is all this space being proposed in the presence of a high vacancy rate.

If 90 West was not converted, it would be sitting abandoned, or worse, demolished.

It is tunnel vision to think of Lower Manhattan as strictly a business district.

RandySavage
March 24th, 2004, 05:34 PM
http://img22.photobucket.com/albums/v65/RandySavage/5c-model-of-bldg.jpg

The first rendering I've seen of the Foster/Resnick/Tribeca apartment tower. There is plenty of opposition. Check out the article and another rendering here:

http://tribecatrib.com

BigMac
April 5th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Downtown Express
April 5, 2004

Tribeca tower draws united opposition for divided reasons

By Elizabeth O’Brien

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_47/tower.jpg
3-dimensional model of Resnick’s proposed 360’ tower on West St. beyond P.S. 234.

Community members vented their long-standing objections to the 35-story residential tower planned for Chambers St. at a public hearing where they faced off with the developer and city officials.

More than 300 people packed the P.S./I.S. 89 auditorium on March 30 for the hearing, required under the city’s formal review of the development. The city owns the lot known as 5C, bounded by Chambers, Warren and West Sts., and it plans to sell the land to developer Scott Resnick for the construction of a tower that neighbors fear will bring undue shadows and congestion to their community.

Community Board 1 has lobbied for a 100-foot reduction in the building’s size and the expansion of the planned community center from 18,000 square feet to 40,000. Tuesday’s hearing highlighted the split between those who favor lowering the building at all costs and those who believe that an expanded community center should take precedence in negotiations with the developer and the city.

“My point is that the land is presently owned by the citizens of this city, and we need to give back something to the local community as well as to the citizens of New York City,” said Bob Townley, director of the youth services provider Manhattan Youth and a big proponent of the expanded community center.

Manhattan Youth workers passed out white painter’s hats to people entering the hearing, and the caps contributed to the pep rally atmosphere in the auditorium. The audience cheered community speakers and heckled the developer and his associates.

Some believed the focus on the community center made people lose sight of the building’s considerable height. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the 5C proposal called for a 135-foot building, but the urban renewal plan that limited its height expired in 2002, clearing the way for a taller development. The original plans included an 18,000-square-foot community center within the 135-foot building.

Susan Sonz, the 20-year manager of Washington Market Park, protested what planners called the “significant” shadows that would engulf the park after construction of the 5C project. From May through August, much of the popular Tribeca park would be in shadow from 2:45 p.m. to 6:18 p.m., according to the environmental impact study prepared by the developer’s contractors.

“We cannot trade this quality of life for a community center,” Sonz said.

Others agreed.

“While it’s very tempting to say we need a community center, so let’s agree to this, it’s really not about that,” said Bernard D’Orazio, a member of Community Board 1 and president of Save our Space, a community group against large-scale development. “Let’s be patient. Let’s oppose this. This is the wrong project at the wrong time. Let’s stand united.”

D’Orazio said that after 9/11, the city dropped the cost of the 5C lot by 30 percent. Resnick declined to comment on the price of the land; a spokesperson for the city Economic Development Corporation said she could not comment because the city was still in negotiations with the developer.

City Councilmember Alan Gerson, whose district includes the site, said after the meeting that it was not likely the community would have to choose between a smaller building and a larger community center. As part of the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, the City Council and the Department of City Planning will vote on the proposed 5C project, while Community Board 1 and the Manhattan Borough President each make advisory recommendations. If the City Council rejects the plan, the proposal goes back to City Planning, Gerson said.

Unless the developer reduces the size of the building and increases the community space, “I’m absolutely confident that proposal isn’t going anywhere,” Gerson said.

Still, in his remarks at the hearing Gerson stressed the importance of a united front.

“The worst thing that can happen is for this community to divide into two camps,” Gerson said.

Resnick declined to say whether he would make specific alterations to his plan as a result of the public hearing.

City officials also did not promise any changes.

“We do our best to work with the community, the developer and all stakeholders to come up with a plan that’s acceptable,” said Janel Patterson, a spokesperson for the Economic Development Corporation.

One alternative to expanding the community space in site 5C, Gerson and others have said, is to put a larger recreation center on site 5B across the street. The city-owned 5B lot, bounded by Warren and Murray Sts. on the north and south and Greenwich and West Sts. on the east and west, is more than double the size of 5C.

City officials have said that the 5B development would likely include a residential tower taller than 5C, and community members have expressed concern about the combined impact of the two buildings. Edward Minskoff, the developer of 5B, declined to comment on whether he would consider including a community center on the site.

“The overall conceptual plan has not been formulated,” Minskoff said in a telephone interview.

George Olsen, a member of C.B. 1., also favors putting a larger community center on 5B. He said he is not optimistic that Resnick will alter his plans for 5C, since the developer did not respond to suggestions in the months leading up to the public hearing.

The day after the hearing, Olsen said, “We’ve asked and we’ve asked and we’ve asked… and what did they present last night?”

Elizabeth@DowntownExpress.com

Copyright 2004 Community Media LLC.

TLOZ Link5
April 5th, 2004, 05:14 PM
Well, it's a nice building.

krulltime
April 5th, 2004, 05:53 PM
"...but the urban renewal plan that limited its height expired in 2002..." -from article above.

:x Get over it already it's limitations has expired!!! built the thing.

Also what is wrong with having a shadow in the park? It will be great in the summer time trying to get away from the heat.

BigMac
May 1st, 2004, 11:55 AM
Downtown Express
April 30, 2004

EDITORIAL

Even 250 feet is too tall at Site 5C

Let’s count the reasons why development of the vacant lot behind P.S. 234, know as Site 5C, should be used to benefit the public. First, it is city-owned land. Second, as one Community Board 1 member, Rick Landman, has pointed out, the city forced people off of the land over 40 years ago to implement an urban renewal plan that it never fulfilled. Third, the city’s handpicked developer for Site 5C, Scott Resnick, is well on his way to getting $200 million in tax-free Liberty Bonds that were intended to help rebuild Lower Manhattan into a better place after 9/11.

Resnick’s building at about 360 feet is too tall for the residential neighborhood in Tribeca and will cast too many shadows in the nearby park spaces in Battery Park City and Tribeca. In its April resolution, Community Board 1 called for a 25-story building, which would be about 250-feet high. We think that would still be too tall.

The City Council will have the power to reject the Site 5C when it comes before them shortly. Borough President C. Virginia Fields also has an advisory role under the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. We urge our local councilmember, Alan Gerson, and Borough President Fields to do everything in their power to convince the council to vote against this plan unless the size is reduced to something significantly less than 250 feet.

Under the expired Washington Street Urban Renewal Plan restrictions, Resnick agreed to build a 135-foot building with an 18,000 square foot community recreation center. By dawdling for decades, the city is now pushing a building over twice the size with not one more square foot of rec space. Resnick can’t claim post-9/11 economic woes in a hot Tribeca market, particularly now since he will have the benefit of tax-free bonds to build luxury rental apartments.

As we have said before, we think a building perhaps as high as 175 feet could be acceptable provided that the city and Resnick agree to increase the size of the rec center to 40,000 square feet, the city commits to building a K-8 school in Lower Manhattan quickly, and the city agrees to drastically reduce the size of the proposed residential building across the street at Site 5B.

There is already too little school space Downtown and with all of the development underway the problem will get worse even if the plans for Sites 5B and 5C stall. The city must not make the same type of urban planning mistakes it made condemning the 5B and 5C land almost half a century ago by allowing the new site plans to go forward without a plan to take care of the school, recreation and open space needs of Lower Manhattan.

Copyright 2004 Community Media LLC.

Derek2k3
May 2nd, 2004, 01:58 AM
There is already too little school space Downtown and with all of the development underway the problem will get worse even if the plans for Sites 5B and 5C stall. The city must not make the same type of urban planning mistakes it made condemning the 5B and 5C land almost half a century ago by allowing the new site plans to go forward without a plan to take care of the school, recreation and open space needs of Lower Manhattan.

Then why not fight for a plan that takes care of the school problem. Obviously it must not be the real issue and they are using their own children as a tactic to stop more people from moving into their neighborhood :roll:

krulltime
June 30th, 2004, 01:36 PM
'Erotic Gherkin' architect bowing out


June 30, 2004

Celebrity architect Sir Norman Foster was a big selling point for a controversial plan to build a residential skyscraper on city-owned land three blocks north of Ground Zero. But now he has quit the project.

"It's a disappointment," said city Councilman Alan Gerson (D-Manhattan).

Pritzker Prize-winning Lord Foster - whose recent creation, a corporate headquarters nicknamed the "Erotic Gherkin," is the talk of London - designed a 35-story apartment tower for a site the Resnick family wants to develop on West, Chambers and Warren streets.

Lord Foster's office in London did not respond to a call asking why he resigned. But sources said he was frustrated by the public-review process that goes along with developing city-owned land in New York.

That process is ongoing. Gerson and Community Board 1 chair Madelyn Wils are negotiating with the city on behalf of area residents to cut the project height from its current 360 feet. They've also asked that the development have a community recreation facility with an indoor swimming pool - instead of a basketball half-court, which was originally promised.

Something of Lord Foster's flair is expected to be evident in the project's final form. The Resnicks paid him for his design - and plan to use as much of it as they can.


All contents © 2004 Daily News, L.P.

krulltime
June 30th, 2004, 01:38 PM
Sad news for the area... :cry:

JMGarcia
June 30th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Bravo for the NIMBYs and the city bureaucracy. They've obviously improved the city for all of us! :roll:

Derek2k3
August 11th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Downtown Express

310 feet at Site 5C?

The proposed Tribeca tower at Chambers and West Sts. is likely to be about 310 feet, although there are remaining sticking points in the negotiations between developers, community representatives and the city, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

The city is planning to sell the vacant lot known as Site 5C to developer Scott Resnick, who had hoped to build a 360-foot apartment building. Community Board 1 opposed the project, calling for a 250-foot building at the site that is behind P.S. 234 and bounded by Warren, West and Chambers Sts. Resnick, Madelyn Wils, chairperson of Community Board 1, Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff and Councilmember Alan Gerson are the principal negotiators on the deal. The project requires City Council approval.

According to the source, Wils and Gerson are trying to get 5,000 to 6,000 more usable square feet in the building’s proposed recreation center for a total of 28,000 and to expand the center’s swimming pool to a regulation size 25 meters, or just over 75 feet. The source said there is general agreement on the building’s size, about 310 feet, although it may be closer to 320 feet if you include the mechanical equipment on top.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_65/downtownlocal.html

kliq6
August 12th, 2004, 12:50 PM
what about site 5-b, 270 greenwich street is a dead deal whats next there?

billyblancoNYC
September 17th, 2004, 01:50 AM
Light at the end of the tunnel...

http://downtownexpress.com/de_70/gersoncitysigndowntown.html

Gerson, city sign Downtown school deal

By Josh Rogers


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


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


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


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


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


Reported School/Tribeca Development Deal

Terms of a deal signed by Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff and Councilmemer Alan Gerson, as outlined by Gerson. The deal also includes building a pre-K – 8 school on Lower Manhattan’s East Side. Aspects of the deal were confirmed by other sources.
Developer

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


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


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


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


School needs and zoning

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


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


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


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


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


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


Water St. site

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



Details on Sites 5B and 5C

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


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


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


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


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



Josh@DowntownExpress.com

krulltime
January 13th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Lower Manhattan
Block bounded by West, Chambers and Warren Streets

January 2005

A 400-unit tower four blocks north of Ground Zero is being planned by a Resnick family partnership. The city’s Economic Development Corp. signed off on the sale of the land in December allowing the project to go forward. The 383,000-square-foot building will include either market-rate rentals or condos, and construction is expected to begin this month. The project will also include a community facility and space to be leased to P.S. 234.

Copyright 2003-2005 The Real Deal.

krulltime
January 17th, 2005, 01:41 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/470-realestate.JPG

Plan luxury condos near Ground Zero

Here's a first look at a rare Tribeca South high-rise development - which will start coming out of the ground very soon.

It will be an elegant 30-story tower with a seven-story companion building, as a rendering by Costas Kondylis' architecture firm shows. It will house 260 luxury condos.

Developer Scott Resnick has cleared the site - a parking lot at West, Chambers and Warren streets next to PS 234. Construction will begin Feb. 1, and is to be finished in fall 2006, Resnick told the Daily News.

The development - three blocks north of Ground Zero - will use 200 Chambers St. as its address.

The property was a city urban-renewal site known as Site 5C. For two decades, area residents successfully opposed plans there for big projects, saying that they'd overwhelm the surrounding low-rise neighborhood.

Last fall, a compromise was reached, as The News first reported, in negotiations between Community Board 1 chairwoman Madelyn Wils and City Councilman Alan Gerson (D-Manhattan), on behalf of community residents, and Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff.

They agreed that the height of the building will be cut to 30 stories. Originally it was to be 40 floors tall, then 36 stories.

They agreed that the property will have an Olympic-size swimming pool in a community center, and a pre-K and kindergarten feeder school for PS 234.

"I and my family are so proud to have come this far," said Resnick, who has devoted five years to the project. "Everybody wins."

Initially, celebrity architect Sir Norman Foster was involved in its design. But last summer, Lord Foster - whose London office tower for Swiss Re is nicknamed "the Erotic Gherkin" - quit the project. Kondylis, who'd been collaborating with Lord Foster, took charge.


Originally published on January 17, 2005

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.

krulltime
January 17th, 2005, 02:13 PM
It looks similar to the old rendering from architect Norman Foster and the Resnick family from the past... Maybe they desided to stick to the same tower after all...

http://www.pbase.com/image/38755236.Foster.jpg

NewYorkYankee
January 18th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Will this be visable in the skyline?

BrooklynRider
January 18th, 2005, 05:53 PM
It will be visible right behind Stuyvesant H.S., where the turn from Hudson Riverpark goes into the Rockefeller Park Esplanade. It will be visible from the Hudson River north of Battery Park, but not likely to make a big impact from the East River or NY Harbor.

sfenn1117
March 27th, 2005, 02:00 AM
I was at Stuyvesant HS last Saturday, that school is amazing

And I saw that construction has begun at 5C. Should be a good thing for the neighborhood.

monknyc
April 17th, 2005, 12:40 PM
Not much is up on the marketing Web site yet, but the sales office is supposed to open June 2005.

http://www.200chambersstreet.com

monknyc
April 17th, 2005, 12:52 PM
From an ad in the April 17, 2005, New York Times Magazine:

The opportunity for unparalleled design, luxury and service is coming to TriBeCa. A new glass-and-steel, 30-story condominium is set to make its mark at 200 Chambers Street and will offer residents a lifestyle unlike anything previously offered in the much-coveted neighborhood. Focusing on the details that matter to discerning New Yorkers, the developer Jack Resnick & Sons Inc. is pushing the boundaries of what defines luxury living in New York City.

With 258 condominium units, 200 Chambers Street will offer studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom residences ranging in size from 573 square feet to 2,300 square feet and priced from approximately $500,000 to approximately $3 million. The uncompromising interiors are appointed with sumptuous materials including Balastina lava stone countertops, birch cabinetry, chesnut wood flooring throughout and Crema Marfil mosaic-inlay flooring in the bathrooms.

Residents will bask in sun-flooded apartments with floor-to-ceiling, wall-of-glass windows offering unobstructed city and river views. Premium appliances including Sub Zero, Viking and Bosch will grace each residence, as will five-fixture marble master bathrooms and a washer and dryer unit in all tower residences. Ceiling heights of nine feet add to the feeling of spaciousness.

Upon entering the lobby of 200 Chambers Street, residents will be greeted by a 24-hour doorman and concierge. The elegant design is punctuated with a stunning marble floor that flows into a lusciously landscaped garden. Designed by the noted landscape architects Thomas Balsley Associates, this oasis is visible through a dramatic wall of glass.

A lap pool will be the centerpiece of the building's state-of-the-art health-and-fitness center. The resident amenity space will also include a lounge, a playroom, a conference center and a 5,000-square-foot terrace. An on-site garage will provide added convenience.

Contributing to the excitement of 200 Chambers Street is the world-class TriBeCa neighborhood that offers cosmopolitan dining, shopping and recreational attractions. The building location, steps from the waterfront and the esplanade along the Hudson River, offers residents fabulous parks, top-ranked public schools and a major transportation hub.

200 Chambers Street is a collaboration between renowned architects Lord Norman Foster, who was involved in the initial design, and Costas Kondylis, who has completed the vision. The sales-and-presentation center will be located at 25 Hudson Street.

Jack Resnick & Sons Inc. has been a premier owner, builder and manager of residential and commercial real estate in New York City since 1928.

The Marketing Directors are the marketing and exclusive sales agent. For more information, phone the sales office at 212/334-8383 or visit www.200chambersstreet.com (http://www.200chambersstreet.com).

Edward
May 1st, 2005, 11:57 PM
The site of 200 Chambers Street in Tribeca on 1 May 2005.

http://wirednewyork.com/images/real_estate/200chambers/200chambers.jpg

Derek2k3
May 26th, 2005, 03:51 PM
NYC.gov
PR- 205-05
May 26, 2005

http://nyc.gov/portal/index.jsp?epi_menuItemID=c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c70 1c789a0&epi_menuID=13ecbf46556241d3daf2f1c701c789a0&epi_baseMenuID=27579af732d48f86a62fa24601c789a0&pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fnyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2 F2005a%2Fpr205-05.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

MAYOR BLOOMBERG, ASSEMBLY SPEAKER SILVER, COUNCILMEMBER GERSON AND DEVELOPER BURTON RESNICK BREAK GROUND ON RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY CENTER IN LOWER MANHATTAN

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Councilmember Alan Gerson and developer Burton Resnick today broke ground on a residential, retail center, and community recreational facility in Lower Manhattan. The developer, West-Chambers Associates, will build an approximately 30-story tower along West Street in Manhattan's TriBeCa neighborhood with two 85-foot wings along Chambers and Warren Streets that will house residential condominiums, retail amenities, parking, and a 27,600-square-foot community facility. In addition, the Department of Education plans to lease about 10,000 square feet of space for at least 10 years as an annex to P.S. 234. The project, called 200 Chambers Street, is expected to create about 100 full-time jobs and 600 construction jobs. This project will be complimented by the Edward J. Minskoff Equities Inc. residential project across the street, which is currently going through the public approval process.

"This is a great achievement for the residents of TriBeCa and for the entire Lower Manhattan community," said Mayor Bloomberg. "This project, which includes residential, retail, parking, and a 27,600-square-foot community facility, coupled with the second residential and retail development across the street, marks another milestone in the transformation of the downtown area into a truly round-the-clock community. I want to thank Speaker Silver, Councilman Gerson, the community representatives, the City's Economic Development Corporation and the Resnick family for working so closely with us to create an extraordinary victory for Lower Manhattan."

"The building of this new community center facility demonstrates the amazing success of my community's ability to address a variety of cultural and recreational needs and improve the quality of life for those who live here and those who live in the surrounding neighborhoods," said Speaker Silver. "This project shows what can be accomplished when we work together."

West-Chambers Associates, which purchased the site from the City for about $40.5 million, plans to create 258 condominium units, 14,000 square feet of retail space and about 75 below-ground parking spaces. In addition, the developer will build a 27,600 square foot community facility that is expected to be operated by Manhattan Youth, which provides a wide variety of cultural and recreational activities for downtown residents. The developer has not announced the retail tenants that will be part of the project. Chambers Street, West Street, Warren Street and the P.S. 234 playground border the site, known as Site 5C, which currently consists of about 34,000 square feet of vacant land. It is expected that the project will be completed in late 2006.

"Our Downtown neighborhood has had a long standing need for a community center, and we are thrilled that a permanent home for a community center will be part of this project," said Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick.

"The Resnick Development provides a model for growth and development in our city," said Councilmember Gerson. "It combines public and private investment to yield new housing, a much needed community center and space for an expanding school population. In conjunction with the development on Site 5B across the street, a portion of the $50 million set aside by the LMDC for affordable housing in Lower Manhattan will be spent on this project. I especially want to thank the developers for their awareness of and sensitivity to P.S.234 and the surrounding community by utilizing state-of-the-art noise abatement technology. This is yet another step forward in the revitalization of lower Manhattan."

"Our ongoing commitment to downtown continues with 200 Chambers Street and we are grateful for the City's help and support in making this important project a reality," said Jack Resnick & Sons Chairman Burton P. Resnick. "The development of this magnificent property is an important building block in the resurgence and renaissance of Lower Manhattan."

"This is a terrific example of a public, private partnership that will make an enormous contribution to the quality of life of downtown residents," said EDC President Andrew M. Alper. "Under Mayor Bloomberg's leadership, the process was moved quickly, and the City worked with a number of stakeholders to ensure we met the needs of the developer and the community. I want to thank everyone who worked tirelessly on this important project and I'm proud EDC played a key role in making this day possible."

Edward J. Minskoff Equities Inc.'s project, which is in the public approval process, would create a 35-story tower with more than 420 residential units, about 170,000 square feet of destination and local retail space, including a Whole Foods supermarket, and two levels of below-grade public parking for up to 400 vehicles. The development, on what was formerly known as Site 5B, is located on the western side of Greenwich Street between Warren and Murray Streets. The project is expected to create about 300 permanent jobs and 1,000 construction jobs.

ZippyTheChimp
June 6th, 2005, 12:20 AM
200 Chambers site on June,05, 2005
http://img234.echo.cx/img234/9566/200chambers013tk.th.jpg (http://img234.echo.cx/my.php?image=200chambers013tk.jpg)

Zoe
June 6th, 2005, 10:39 AM
Here is another shot
http://img296.echo.cx/img296/8983/downtownpics0143bv.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

sfenn1117
June 6th, 2005, 04:09 PM
So construction has begun? That's what it looks like to me which is just great. I was at the site in March, I had to go to Stuyvesant HS for something, and fencing was up so I figured (hopefully) a plan had been made.

If it's one thing I hate in NYC, it's empty lots. This building doesn't look to bad, kinda fits in with BPC across the street, better than nothing!

NYCResident
June 6th, 2005, 09:19 PM
If it's one thing I hate in NYC, it's empty lots. This building doesn't look to bad, kinda fits in with BPC across the street, better than nothing!

I like Zoe's picture in that it captures the major empty lots in the North BPC/South Tribeca area.

* Site 5C has obviously started.
* You have Site 5B directly across the street which will break ground later this year
* Site 16/17 in the upper right hand corner which will also break ground later this year
* And sites 23/24 directly behind the ballfields which proposals are going out for
* And of course the humongous lot that is Site 26 right in the middle which hopefully will have the GS HQ there..

You can picture these filling up over the next few years..

btw, I wonder what's going to happen to that dog run that's right between site 5C and PS 234? Seems like it will be a bit out of place once 5b and 5c go up.

sfenn1117
June 6th, 2005, 09:39 PM
I like Zoe's picture in that it captures the major empty lots in the North BPC/South Tribeca area.

* Site 5C has obviously started.
* You have Site 5B directly across the street which will break ground later this year
* Site 16/17 in the upper right hand corner which will also break ground later this year
* And sites 23/24 directly behind the ballfields which proposals are going out for
* And of course the humongous lot that is Site 26 right in the middle which hopefully will have the GS HQ there..

You can picture these filling up over the next few years..

btw, I wonder what's going to happen to that dog run that's right between site 5C and PS 234? Seems like it will be a bit out of place once 5b and 5c go up.

Zoe's pic shows up as a red x on my computer! :(

But thanks for filling me in on the area! I walked around BPC that day in March and I really like it, the buildings aren't bad, there's great views, and it's very quiet, the world financial center is also awesome! I had a good lunch inside there.

monknyc
June 6th, 2005, 11:01 PM
btw, I wonder what's going to happen to that dog run that's right between site 5C and PS 234? Seems like it will be a bit out of place once 5b and 5c go up.

From what I've read, the dog run is staying put. It will be sandwiched between the lanscaped plaza of 200 Chambers Street on the west and P.S. 234 on the east, with the new elementary school annex to the north.

monknyc
June 11th, 2005, 11:27 PM
From the June 2005 issue of Architectural Record:

Big Apple residential developers embracing "signature" architects

The New York Times real estate classifieds now feature a smiling picture of Richard Meier, FAIA, advertising his new condominium tower on Charles Street in Greenwich Village. On the same page, there is a large rendering of Gwathmey Siegel's "Sculpture for Living" high-rise condo building on Astor Place in the East Village, which features "architectural" loft residences. That these architects are at the center of such aggressive marketing campaigns hints at a trend: New York developers are embracing high-quality architecture and hiring an unprecedented number of "signature" designers to build residential projects in the city.

The list includes not only Meier and Gwathmey, but Norman Foster, Jean Nouvel, Frank Gehry, FAIA, Herzog & de Meuron, Arquitectonica, Michael Graves, FAIA, Steven Holl, AIA, Richard Rogers, Richard Gluckman, FAIA, Christian de Portzamparc, and Robert A.M. Stern, FAIA. And that's just the beginning. Meier has four New York projects, three on the Hudson River and one in Brooklyn (no wonder he's smiling). Gwathmey Siegel has six in the works: in the East Village, the West Village, SoHo, Lower Manhattan, on Park Avenue South, and in Midtown.

So why, outside of its world-capital status, has New York become the next stop on the architects du jour traveling parade? First, it seems that New York developers have discovered that investment in good architecture yields big returns.

"Name-brand architecture sells better than your typical vanilla box," says Peter Stalin, editor and publisher of The Stalin Report, an online, New York-based real estate newsletter (thestalinreport.com). Buyers seem to be gravitating toward what marketers label as "distinctive" designs, which are not only attractive, but exciting - one of the chief reasons many come to the city in the first place. Hence developers, long supportive of safe, bland projects, have begun to back projects like Gluckman's One Kenmare Square on the Lower East Side, comprising a series of shifting, curved façade bands that animate the face of the building. Nouvel's 40 Mercer features glass curtain walls with alternating red and blue panes, as well as multihued flooring and loft ceilings inside. The undulating, reflective façade of Gwathmey Siegel's project on Astor Place, while attacked by some critics, has been a huge success, yielding over $2,000 per square foot, some of the most expensive real estate in the city. "As soon as this stuff translates into more money for the developer, all of a sudden design firms become relevant to them," says Gwathmey Siegel principal Robert Siegel, FAIA.

He, along with most architects working on projects in New York, say that the success of Meier's projects (which have nonetheless experienced serious delays) have helped developers drop some of their jitters about less "safe" architecture.

Of course, the architects would not be in New York if developers did not have the luxury of a hot market and some of the richest clients in the world. Michael Slattery, senior vice president of the Real Estate Board of New York, points out that low interest rates and a wave of popularity spurred by improvements begun in the 1990s have encouraged record numbers to gobble up real estate in the city. One indicator of demand: The median price of a condo property in Manhattan went from $455,000 in 2000 to $640,000 in 2004, according to the board.

Spurred also by the success of designer "boutique" hotels, the trend has begun to catch on in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, as well. But the closest comparisons are Ls Vegas, with a plethora of projects on the Strip, and Miami, where Meier and other high-profile architects are working on luxury high-rises.

Meanwhile, as developers look for more top-rate architecture, they are also utilizing existing structures, effecting changes at some of the city's most treasured buildings. Already the Plaza Hotel's new owners, Elad Properties, are replacing the majority of the legendary building's rooms with condos. The original Metropolitan Life Insurance Building, a beautiful clockctower structure built in 1909 at One Madison Avenue, was recently sold to SL Green Realty Corporation for close to $1 billion to convert into condos.

Richard Lang, public affairs director for the New York Landmarks Conservancy, says that many developers are considering purchasing historic buildings in the city's Flatiron district. Cass Gilbert's Austin-Nichols Warehouse on Kent Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, is also being converted by condo developers.

The Real Estate Board's Slattery argues that "it's just the nature of the evolution of the city," and a way for the city to adapt to the changing economy. Lang agrees, and notes that condominium owners often take better care of historic properties than owners who simply rent out space. But he also says he mourns the loss of public access to many great buildings, and worries about the status of many historic interiors, which can no longer be landmarked once in private hands. The Plaza's owners claim they will preserve as much as possible, as do Metropolitan Life's owners. Exteriors, too, are at risk.

"There's not much you want to change. These are beautiful buildings," says Michelle LeRoy, vice president of investor relations at SL Green.

monknyc
June 19th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Interior renderings now on the web site at www.200chambersstreet.com (http://www.200chambersstreet.com).

Derek2k3
June 20th, 2005, 12:00 PM
I'm not impressed.

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/45071435.jpg

What was proposed to be built before 9/11.
http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/45071490.jpg
Gregory Ihnatowicz

JMGarcia
June 20th, 2005, 12:31 PM
What was proposed to be built before 9/11.
http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/45071490.jpg
Gregory Ihnatowicz

Tragically "contextual".

czsz
June 20th, 2005, 02:17 PM
It's not "contextual" in the sense that there's nothing nearby for it to be "contextual" with. It's just bland, timid, historicised crap. New York could use an architectural review commission as Boston has to banish such nonsense to Connecticut or New Jersey.

JMGarcia
June 20th, 2005, 02:28 PM
It's not "contextual" in the sense that there's nothing nearby for it to be "contextual" with. It's just bland, timid, historicised crap. New York could use an architectural review commission as Boston has to banish such nonsense to Connecticut or New Jersey.

I made the comment because there's a slew of similar building just off to the left of the rendering so its contextual given a slightly wider view. You can see them on the right in the render of the tower version.

lofter1
June 20th, 2005, 03:17 PM
The old plan is really kitschy ...

The new plan is just (excuse the phrase) "butt ugly".

Aside from the community ammenities included in this project it has nothing good going for it in terms of design. A sheer wall of that height right up against West Street is just wrong.

(I guess y'all can tell I don't like this project!!)

Jasonik
June 20th, 2005, 03:22 PM
It's not "contextual" in the sense that there's nothing nearby for it to be "contextual" with. It's just bland, timid, historicised crap. New York could use an architectural review commission as Boston has to banish such nonsense to Connecticut or New Jersey.
LOL... In practice the BRA only approves 'crap' like this. This design is pure Boston.

czsz
June 21st, 2005, 03:09 AM
I'm not talking about the BRA, which I agree can be patently indulgent of vile crap. I can't recall its name, but there's an independent civic design commission of some sort which usually has some decent aesthetic insight. They know their place in the city power structure and keep relatively quiet, but from time to time demand a spire or crown or decent lighting for major projects.

Of course, my fantasy New York version would be far more punishingly aggressive.

BrooklynRider
June 21st, 2005, 10:50 AM
It's not "contextual" in the sense that there's nothing nearby for it to be "contextual" with. It's just bland, timid, historicised crap. New York could use an architectural review commission as Boston has to banish such nonsense to Connecticut or New Jersey.


I'm not talking about the BRA, which I agree can be patently indulgent of vile crap. I can't recall its name, but there's an independent civic design commission of some sort which usually has some decent aesthetic insight. They know their place in the city power structure and keep relatively quiet, but from time to time demand a spire or crown or decent lighting for major projects.

Of course, my fantasy New York version would be far more punishingly aggressive.


Ok... I'm finding your posts make me chuckle.

Wow! I just confessed that I "chuckle". Run that word through your head a few times and see if it is something I should be proud of.

monknyc
July 10th, 2005, 09:32 AM
The sales office at 25 Hudson Street opened on July 1. They have a hilarious model of the building that shows exactly how bland and out of context the building really is. What's more, there are now 250 units instead of the originally announced 200.

The apartment plans are typical and resemble many of the rental buildings in the vicinity - in other words, more economy than the luxury they keep on talking about. Ceiling height is a typical 9-ft, with only two floors - the 2nd and 28th, if I remember correctly - that have slightly higher 11-ft ceilings.

No word yet on whether the glass of the building facade will be reflective - a la Gwathmey Siegel's hideous Astor Place - but I presume this will be the case given that each corner in the tower consists of two units that look directly into the adjacent apartment.

The sales office is a mock-up of the building lobby, and already showed signs of age when I went to see it the day it opened. The "chinchilla mink" marble flooring that they keep on bragging about looks like cheap white marble with skid marks all over it and resembles one of those dizzying "Seeing Eye" prints.

A youth center takes up almost all of the southern "pavillion" building, with its own pool. Residents have access to a separate skylit pool on the sixth floor, along with a decently-sized fitness room and lounge.

The interior courtyard, with its puny waterfall, resembles the plaza design of a New Jersey suburban office building. Boxed in on three sides by the building and on the fourth by the dog run, it will be nothing but dead space during the cold half of the year.

There's no direct access to the very limited underground parking spaces. The sales agent happily suggested that the parking needs of the residents would be more than covered by the proposed underground parking of the development one block to the south, while carefully omitting the fact that the condo tower across Warren Street of the same development would dwarf even 200 Chambers Street and obstruct all the southern views.

Given the lackluster design and poor material quality, the people behind 200 Chambers Street should get up off their high horse and quit insisting that it's a premier luxury building. But I'm told that 50 units sold over the first weekend - the cost-per-sf is way below market - so maybe I should just shut up and let people blow their millions.

lofter1
July 10th, 2005, 03:30 PM
I really don't like this building...too big, too bland, too everything but good in any way.

This piece of garbage wouldn't be so offensive if it weren't in such a promiment location.

Hopefully it won't turn out to be the "Confucius Plaza" on the Hudson.

PS: Anything with a doorman, fitness center and stainless steel appliances is laughingly labeled as "luxury" by the marketing morons who rule NYC real estate. But if you're fresh out of grad school and starting your big job in NYC then this undoubtedly will be an upgrade.

BrooklynRider
July 11th, 2005, 11:08 AM
MonkNYC-

That review was priceless! I hope you continue toi review new buildings and their Sales Centers. Talk about an education!

tribecalou
July 19th, 2005, 06:00 PM
I understand that they are on their 8th price amendment after two weeks of sales and they've sold out 55% of the apartments. Can anyone confirm what the price jump was after all the amendments?

BrooklynRider
July 20th, 2005, 10:45 AM
Is it possible that a these posts requesting and or talking about pricing and sales volume be relegated to another area of the forum? We're talking about the construction, zoning, architecture and building. Purchasers, investors and realtors focus on totally different issues and the posts become more akin to sales pitches and personal advice giving, which PMs would ideally serve. I know I'm off topic, but can we state whether this is or is not the place for this information to be discussed?

And at the risk of feeling the wrath of fellow posters and moderators, I have to point out that once again it is a person posting for the first time or posing as a first time poster. Maybe I am missing something, but, for my own education, please tell me if this (New York Skyscrapers & Architecture) is the appropriate forum for these posts as opposed to "New York Real Estate". I recall this being dicussed in "Forum Issues", but "single issue" posters don't venture out of their threads often.

NYCResident
July 28th, 2005, 10:49 PM
From The Real Deal:

New luxury condos near Ground Zero selling

A 30-story luxury condo building in Tribeca designed by architects Norman Foster and Costas Kondylis has sold more than 40 percent of its 258 units within three weeks of the start of sales on July 4, The Real Deal has learned. Developed by Jack Resnick & Sons, 200 Chambers Street – a few blocks north of Ground Zero – will have one-, two- and three-bedroom condos ranging from about $750,000 to more than $3.3 million

Derek2k3
August 23rd, 2005, 12:39 PM
Some large renderings at Permasteelisa Group's site.
http://www.permasteelisa.com/

Project Gallery-New York-Jack Resnick & Sons.

ablarc
August 23rd, 2005, 01:08 PM
I can't see Foster in this building, but I can see Kondylis.

I guess it's enough to have a starchitect's name attached to the building for the price premium.

ZippyTheChimp
August 23rd, 2005, 01:27 PM
Thud.

lofter1
August 24th, 2005, 02:24 AM
Move over Verizon box -- you've been replaced as the worst building downtown.

This thing is horrendous.

krulltime
September 6th, 2005, 02:55 AM
CHAMBERS' CHAMBERS


http://www.nypost.com/photos/re09032005039a.jpg

By MAX GROSS
September 3, 2005

ALONG the southern tip of the West Side Highway, an enormous blue sign juts up in the air advertising condominiums going up at 200 Chambers St. At the bottom of the sign is the tagline, "Sales office opening soon" - always the harbinger of a long wait before making a deposit on any U-Hauls. Well, the sales office actually opened at the beginning of July, and long wait or not, condo sales at 200 Chambers are as brisk as Nobu's dinner traffic.

The 30-story, 258-unit building isn't slated to open until the fall of 2006, but 48 units were sold in its first three days on the market.

"We identified this site five years ago ... and we started the bidding process in mid-2001," says Scott Resnick of developer Jack Resnick & Sons. Back then, the empty lot was earmarked as part of an urban renewal plan, and the Resnicks planned to just put up a 13-story condo. But, Resnick says, "After the dust of 9/11 settled literally [and] figuratively, we wanted to be a part of the revitalization."

In addition to the condo, the developers are creating a 30,000-square-foot community center (complete with an Olympic-size pool) and a new preschool for P.S. 234.

The condo building was originally designed by the British architect Lord Norman Foster and finished by Costas Kondylis; it looks to be an ultramodern glass-and-steel structure. There will be doormen and concierges, a landscaped garden and an on-site garage. The studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units range in size from 573 square feet up to 2,300 square feet, with units starting at $500,000 and going up to around $3 million.

The neighborhood, home to now iconic restaurants like Nobu and Odeon, is getting primed for a revival on multiple levels. Hudson River Park is being redeveloped, and there's been talk of a Whole Foods store opening in the area.

"Everything is here," says Jacqueline Urgo, executive vice president at The Marketing Directors, which is handling 200 Chambers.

Urgo was so impressed by the building that she bought a two-bedroom. "I said to my kids, you're going to get a pool, get a gym ... they can't wait!"


Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc.

NoyokA
September 7th, 2005, 01:30 PM
Its not great, but its mostly glass, that said it could be a lot worse.

NYC1979
September 18th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Its not great, but its mostly glass, that said it could be a lot worse.

What I didn't like about this place and made me pass on considering it for my purchase where the following:

1. The section put aside for an NYC after school program.

2. The proximity to the PS school.

3. The main entrance looks to be so crowded and the layout of the buidling is confusing, like for people in certain parts of the building to get to the gym or lounge/etc.

and in general, the building is just not as good looking as a building in that area and for that money should be.

But, that being said, that's just my opinion, there may be people out there who think this place is beautiful.

ZippyTheChimp
November 20th, 2005, 12:34 AM
Assembling a tower crane.
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/8031/200chambers01c1eb.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200chambers01c1eb.jpg)


While I was taking this one through a hole in the fence, some people in a car on Chambers asked if this was Ground Zero.

I said, "Yeah, why not."

http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/1932/200chambers02c2aq.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200chambers02c2aq.jpg)

antinimby
November 20th, 2005, 03:08 AM
That's a pretty deep hole for a not-so-large building.

ZippyTheChimp
November 20th, 2005, 07:17 AM
It may be because the original shoreline was east of the site...mini bathtub.

Johnnyboy
November 20th, 2005, 11:00 AM
im not too exited about another black box going up but no one will give this one any poblems. unlike some of the best buildings that could had happend in New York

ZippyTheChimp
November 20th, 2005, 11:05 AM
It's not exciting.

And it's not black.

lofter1
November 20th, 2005, 01:22 PM
Just ugly ...

http://www.pbase.com/image/38755236.Foster.jpg

ablarc
November 20th, 2005, 02:24 PM
Just ugly ...
...and boring.

TLOZ Link5
November 20th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Just bland. Really bland.

JMGarcia
November 20th, 2005, 04:15 PM
IMO whether this building is an architectural success or not will lay in the detailing and quality of materials, neither of which can be really judged based on the renderings so far. It could be quite elegant, much like Seagrams if done right.

LeCom
November 20th, 2005, 05:58 PM
...and boring.
Yep.

lofter1
November 20th, 2005, 08:17 PM
IMO whether this building is an architectural success or not will lay in the detailing and quality of materials, neither of which can be really judged based on the renderings so far.


Detailing by Kondylis ... :eek:


I can't see Foster in this building, but I can see Kondylis. I guess it's enough to have a starchitect's name attached to the building for the price premium.


from monknyc
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Review
The sales office at 25 Hudson Street opened on July 1. They have a hilarious model of the building that shows exactly how bland and out of context the building really is...The "chinchilla mink" marble flooring that they keep on bragging about looks like cheap white marble with skid marks all over it and resembles one of those dizzying "Seeing Eye" prints...The interior courtyard, with its puny waterfall, resembles the plaza design of a New Jersey suburban office building. Boxed in on three sides by the building and on the fourth by the dog run, it will be nothing but dead space during the cold half of the year.

Phentente
November 20th, 2005, 08:22 PM
I think its a shame its both a dull design and short. This location could've handled something much taller and more significant. NIMBY's in that area are real losers. They complain about the noise and the size of contruction only now that they've moved into buildings next door. 7 years ago when I was going to Stuyvesant High School which is where one of zippy's pictures was taken from I had to endure pile driving nextdoor to my precal class and I didnt complain. Even then I was happy about contruction around there. BTW Zippy, are you a student at Stuy? I graduated in 2002.

ZippyTheChimp
November 20th, 2005, 10:45 PM
My high school days are long over...but I still remember them.

I live in BPC.

ablarc
November 20th, 2005, 11:17 PM
*sigh*...the inexorable march of time...

lofter1
November 21st, 2005, 12:49 AM
I think its a shame its both a dull design and short. This location could've handled something much taller and more significant.
The problem with greater height at this site (at least with the massing in the way it was previously discussed) is that it would create a wall casting a shadow over much of Washington Market Park.

Perhaps a taller tower(s) on a base, rather than a slab as being built -- but that was never proposed.

The real problem is developers trying to max out every square inch of developable space, plus more -- and thus we end up with this ugly box.

Johnnyboy
November 21st, 2005, 01:31 PM
It's not exciting.

And it's not black.

fine. gray

ZippyTheChimp
November 21st, 2005, 03:58 PM
Does that mean you think it's fine, now that it's grey?

Johnnyboy
November 21st, 2005, 04:17 PM
no way. its ugly. just before i was corrected by the color of the building from black to gray. That building is still but ugly

GSN
January 9th, 2006, 12:14 AM
I have seen floorplans of the upper corner 2 and 3 and bedroom units in the tower portion of 200 chambers street. It seems to me that these corner units would not afford its occupants enough privacy because one would have the adjacent apartment's living/dining room ceiling to floor windows directly facing (at an angle) yours; not to mention those same apartments on immediately lower or higher floors that will also have direct views into your space. I would think that the architect/designer had thought of this (e.g., reworked the angles or applied a type of glass that would not permit viewing (during day or night) into the space but would permit views out), but apparently not. Does anyone know whether the design permits any privacy? This issue seems like a fatal flaw to the design of these multimillion dollar residential units.

lofter1
January 10th, 2006, 01:35 AM
I have seen floorplans ... of 200 chambers street. It seems to me that these corner units would not afford its occupants enough privacy because one would have the adjacent apartment's living/dining room ceiling to floor windows directly facing (at an angle) yours ... This issue seems like a fatal flaw to the design of these multimillion dollar residential units.
The workers are building the forms for the first floor concrete pour -- and it is very clear from the lay-out that is now visible at th site that the NW indented corner of the tower will create a situation exactly as you describe. The "point" of the tower along West Street will have windows facing towards other windows and this could be very odd.

Also it is now apparent that the West St. facade will come right to the lot line, directly up against the West St. sidewalk. This is something I've always disliked about the design of this building, especially considering that it will rise straight up from the lot line for its entire height. Winds off the Hudson shooting down the glass wall will be brutal at times.

This is the one downtown project that I would stop in its tracks if I could ;) (but I cain't ...).

GSN
January 10th, 2006, 12:02 PM
Thank you, lofter1, for your response.

I am told by the sales office at 200 chambers that it will be up to the occupants of each unit to find the correct window treatment to prevent views into the apartment but permitting views out. Apparently there is some sort of shade that permits this. Does anyone know what that shade is called?

The bottom line, however, is that I can't believe the designers of the building did not consider this. Why would anyone in their right mind pay millions for a West and Northern view (for the living/dining area) only to put shades on the entire Western side of the apartment?

lofter1
January 10th, 2006, 12:59 PM
I am told by the sales office at 200 chambers that it will be up to the occupants of each unit to find the correct window treatment to prevent views into the apartment but permitting views out. Apparently there is some sort of shade that permits this. Does anyone know what that shade is called?
That will make for an attractive jumble of installations :eek:

I don't know what specific shade they have in mind, but there are some types of "perforated" roll-down shades that do just what is described.

ZippyTheChimp
January 10th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Because people will pay premium for anything that has the luxury tag slapped on it.

My advise to you is: forget about window treatments. The problem will always annoy you, so look elsewhere.

harsaphes
March 4th, 2006, 07:34 AM
There is something with this building....about that it is less than 85 percent residential.....and therefor might actually be considered commercial?...I am getting the information wrong, but it is something like that....i have been looking to buy in this building, and my realestate lawyer pointed it out to me.

ablarc
March 4th, 2006, 09:17 AM
The real problem is developers trying to max out every square inch of developable space...
That's another way of saying: "The real problem is the developers aren't self-sacrificing saints." Or: "The developers aren't willing to earn less than they could." Or: "The developers aren't willing to set aside the methods of capitalism."

Developers will build at least to the maximum that zoning allows. If a particular lot calls for a smaller building that won't cast shadows on a park, then those specifications should be written into the zoning for the parcel in question. These matters are foreseeable; maybe you could say: "The zoning was faulty."

Sometimes the kneejerk blaming of developers sounds like carping. Why blame an eagle for being a carnivore?

brooklynheights
March 4th, 2006, 12:41 PM
That's another way of saying: "The real problem is the developers aren't self-sacrificing saints." Or: "The developers aren't willing to earn less than they could." Or: "The developers aren't willing to set aside the methods of capitalism."

Developers will build at least to the maximum that zoning allows. If a particular lot calls for a smaller building that won't cast shadows on a park, then those specifications should be written into the zoning for the parcel in question. These matters are foreseeable; maybe you could say: "The zoning was faulty."

Sometimes the kneejerk blaming of developers sounds like carping. Why blame an eagle for being a carnivore?

Surely it's true that developers will (and should be expected to) maximize revenue and profit, as ablarc points out, but that's not the same thing as maximizing every square inch of developable space, which seems to be lofter1's point. Quality is not the same thing as quantity, and at the high end of the residential market, quality can lead to far more profitablility than merely maxing out space.

While I can understand that a developer would almost always want to build to maximum heights allowed by zoning, and while I wish that zoning laws would be changed to allow even greater heights, allowing taller, more pleasing, set-back buildings rather than shorter, fat, shadow-casters (neighborhood groups unwittingly often argue for shorter but yet fatter buildings in a poorly thought-out and twisted view of how light and shadow work), surely it's ALSO true that a developer can create tremendous real-estate value by designing a classier building that doesn't necessarily maxout every square inch of developable space on each floor.

I love to eat (and am happily a carnivore like the eagle), but I'm willing to pay a lot more money for a wonderfully prepared plate with modest (and more sensible) portions than I am for a huge plate of mass-produced food at the Cheesecake Factory.

ablarc
March 4th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Surely it's true that developers will (and should be expected to) maximize revenue and profit, as ablarc points out, but that's not the same thing as maximizing every square inch of developable space...
Yes it is, because while...

[Quote=brooklynheights]Quality is not the same thing as quantity, and at the high end of the residential market, quality can lead to far more profitablility than merely maxing out space...
...and the ne plus ultra is maxing out the highest-quality space. If you're onto a high-markup design approach it still makes sense to max it out; that yields you the most profit of all.

Welcome, brooklynheights; I'm glad you're not deluded by the theory that tall buildings are evil, while short, fat ones good. We need you as Ambassador to the NIMBYs.

brooklynheights
March 4th, 2006, 02:07 PM
...and the ne plus ultra is maxing out the highest-quality space. If you're onto a high-markup design approach it still makes sense to max it out; that yields you the most profit of all.



This makes sense to me...a quality 2000sf apartment is better than the same quality 1500sf apartment. And two 1000sf apartments would be much more profitable than one (same quality) 1500st apartment. Maximizing high quality space seems to be sensible.

And yet, it seems to me that sometimes a strategic reduction of space is actually the REASON for making the space more high-quality and more profitable, especially when it comes to the angles of walls and the placement of windows. I'm a total novice (I have no design or architectural training whatsoever), but there's little question in my mind that the positioning and design of a building on a lot can't just be about maximizing square footage, even if all you are concerned about is maximizing profit. It seems clear to this untrained mind that value is a product of design and quality, and that in some cases it's actually smart to sacrifice overall square footage (by the way the angles of the building are designed) in order to create an overall much more appealing building from inside and out, and actually yielding a greater overall profit because of the rents those units can then command.

And THIS is a decision that would be made by developers, not by zoners.

I have no knowledge of the planning and design history of this buidling, but yet just by looking at the design for this particular building, I can't help but think that a redesign in which the footprint might be slightly (not greatly) smaller could have yielded angles that were FAR SUPERIOR than the current design, which itself would yield not only a far more attractive buidling, but a building with better views, hence more profitablility.

Thanks for the friendly welcome, ablarc. You can count on me to (almost) always argue for more height.

ablarc
March 4th, 2006, 03:04 PM
in some cases it's actually smart to sacrifice overall square footage (by the way the angles of the building are designed) in order to create an overall much more appealing building from inside and out, and actually yielding a greater overall profit because of the rents those units can then command.

And THIS is a decision that would be made by developers, not by zoners.

Yeah, an example of that might be 80 South Street by Calatrava and developer Sciame.

brooklynheights
March 4th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Yeah, an example of that might be 80 South Street by Calatrava and developer Sciame.

I love 80 South Street and I hope it gets built....and soon. While few (but I believe enough) people will be able to afford to buy a unit there, it's wonderful that we'll all be able to benefit from having it as part of our skyline. What a view I'll have from brooklyn heights!

harsaphes
March 8th, 2006, 07:33 AM
I bought an apt in 200 Chambers!.....I know how everyone LOVES-lol- this building. I did look in the following first....20 pine, BLUE, 1York, 505 Greenwich ect....basicly it came down to 200 ..believe it or not...it was the best bang for the buck. Everyone can come over for a beer after i move in!

lofter1
March 8th, 2006, 11:18 AM
Tell us more ...

what floor? what view?

MrSpice
March 8th, 2006, 11:32 AM
And most importantly, where did you get all this money to buy it? :)

m123456
March 8th, 2006, 11:49 AM
congrats btw

harsaphes
March 9th, 2006, 07:32 AM
I am in the north wing on the far east corner, 5th floor. I couldnt afford anything higher!.....at least i have a corner unit so i have the floor to ceiling glass on both sides of the living/dining and in the kitchen. I face the little park..dont know its name..across the st and clear the roof of the school? on the east side. I did negotiate the deal, even though on new construction they say they wont.
Oh...1 YORK?...nice building, cant afford to live there.....one bedrooms START at 1.3 million dollars!, and they are in the back of the building and face a wall 20 feet away, they dont even clear it!

ZippyTheChimp
March 9th, 2006, 08:00 AM
Washington Market Park.

You should have a view of Woolworth.

LeCom
March 11th, 2006, 11:21 PM
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/03/442536.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/03/442538.jpg

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


200 Chambers Street:


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422553.200Chambers.JPG

krulltime
March 25th, 2006, 12:13 PM
March 18, 2006:


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422819.IMG_8035.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422880.IMG_8046.jpg

vc10
March 25th, 2006, 03:53 PM
It's incredible how much this building has already changed the feel of Chambers St, partially built as it is. It's makes Chambers St east of West St feel more part of the city, and by extension, makes northern Battery Park City feel less isolated.

Not wild about the design, but still looking forward to it being finished, for the reason cited above.

antinimby
March 25th, 2006, 08:04 PM
It's incredible how much this building has already changed the feel of Chambers St, partially built as it is. It's makes Chambers St east of West St feel more part of the city, and by extension, makes northern Battery Park City feel less isolated.Would you please tell that to the community groups? They'd tell you that little or no development at all would be best for their neighborhood and the city.

infoshare
March 25th, 2006, 11:06 PM
I bought an apt in 200 Chambers!.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from bldg. website -
"Residents will bask in sun-flooded apartments with floor-to-ceiling, wall-of-glass windows offering unobstructed city and river views. Premium appliances including Sub Zero, Viking and Bosch will grace each residence, as will five-fixture marble master bathrooms and a washer and dryer unit in all tower residences. Ceiling heights of nine feet add to the feeling of spaciousness.

Upon entering the lobby of 200 Chambers Street, residents will be greeted by a 24-hour doorman and concierge. The elegant design is punctuated with a stunning marble floor that flows into a lusciously landscaped garden. Designed by the noted landscape architects Thomas Balsley Associates, this oasis is visible through a dramatic wall of glass.

A lap pool will be the centerpiece of the building's state-of-the-art health-and-fitness center. The resident amenity space will also include a lounge, a playroom, a conference center and a 5,000-square-foot terrace. An on-site garage will provide added convenience.

Contributing to the excitement of 200 Chambers Street is the world-class TriBeCa neighborhood that offers cosmopolitan dining, shopping and recreational attractions. The building location, steps from the waterfront and the esplanade along the Hudson River, offers residents fabulous parks, top-ranked public schools and a major transportation hub."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hey, Great news.

p.s. will you be my friend? l-o-l

lofter1
March 25th, 2006, 11:35 PM
Excerpt from bldg. website -
"...Contributing to the excitement of 200 Chambers Street is the world-class TriBeCa neighborhood ... The building location, steps from the waterfront and the esplanade along the Hudson River, offers residents fabulous parks, top-ranked public schools and a major transportation hub."

The marketers never seem to mention that the new kids in the neighborhood just might not fit into the existing overcrowded schools: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89415&postcount=159

That "major transportation hub" will come in handy (once it opens in 200 -- what??) when you're trying to get the little ones to their school across town.

Buyer Beware! (And save up for that private school.)

vc10
March 28th, 2006, 05:03 PM
I'm not sure what they mean by "major transportation hub" but I suspect it's the Chambers St 1-2-3 subway station. One thing I like about northern BPC is that it's an easy walk to the 1-2-3 and the A-C-E. In fact, if you're going to the east side, it's not a bad walk to the 4-5-6 at City Hall.


The marketers never seem to mention that the new kids in the neighborhood just might not fit into the existing overcrowded schools: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89415&postcount=159

That "major transportation hub" will come in handy (once it opens in 200 -- what??) when you're trying to get the little ones to their school across town.

Buyer Beware! (And save up for that private school.)

ZippyTheChimp
March 28th, 2006, 05:31 PM
East-west blocks are much shorter downtown, so three blocks isn't much of a schlepp.

lofter1
March 28th, 2006, 06:15 PM
My guess is that the "major transportation hub" refers to the WTC / Calatrava complex.

Derek2k3
May 12th, 2006, 03:49 PM
A portion of the facade is now up. (http://testofwill.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_testofwill_archive.html)

pianoman11686
May 12th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Here's the photo, singled-out:

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/230/1249/1024/060427%20046.jpg

The facade's looking pretty high-quality so far. This building may just turn out to be a nice addition to the area.

Citytect
May 12th, 2006, 04:49 PM
I like it.

kliq6
May 12th, 2006, 04:55 PM
this is a really nicwe building, its coming along nice and a great addition to the area

hey19932
May 13th, 2006, 02:45 AM
the glass looks fantastic!!!!!:D :D :D

ZippyTheChimp
May 15th, 2006, 01:03 AM
The Chambers St wing and the tower are getting a different treatment.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8168/200chambers03c2aw.th.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200chambers03c2aw.jpg) http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5971/200chambers04c0vs.th.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200chambers04c0vs.jpg)

lofter1
May 15th, 2006, 01:36 AM
The glass looks good -- individually ...

But looks like it will be a bit relentless if it covers the entire facade without variation.

vc10
May 20th, 2006, 02:32 PM
Agreed. It's too slick and impersonal for a residential building. I suspect it will eventually look like a building in a suburban office park -- it will look like it's name should be something like Tech Center Building 320...


The glass looks good -- individually ...

But looks like it will be a bit relentless if it covers the entire facade without variation.

kurokevin
May 20th, 2006, 04:11 PM
Nah. I'll agree, it does look slick, but if anything it will resemble the Urban Glass House, which creates quite an interesting effect.

Scruffy88
June 16th, 2006, 04:16 PM
JUNE 1

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/cha3.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/cha5.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/cha8.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/Cha15.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/cha16.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/cha4.jpg

ablarc
June 16th, 2006, 05:37 PM
This is the Zone of (Too) Big Things. Though it's not especially tall, this building is too big because it covers too much ground. This makes it somewhat less pedestrian-friendly than four or five smaller-footprint buildings built on the same turf. These would have been much preferable --especially if their aggregate square footage were more. More variety would result, more visual interest, better streetscape. So paradoxically you could say the building is simultaneously too small and too big.

NoyokA
June 16th, 2006, 08:11 PM
I have a thing for dark glass buildings. The contrast is sharp. This building is shaping up nicely.

antinimby
June 17th, 2006, 08:31 AM
I have a thing for dark glass buildings.Therapy? :D

NoyokA
June 17th, 2006, 08:48 AM
Therapy? :D

Some fetishes are healthy. Be glad I don't have an overall Costas Kondylis fetish. But I sure love his modernist black glass boxes.

antinimby
June 18th, 2006, 03:20 AM
Some fetishes are healthy.Like which ones?
Got to get me a fetish. :D

ZippyTheChimp
June 18th, 2006, 07:51 AM
Foot fetish.

You could become the next Manolo Blahnik.

harsaphes
July 2nd, 2006, 12:11 AM
my investment is looking good...now lets hope the prices keep rising across the street at 101 warren:)

Kace
July 2nd, 2006, 06:04 PM
How are the units at 101 Warren Street selling? That seems to be a much more interesting building.

infoshare
July 2nd, 2006, 11:21 PM
my investment is looking good...now lets hope the prices keep rising across the street at 101 warren:)

In my opinion the architectural design of this building is excellent: and (from what I saw last week) the construction and materials are all 'high grade'. So yes: it seems your investment is in fact looking good. :D

I am looking forward to seeing the finished project.

harsaphes
July 5th, 2006, 01:52 AM
friends that were looking in the three million range, were told those apts were sold out in 101.....of course all these buildings HOLD apts off the market after they were shown...happened to me at 200 chambers....so who knows.....also part of 101 is low income rental?.....or have i made that up?

Kace
July 5th, 2006, 07:36 PM
The rentals are a separte (but related building). The condo units have an entrance on Warren Street. It sounds as if the units are selling quickly, with very few left in the market. Certain seems to offer many more amenities than 200 Chambers. Has anyone heard of price increases?

lofter1
July 5th, 2006, 07:55 PM
Walking along the Hudson River Park in the Village today I noticed that this bulding will soon completely eclipse the Verizon Building a few blocks to the south on West St / Vesey St.

From the north 200 Chambers appears as two black shafts rising above West St.

Quite imposing.

The sight of the graceful Verizon Building will be missed. Just wish it were being hidden by a better looking building.

Kace
July 5th, 2006, 08:34 PM
The facade of 200 Chambers looks like what one would see in an office park for a typical run of the mill office building. 101 Warren's facade looks much more interesting with its set offs and colored granite. Given how those buildings are laid out, 101 Warren will be more visible up the west side.

lofter1
July 5th, 2006, 11:03 PM
Wish that ^ were true.

West St. has a slight angle to the SW when looked at from the Village so both of the western facing facades of 101 Warren & 200 Chambers will pretty much have equal presence when viewed from the north along the Manhattan side of the Hudson.

Overwhelming both will be the north facade of 200 Chambers -- the low expanse of the multi-block LMCC building creates an open and unblocked view of the tower along West St.

On the right is what we'll see -- rising up 30+ stories:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/cha8.jpg

Here is a rendering showing the full effect of the northern facade of the tower; 101 Warren's facade will peek out between 200 Chambers and the St. John's building:

http://img22.photobucket.com/albums/v65/RandySavage/5c-model-of-bldg.jpg

Kace
July 6th, 2006, 06:00 PM
I see the problem. The West street facade of 101 will be very thin. However, the north facade of 101 Warren should be quite visible. 200 Chambers should only take up about 1/3 of that side and 101 is taller. At least 101 Warren will look as if it is integrated as part of the buildings there. The top part of that building looks a lot like 7 WTC.

lofter1
July 6th, 2006, 07:13 PM
101 Warren's eastern end of the tower's north facade will have more exposure / better views -- but 200 Chambers will block the northern views of the western half of 101. On the 101 website they show theoretical views -- but the view to the north conveniently leaves out any image of the 29 stories / 300 feet of 200 Chambers that will be right across the street.

Here's a composite I threw together a while back:

***

NYatKNIGHT
July 7th, 2006, 03:35 PM
7/3/06

http://pbase.com/image/63108796.jpg

sfenn1117
July 7th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Nice photo. Should be nearly topped out by now. I like it; it's high-quality work with good materials, and it sure beats the empty lot that was there since the 60s.

Together with 101 Warren, this part of town will finally be built out. Hard to believe the urban renewal took over four decades to complete.

lofter1
July 7th, 2006, 08:58 PM
This (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8814) will soon go up in that slot in BPC and hide that new black and silver thing:

http://www.sheldrake.com/images/projects/batteryparkb.jpg

ablarc
July 7th, 2006, 09:02 PM
Dull on dull.

LeCom
July 19th, 2006, 02:14 PM
200 Chambers has topped out

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/07/474433.jpg

krulltime
July 19th, 2006, 02:16 PM
^ Great! It turn out to be fine. Nice shot.

NoyokA
July 19th, 2006, 03:25 PM
Very pleased with the outcome of this one. The corners are especially handsome and are well executed. This building does well creating a transition between the residential towers of Battery Park City and the corporate towers of the Financial District.

SilentPandaesq
July 19th, 2006, 03:38 PM
What are those rectangle inserts on the windows? Do they open, or is that some sort of design element.

Also - nice picture

NoyokA
July 19th, 2006, 03:49 PM
What are those rectangle inserts on the windows? Do they open, or is that some sort of design element.

Also - nice picture

I would hope that they would serve some sort of function and be operable...

ZippyTheChimp
July 19th, 2006, 04:00 PM
Those rectangles are casement windows. I think they should have been a bit larger.

The building turned out much better than the renderings.

SilentPandaesq
July 19th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Those rectangles are casement windows. I think they should have been a bit larger.


I don't know the what the difference is between regular windows and casement windows. Are they some sort of window in a window set?

Should the whole window be larger or just the rectangle part?

ZippyTheChimp
July 19th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Casement windows are hinged on the side, and usually open outward, like a door.

It's pretty clear I was talking about the "rectangles."

SilentPandaesq
July 19th, 2006, 05:31 PM
gotcha - thanks

one more - Are they supported in the T-shaped part of the window , or are they really 2 different windows that are combined to make a whole. I guess I am asking is the glass flush inside or are there hinges at the meeting point of the rectangle and the upside down T part?

Kace
July 20th, 2006, 12:05 PM
It is a very handsome and imposing facade. It looks more like an office tower than a residential building. Seems a bit out of place and cold, especially with the tinted windows surrounded by the silver/metallic trim.

lofter1
July 20th, 2006, 12:35 PM
It is a very handsome ... imposing ... more like an office tower ... a bit out of place and cold ...
Are you using "handsome" in the same way that CityRealty does?

(Much like describing Bea Arthur as a "handsome" woman) ;)

I'm in full agreement with your other points -- and think, for such a prominent site, that something far less conventiional would've been better. Not that flash and dazzle would be necessary, but something less abrupt would've been welcome here.

Kace
July 20th, 2006, 12:48 PM
Handsome as in, it doesn't hurt the eyes and is not gaudy (probably not in the Bea Arthur sense). It would be a a very nice building in an office park or midtown or wall street. The bulk of the building being on west side highway makes a big difference. I agree with the comment that it is somewhat of a transition into the remainder of the neighborhood. Still interested in seeing how the area will look with 101 Warren to the south of this building.

LeCom
July 20th, 2006, 05:42 PM
This is not a transition building, at least north-south wise, as there is a taller office tower a couple of blocks north up the West Side Highway. However, the transition is real nice east-west wise, with the east portion going down to the level of the school directly to the east, which is a great and pretty new lowrise building that isn't going anywhere anytime soon, while the west side has the tower that looks great on West Street and creates transition from lowrisers to BPC to the west across the street.

LeCom
July 20th, 2006, 06:05 PM
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/4953/img2701xt3.jpg

finnman69
July 24th, 2006, 11:02 PM
Here is a beter rendering...


200 Chambers Street:


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/57422553.200Chambers.JPG


in reality the glass appears jet black on a bright day. Very very dark grey tint.

It makes me want to hum the 'Imperial March' theme from Star Wars.

DUM DUM DUM, DA DI DA, DA DI DAAA, DUM DUM DUM DA DI DA DUM DI DUM.

finnman69
July 24th, 2006, 11:08 PM
http://www.transom.org/shows/photos/200210.vader1.240.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/07/474433.jpg

pianoman11686
July 24th, 2006, 11:18 PM
I think it looks much better than the renderings. And what's wrong with the occasional black-glass building? A little contrast never hurt anyone. It may be inappropriate in certain cases (Park Avenue being one of them) but I think it fits in pretty well with the West Street crowd.

finnman69
July 24th, 2006, 11:27 PM
I think it looks much better than the renderings. And what's wrong with the occasional black-glass building? A little contrast never hurt anyone. It may be inappropriate in certain cases (Park Avenue being one of them) but I think it fits in pretty well with the West Street crowd.

i'll give you it's better than most Costas buildings, but its got Fosters fingerprints on this..

Not sure all of the fussy alternating shifting piers are really legible. I drove past it today and I really had to look closely to see the articulation which is a tad too subtle.

Shocked by the glass. There is no way it's bright and airy inside that glass. I don't mind black glass. I think the New Glass House nearby is very good.

pianoman11686
July 24th, 2006, 11:47 PM
Man, I couldn't disagree with you more. I don't see any of Foster in this. And, I think the Glass House building is really lamentable, especially considering what we could have had there. I guess there's nothing wrong with divergent opinions, though.

BPC
July 24th, 2006, 11:53 PM
I don't know. Something about the construction looks kind of cheap.

NoyokA
July 25th, 2006, 12:03 AM
Man, I couldn't disagree with you more. I don't see any of Foster in this. And, I think the Glass House building is really lamentable, especially considering what we could have had there. I guess there's nothing wrong with divergent opinions, though.

Even though quality materials were used for this one, Foster probably would have had even better treatments. That said Kondylis' design doesn't stray much from Fosters...

http://img22.photobucket.com/albums/v65/RandySavage/5c-model-of-bldg.jpg

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/470-realestate.JPG

ablarc
July 25th, 2006, 12:12 AM
Kondylis' design doesn't stray much from Fosters...
Yeah, they're both second-rate.

finnman69
July 25th, 2006, 12:25 AM
I don't know. Something about the construction looks kind of cheap.

The glass just looks cheap, clunky heavy detailing.

lofter1
July 25th, 2006, 01:06 AM
Approaching this one sure wouldn't make me think, "Aaahhh, I'm HOME."

ablarc
July 25th, 2006, 01:27 AM
Approaching this one sure wouldn't make me think, "Aaahhh, I'm HOME."
Needs fluorescent lights.

LeCom
July 25th, 2006, 10:17 AM
July 24, 2006

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/07/476147.jpg

Kace
July 25th, 2006, 11:42 AM
There is no indication on the outside of the building that it is residential. Almost all of the residential buildings in the area have a brick or stone facade. Even assuming you include BPC North as part of the neighborhood, those buildings are primarily brick. In Tribeca, almost all of the buildings are brick or stone with some exceptions, but those tend to draw elements from surrounding buildings and are not of the scale of this building. Perhaps it would have been interesting to take some inspiration from the Tribeca bridge or something for this building. It just doesn't seem to fit.

harsaphes
July 27th, 2006, 10:27 PM
I LOVE IT, and after i move in, you can all come over and watch star wars, hum the theme, talk about how you couldnt find it since it doesnt fit in/look residential, have a drink, walk through my apt and point out the cheap materials, and how dark it is inside because of the windows, joke about how i'm living in an office building and have a generally really good time. And after everyone leaves, i will be so happy, cause im HOME.

Derek2k3
July 27th, 2006, 10:36 PM
I LOVE IT, and after i move in, you can all come over and watch star wars, hum the theme, talk about how you couldnt find it since it doesnt fit in/look residential, have a drink, walk through my apt and point out the cheap materials, and how dark it is inside because of the windows, joke about how i'm living in an office building and have a generally really good time. And after everyone leaves, i will be so happy, cause im HOME.
haha, can't wait.

LeCom
July 28th, 2006, 03:06 PM
200 Chambers yesterday:

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/07/476777.jpg

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 03:19 PM
those off-set verticals are so weird

Kace
July 28th, 2006, 03:22 PM
I LOVE IT, and after i move in, you can all come over and watch star wars, hum the theme, talk about how you couldnt find it since it doesnt fit in/look residential, have a drink, walk through my apt and point out the cheap materials, and how dark it is inside because of the windows, joke about how i'm living in an office building and have a generally really good time. And after everyone leaves, i will be so happy, cause im HOME.

When I leave your party (and thank you for the drinks) and go home, I will still think that the building looks like an office building from every angle, including the view from the Whole Foods, the Barnes & Noble, the pine forest and my loggia in my home across the street from you at 101 Warren.

LeCom
July 28th, 2006, 03:27 PM
You aint seen a building that looks like an office. In fact, this beauty in Downtown has recently been converted to condos:

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/12/419877.jpg

I shit you not

pianoman11686
July 28th, 2006, 03:36 PM
When I leave your party (and thank you for the drinks) and go home, I will still think that the building looks like an office building from every angle, including the view from the Whole Foods, the Barnes & Noble, the pine forest and my loggia in my home across the street from you at 101 Warren.

It's always nice when you can throw a word like "loggia" in a sentence that describes where you live. The real estate agencies should start using that when advertising luxury developments. Sounds much more exotic than "granite countertop" or "Subzero fridge". Those have become way too standard.

harsaphes
July 28th, 2006, 07:22 PM
yeah....but i got my one bedroom for under a million...with the extra for the "loggia" I"ll buy a vaction rental in maui.

lofter1
July 28th, 2006, 10:14 PM
When I leave your party (and thank you for the drinks) and go home, I will still think that the building looks like an office building from every angle, including the view from the Whole Foods, the Barnes & Noble, the pine forest and my loggia in my home across the street from you at 101 Warren.
Hmmm, neighborhood rivalries already ... soon tomatoes could be flying across Warren St.

harsaphes
July 29th, 2006, 07:39 PM
organic...from Whole Foods

LeCom
July 30th, 2006, 04:21 PM
I walk that block segment twice a day; if any of tose tomatoes, no matter how organic, hit me, there will be beatdowns - I know a janitor who works in Battery Park City and lives in Newark and has affilations with local gangs. And Battery Park City is just across the street.

finnman69
July 30th, 2006, 08:51 PM
It's always nice when you can throw a word like "loggia" in a sentence that describes where you live. The real estate agencies should start using that when advertising luxury developments. Sounds much more exotic than "granite countertop" or "Subzero fridge". Those have become way too standard.

you wanna talk advertising?

One the sidewalk bridge, there is a rendering of a woman in a towel squatting on the floor of her average white marble bathroom with the caption 'I WANT LUXURY"

Apparently the bathrooms are so nice naked women just feel the need to plop their fannies on cold marble tile.

lofter1
July 30th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Apparently the bathrooms are so nice naked women just feel the need to plop their fannies on cold marble tile.

For the prices they're charging there better be RADIANT HEATING under those marble floors ...

pianoman11686
July 30th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Related: Playing the Sex Card (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/realestate/16cov.html?ex=1154404800&en=91c98ffc1b916d55&ei=5070)

Kace
July 31st, 2006, 11:11 AM
For those prices, I thought the woman came with the apartment. If not, I want my money back.

harsaphes
July 31st, 2006, 12:41 PM
she does come with it....but there is only woman for the whole complex, so she has alot of bathrooms to visit!

Moose56
August 2nd, 2006, 12:35 AM
Honestly, both locations have their pros and cons. It all depends on what's important to you. Obviously both places will give you the lifestyle that you want, having almost the exact same amenities in every condo AND being in Tribeca, no less.

Warren gives you high ceilings (10-12 foot ceilings) and more square footage in the designs for a 2 bedroom/3 bedroom. But there are no views unless you take anything above the 29th floor. That is unless you call that little slot between the future Goldman Sachs building and BCP building a view. The bad thing about 101 Warren (even though you may have a septerate entrance) is that Whole Foods, Bed Bath and Beyond and Barnes and Noble will bring sooo much traffic into the building. By the time foot traffic starts coming, it will feel like you're in the AOL Time Warner building. The prices here have already maxed out, and I don't see much upside for added value in the future.

In 200 Chambers the apartments are smaller with 9 foot ceilings, but has no obstructed views on the northwest and east corner of the building. The views here will never be lost, unless they tear down BMCC and relocate the building. Clean modern lines and luxury is what a buyer looks for here. The facade may be more office-type but what can you expect when you're a couple blocks away from the financial district, on the west side highway? Its got to hold its own! I think the building is a nice transition between the two very different residential areas.

While searching for my future home between the two, I decided to purchase the northeast apartment at 200 Chambers with the unobstructed views. I like the idea of waking up with the sun from our eastward facing bedrooms and taking in the sunset over the hudson from the living room. The marble bathrooms and amenities may be standard to some, but you cannot deny that its still beautiful. As if that is not enough, it will most definitely hold more resell value than its 101 Warren rival.

stache
August 2nd, 2006, 05:12 AM
Another spam broker.

finnman69
August 2nd, 2006, 11:16 AM
The marble bathrooms and amenities may be standard to some, but you cannot deny that its still beautiful. As if that is not enough, it will most definitely hold more resell value than its 101 Warren rival.

pffffttttttt

BrooklynRider
August 2nd, 2006, 11:40 AM
... Obviously both places will give you the lifestyle that you want, having almost the exact same amenities in every condo AND being in Tribeca, no less... The prices here have already maxed out, and I don't see much upside for added value in the future... The views here will never be lost, unless they tear down BMCC and relocate the building. Clean modern lines and luxury is what a buyer looks for here. ...I like the idea of waking up with the sun from our eastward facing bedrooms and taking in the sunset over the hudson from the living room. The marble bathrooms and amenities may be standard to some, but you cannot deny that its still beautiful. As if that is not enough, it will most definitely hold more resell value than its 101 Warren rival.

Oh brother, spare us this crap. Identify yourself as a broker.

"Clean lines and luxury is what the buyer looks for here" - right, as if that is not lifted out of some crappy, recycled RE standard line manual.

Pretty clear you are a broker on 200 Chambers Street and competing with 101 Warren.

This, visitors to this website, is precisely why you need to visit and revist this site. Read the threads. Listen to people who don't have a financial interest in their "advice giving." Read this stuff and critically think, do people really talk like this?

That is a crap post that can be viewed as spam. Spam being worthless postings that contribute NOTHING OF VALUE to the conversation.

We need to be welcoming to newcomers on this site, but do our part as forum members to flag this kind of stuff for moderators.

Moose56
August 2nd, 2006, 01:56 PM
I don't understand why are you judging me? This is my first post and I am a buyer at 200 chambers. I was just telling you why I picked 200 over 101- I just wanted to share some of my experiences with other buyers on the forum... Is that a crime? from what I've read on the site, opinions are welcome and that's all I'm sharing.

NoyokA
August 2nd, 2006, 02:16 PM
Let's not bully member Moose56. If he was a broker he would have left some contact information in his first post.

lofter1
August 3rd, 2006, 01:33 AM
I don't understand why are you judging me? This is my first post ... from what I've read on the site, opinions are welcome and that's all I'm sharing.
Don't take it too hard Moose.

It's hot out. We're a grumpy bunch sometimes.

Think of it as a kind of "hazing" :cool:

Consider yourself initiated ... and welcome aboard !!

BrooklynRider
August 3rd, 2006, 01:40 AM
I don't understand why are you judging me? This is my first post and I am a buyer at 200 chambers. I was just telling you why I picked 200 over 101- I just wanted to share some of my experiences with other buyers on the forum... Is that a crime? from what I've read on the site, opinions are welcome and that's all I'm sharing.

Then explain some of the staements you made such as:

1). The prices here [101 Warren] have already maxed out, and I don't see much upside for added value in the future.

It has sold out 40% to date and that is not bad for pre-con on a building that is hardly out of the ground. How many amendments did you review at 101 Warren? What amendment are they up to over there?

2) But there are no [101 Warren] views unless you take anything above the 29th floor....[200 Chambers] has no obstructed views on the northwest and east corner of the building. The views here will never be lost, unless they tear down BMCC and relocate the building.

The views from both buildings are going to overlook the baseball fields at BPC and will face the two Milstein Towers that will begin construction shortly adjacent to that park. Consideringthe juxtaposition of the two buildings, it seems that 101 Warren will have the exact same views - 101 Warren will have that little slot between the future Goldman Sachs building and BCP building and 200 Chambers will have that little slot on the northwest and east corner of the building.

3) Clean modern lines and luxury is what a buyer looks for here.[200 Chambers]

What kind of "lines" does the new, modern, luxury 101 Warren have? Can you do a quick comparison of the lines of the two buildings and the amenities? You said you have done your homework and you made this definitive statement. What exactly are the differences between the two in regards to the "lines" and the luxury (building features and services, apartment appliances and finishes)?

4) [200 Chambers] will most definitely hold more resell value than its 101 Warren rival.

Quantify that statement. Exactly what do you base this rather odd and seemingly baseless statement on?

Look, if you are truly not a broker, then admit you love the place you bought and leave it there. But, there is no doubt within what you have written that you are getting talking points from somewhere that seems intent on swaying people to 200 Chambers, which is nice - but about on par with 101 Warren. If anything, I think 101 Warren is going to be more upscale, more exclusive, more expensive and a stronger investment - if for no other reason than it is not on Chambers Street - a major east/west thoroughfare with car exhaust wafting up into the windows on the northern facade - keeping windows fairly filthy on a regular basis.

You post did not read as someone excited about their purchase. It read as a post by someone out to bash the 101 Warren project and it used typical broker-style statements to do it. So, welcome to the forum and let's continue the dialogue.

lofter1
August 3rd, 2006, 02:02 AM
But Moose is right that the views from 200 on the north side are better than what 101 will have looking north ...

ZippyTheChimp
August 3rd, 2006, 07:16 AM
Then explain some of the staements you made such as:Does your critique show him to be a broker, or someone who is in error?

He may in fact be a broker, but the moderators who were alerted to this posting did not see evidence of it, and no action was taken.

The issue is settled.

Moose56
August 3rd, 2006, 04:48 PM
I forgot what its like to be hazed, its been a while since I
have been in college! Thank you for welcoming me aboard.

Brooklynrider:
Are you sure YOU'RE not a broker? You're sounding really
defensive about 101 warren? I am not here to criticize you, I agree with you that Warren will be a great building. The point I was trying to make is their asking price psf has always been and still is higher than 200 chambers. They're only in their first Phase of selling! Most properties max out their prices toward the end of completion, holding back condos hoping to get a higher number as demand for space increases. What I don't agree with is when someone tells me, "oh this building is 40% sold." How many phases do these buildings go through again? Usually 3-4. SO, that 40% means Warren is 40% sold of their Phase 1, being that they're still in their first stage. Not 40% sold of the entire building.

In case you haven't noticed, the clean and modern look I mentioned eariler is the general approach most builders take for new construction in Manhattan. I was just emphasizing that in order to maximize sales in an area such as Tribeaca, quality materials are used and cheap just won't cut it. I'm not saying 101 Warren doesn't have quality.

I'm not even going to mention again about the views, its self explanatory. I am just stating the reasons why I bought 200 chambers, and as a buyer I felt I made a great choice. I will be the first to say I love the place I bought and I can't wait to move in!

Hope that sates your appetite, and is enough for your little questionnaire.

infoshare
August 3rd, 2006, 11:31 PM
I forgot what its like to be hazed, its been a while since I
have been in college! Thank you for welcoming me aboard.

"quality materials are used and cheap just won't cut it. I'm not saying 101 Warren doesn't have quality."

Compare the curtain wall at 200 chambers (or 101 Warren) with this (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=110970&postcount=86): nuff said.:D :D :D

lofter1
August 4th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Those ^^ ruffles are at the >> :: hecch :: << ... Ariel East

Derek2k3
August 4th, 2006, 02:51 AM
http://static.flickr.com/64/199769969_f2a123775e.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/61/199770094_670f7c1aba.jpg
June 27, 2006
DMurrow's photostream (http://flickr.com/photos/murrowfamily/)

hella good
August 4th, 2006, 09:08 AM
has it topped out?

BrooklynRider
August 4th, 2006, 11:52 AM
Brooklynrider:
Are you sure YOU'RE not a broker?...
Hope that sates your appetite, and is enough for your little questionnaire.

I'm not a broker and not an agent. I have nothing to do with sales and my income is pure salary. Most people on the forum have learned my real name and anyone can reference it to the division of licensing or REBNY. I worked in Contruction Managment from 1987 through 2001 and moved into the real estate sector in 2005. I've been at my present employer since June 2005 and head up Operations also working on company branding, Marketing, and Research. I have no personal financial interest in any property being sold anywhere as I receive no commissions or percentages on sales. I am rewarded with a good salary for good work. 101 Warren is not repped by my firm and neither is 200 Chambers, nor do I comment on projects my company is working on, other than to offer factual info (not spin) as a courtesy to forum members who share info on projects they are working on. I hate when others do it and I don't do it myself.

I tend not to hold back my opinions, observations and responses and engage in threads throughout the forum community. And, every once in a while, I'll stoke non-believers with some conspiracy theory. I think the President is a Nazi and the Congress a collection of corporate whores and criminals. The Iraq war was wrong. I say "no" to Hillary in 2008. I think Dick Cheney is the personifaction of evil. Condi Rice is incompetent. Nancy Pelosi is shrill and Ned Lamont is a much better human being than Joe Lieberman, who is resorting to thuggery in to hold his seat in Connecticut. I think Bloomberg is a great Mayor economically, but will trample civil rights in a heartbeat. And, I support the right to bear arms, women's reproductive rights, separation of church and state, marriage rights for the LGBT community.

There's been a spate of company marketers and brokers posing as posters and making innocent sounding posts that are, in fact, ads and, although Zippy responded publicly to a question about your post, he might (or might not) want to back me up on the statement that marketers and brokers do post here - some fully engaged and with real stuff to share - others to simply lead people to their projects, products or firms (all against forum rules if not posted in the services section).

So, there you go. Quid Pro Quo. Welcome to WiredNewYork - and if you see anyone advertising - flag it to moderators using the triangle icon with the "!" in the middle.

ZippyTheChimp
August 4th, 2006, 12:53 PM
This side discussion is ended. Go here. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10197)

harsaphes
August 4th, 2006, 10:50 PM
actually some of the apts in 200 have 11 foot ceilings..i know apt number 7p has 11 foot ceilings. I also am on the north east corner, in the wing, my view is the small park across the street, which i assume will always be there, nice, and a view facing east. Also today on the web site, therealdeal.net they say 200 chambers has sold 200 of their apts...nice.

infoshare
August 4th, 2006, 11:44 PM
my view is the small park across the street, which i assume will always be there, nice, and a view facing east.

The park is there to stay; so the views on that side of the building are definitely not at risk of being blocked by future construction.

This project has been a long time in the making; it's great to see it nearing completion. :cool:

BPC
August 5th, 2006, 05:39 AM
I think the President is a Nazi and the Congress a collection of corporate whores and criminals. The Iraq war was wrong. I say "no" to Hillary in 2008. I think Dick Cheney is the personifaction of evil. Condi Rice is incompetent. Nancy Pelosi is shrill and Ned Lamont is a much better human being than Joe Lieberman, who is resorting to thuggery in to hold his seat in Connecticut. I think Bloomberg is a great Mayor economically, but will trample civil rights in a heartbeat. And, I support the right to bear arms, women's reproductive rights, separation of church and state, marriage rights for the LGBT community.

BR's post reminded me of Kevin Costner's line from Bull Durham:

"I believe in the soul, the c___, the p____, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

infoshare
August 5th, 2006, 09:26 AM
BR's post reminded me of Kevin Costner's line from Bull Durham:

"I believe in the soul, the c___, the p____, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

Very funny....LOL. btw....despite my recent praise for her book "In America" - I'll agree with B Durham: Susan Sontag is overrated.:D

Derek2k3
August 8th, 2006, 12:00 AM
http://static.flickr.com/47/209703419_576dce0a56.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/74/209703422_4a8430685b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/62/209703421_3a15e86224.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/85/209703420_e800f9eeda_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/79/209703417_1e504b2802_o.jpg

lofter1
August 8th, 2006, 12:40 AM
In that first shot from the water 200 looks surprisingly short ...

NoyokA
August 8th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Thanks for the pictures Derek. This is an excellent building, I am very satisfied with it. This is the second great modernist building Kondylis has penned, the other being the Trump World Tower. The materials and height to width dimensions are spot on. I especially like the rounded aluminum framing the pitch black glass sides. Pictures one and four really showcase how the building positively contributes to the skyline.

ablarc
August 8th, 2006, 12:48 AM
It's way too short. Thank the NIMBYs for that.

Didn't Foster quit on this one due to the NIMBYs?