Two new condo towers on East 57th

[londonlawyer]

There's an article in the 9/14/04 edition of the NY Post about this.

[Stern]

I couldn't find the article...

[londonlawyer]

It was a very small article and stated that two new condos will go up across the street from each other on 57th between 2nd and 3rd. One is where the old Whiz store was located, and the site has been demolished already. The other is where the Sutton movie cinema is located. They're taking the cinema apart at the moment. (Seats are for sale.) The article said that there's a chance that the theatre's neoclassical facade may be restored and incorporated into the new building.

[billyblancoNYC]

http://www.nypost.com/realestate/30281.htm

The elegant block of East 57th Street between Second and Third avenues has long had two out-of-place, low-rise structures sandwiched amid large apartment buildings: the shuttered Sutton cinema at No. 207 and the odd-looking two-story store at 218 that most recently housed the Wiz.

But the residential-market locomotive has at last caught up with it, and two luxury condo towers are about to rise almost directly across the street from one another. A partnership that includes Broadway Management principals Charles Hertzka and Joseph Neumann has demolished the storefront at No. 218 and begun construction of Sutton 57, a 24-story condo tower with 38 apartments and retail space at sidewalk level.

Hertzka's company bought the site in February. He called the new tower "just the right sort of thing for this wonderful neighborhood."

To showcase the apartments, Hertzka and Neumann just leased the 3,000 square-foot retail space next door at 220 E. 57th St. that was formerly home to Artifax. Garrick Aug's Faith Hope Consolo brokered the deal.

Meanwhile, across the street, the Sutton is being largely demolished by the Clarett Group, which has filed preliminary plans with the Buildings Dept. for a condo tower of 30 stories, likely to be named Place 57.

Buidings Dept. spokesperson Ilyse Fink said the plans call for "removal of pediment and columns and repair facade as required," suggesting that part of the facade might be preserved. The tower plans have yet to be approved, and sources said that Clarett might change its mind about the height and size.

[londonlawyer]

Thanks, Bill.

I must add, however, that the author's description of this block as "elegant" is overly myopic. It's a crappy block marred by a horrible, dilapidated 1950's public school on the south side of the street and white and blue brick apartment towers on the south and north sides. It becomes "elegant" when one proceeds west of Third Ave. (and for that matter east of Second Ave.). Hopefully, however, these buildings will be nice and will reduce the blight of this stretch of 57th Street.

[Stern]

Basically anything on 57th is expensive, despite what might look otherwise...

p.s. This thread belongs in Real Estate.

[londonlawyer]

Everything in Manhattan is clearly expensive. My girlfriend and I live on York, and I always notice that on the Upper East Side, Third Avenue is a dividing line between the pristine and the not-so-pristine section of the UES. For example, York, First and Second Avenues have many blighted, white brick buildings and run-down tenements with missing molding (that remind me of a person with missing teeth), yet, when one crosses Third, everything suddenly becomes beautiful. The streets (particularly those between Fifth and Lex) are filled with stunning, well-maintained buildings. Nevertheless, the buildings on York, First and Second are expensive, despite looking shabby.

Ultimately, however, there's been a wave of development in Manhattan, and many shoddy areas have been and/or will be rejuvenated in time. Look at the part of Madison between 42nd and 50th Streets; it was horrible, and yet now, it's really nice. The same holds true with 42nd Street between GCS and Bryant Park (let alone Times Square).

[Gulcrapek]

I really think your standards are too high. Every area can't be immaculate.

[Pottebaum]

Every area can't be immaculate.

I wouldn't want it to be either; a city is supposed to be a place to live---not a museum or showcase of all things fancy and sparkly. :P

[billyblancoNYC]

I really think your standards are too high. Every area can't be immaculate.

True, but why not try for it or want it?

[TLOZ Link5]

New York used to be very clean. I'm not saying we should be like Singapore, though Toronto would be a nice model — minus the homeless people.

[londonlawyer]

I really think your standards are too high. Every area can't be immaculate.

I disagree. This is a prime area in Manhattan. It should be immaculate. While I agree with your point that all areas of a city can't be immaculate, NYC is composed of far more than Manhattan. There are many areas in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island in which urbun blight will persist. There are just not the same forces driving gentrification there.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Where I live I can't complain too much about the buildings, but I wish my street wasn't constantly littered with garbage. It's the one thing that really drives me nuts.

[pianoman11686]

Where Moon Vines Blossom

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/08/21/realestate/21post.jpg
Evening rendering of the 24-story condo, at 212 East 57th Street.

By DENNIS HEVESI

Published: August 21, 2005

THE developers and marketers of luxury buildings go to great lengths - promoting lobby art, concierge services, dog parks - to make their buildings resonate with buyers. To that effort add four-o'clocks, lamb's ear, gayfeather and moon vine - the blossoms of a moon garden.

Sutton 57, a slim, 24-story condominium that is rising at 212 East 57th Street, is creating a 890-square-foot rooftop moon garden for the buildings' residents.

"We were wondering how to make the outdoor space unique," said Monica Klingenberg, director of marketing for the Marketing Directors, which is selling the 38 apartments at Sutton 57 for the development company, Broadway Management. "The thought was that because people are home at night, and that's when they can be on the roof, we should make it prettiest at night - thus, the moon garden concept."

The idea is to fill the space with flowers that open after sundown, emit their full fragrance in the dark and reflect celestial glimmerings.

There are other details that buyers might notice: the 780-square-foot one-bedrooms starting at $970,000; the 1,260-square-foot two-bedrooms starting at $1.4 million; and the 13 full-floor, 1,923-square-foot apartments that start at $2.3 million. (The 3,218-square-foot duplex penthouse is priced at $6 million.)

One selling point, Ms. Klingenberg said, is the small number of units. "Not everybody likes a building with 400 apartments," she said. "This is for someone who wants a privileged, quiet life in the thick of Manhattan."

And, presumably, a privileged, quiet rooftop garden.

"It's an intimate, private garden; not your party roof terrace," said Julio Magarino, leader of the building's design team at H. Thomas O'Hara Architects. "I don't see myself hanging out there with my buddies, more with my wife and glass of wine."

The finished U-shaped garden is to have 24-by-24-inch finished tiles, soft wall lighting, crescent-moon-shaped planters and chaise lounges upholstered with a night-sky print.

David Protell, owner of the Chelsea Garden Center, was brought in as moon garden consultant. "The request was, 'What can we plant that will have fragrance and show up at twilight?' " Mr. Protell said.

There will be four-o'clocks, trumpet-shaped flowers that open about, well, 4 p.m., and gayfeather, a white late-summer bloomer. Pleasing to the fingertip will be lamb's ear, "a blue gray foliage that everybody's inclined to touch," Mr. Protell said, because it feels like its namesake. "And, of course," he said, "there will be moon vine, a climbing plant that bears large, fragrant white flowers."

The concept made a certain sense to Patrick Cullina, vice president of horticulture at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden. "Anything that enhances your experience of getting away, above the street, should be encouraged," he said. "I'd like to check it out."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[sfenn1117]

I can't believe there's not a separate thread on these....

Place 57:

Why must these new glass buildings have exposed floor plates? It ruins the look of the glass facade.
http://i2.tinypic.com/ouuukw.jpg

Case in point: I hope they put the blue strips along the rest of the concrete, it improves the look DRAMATICALLY
http://i2.tinypic.com/ouuxax.jpg

From the corner:
http://i2.tinypic.com/ouuxih.jpg

Ugly east wall
http://i2.tinypic.com/ouuxzl.jpg



Sutton 57 is boring by comparison, but a decent filler nonetheless, quality materials. By now it was snowing heavy and I was right under it.

http://i2.tinypic.com/ouuyj6.jpg