Shangri-La Hotel, New York - 610 Lexington Ave - Foster

[kliq6]

ROSEN BUYS Y SITE FOR CONDOS

January 13, 2005 -- Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs are buying the YWCA site at 610 Lexington Ave. for $31.5 million, The Post has learned.
Sources say the duo intends to build a sky-high skyscraper of at least 50-stories that will likely become some kind of residential condominium with perhaps a hotel component.

Rosen could not be reached for comment but his company, RFR Holdings, became the likely buyers, as their Seagram Building shares the block.

Along with unused air rights from Seagram at 375 Park Ave., they can also transfer development rights across Park Ave. from their landmarked Lever House.

Additionally, they purchased other air rights from the London & Leeds developed Manhattan Tower at 101 E. 52nd St. also on the block due south of the Y.

The 1915 building is not landmarked and sits on a plot of nearly 10,000 square feet.

There is no height limitation on Park Avenue. The building is diagonally across the street from the Citigroup Center, which rises 915 feet to 59 stories.


The Y is holding a press conference this morning to announce its closing schedule and a special deal for members with a health club.

The YWCA offices will likely move to one of the United Federation of Teachers buildings at 50-52 Broadway, where it can continue to serve women, sources said.

Cushman & Wakefield's capital-markets team, led by Charles Kingsley, handled the sale.

The firm was preparing to help sell the property and relocate the Y in 2001 before Sept. 11. C&W declined comment.

"The Y has always been a challenge," said David Lebenstein of Time Equities who, with a partner, completed a similar deal for the McBurney YMCA.

That Y moved from 23rd Street to a new building on 14th Street.

"It is not because the real estate isn't extremely valuable," said Lebenstein, "but because relocating them to an affordable site with a gym, pool and other amenities is extremely expensive and difficult in Manhattan when you are competing with all these crazy residential deals."

[krulltime]

Interesting news... This is going to be a big tower by the looks of those air rights on Park Ave.

Funny I dont remember what the YWCA building looks like... I will have to go there to see it.

[londonlawyer]

I'm disappointed. It's nice to see a new tower, especially in that area which has a lot of junk. The Y is a decent building, however, and it would have been so much nicer if some of the really horrible, low-rise structures in that area had been the development site. With luck, this project will precipitate other construction within those horrible blocks on Lex.

[Just Rich]

Image showing the site.
It's already a very dense area.

http://homepage.mac.com/rigrij/.Pictures/New%20York%20Stuff/610lex.jpg

[billyblancoNYC]

This could be the 1 NY Plaza that didn't happen! I think this is the same developer. Res plus hotel plus a couple floors of retail. C'mon, it could happen.

[Kolbster]

Height predictions anyone?

[Eugenius]

There has to be a huge amount of available air rights associated with the Lever House, since it only fills in 1/3 of its potential building envelope.

Plus, if the building is largely residential, that would encourage an increase in height. The highest apartments go at a premium. I am very excited.

[Stern]

This could be the 1 NY Plaza that didn't happen! I think this is the same developer. Res plus hotel plus a couple floors of retail. C'mon, it could happen.

It could happen. The developer is buying alot of air-rights, I did not know soo much existed at Seagram and Manhattan Tower. I do know that there is enough air-rights at Lever House alone, in theory, to permit a 100 storey building on this site.

According to Goldberg's book, On The Rise, at one time the Fisher brothers planned to demolish Lever and replace it with a 40 storey storey skyscraper on its site. Park Tower Realty who built Park Avenue tower nearby wanted to transfer air-rights and build a larger skyscraper there. Another design proposal opted to tear down Lever House and replace it with a 60 storey skyscraper.

[Stern]

Rich can you teleport your design proposal from a couple years back to this site, and maybe too send it to the developer.

[Deimos]

Let's keep in mind that this site is tiny. The footprint can't be much bigger than the millenium hilton downtown, so i think that any tower over 50 stories will look odd at best. We probably could get a 6-700 footer out of this construction however.. just nothing over the height of Citigroup.

[Just Rich]

Stern, are you talking about this thing?

http://homepage.mac.com/rigrij/.Pictures/New%20York%20Stuff/nytower2.jpg

[Deimos]

wow :shock: :shock: that is impressive looking! It's located 2 blocks too far north however in that picture.

Stern, are you talking about this thing?

http://homepage.mac.com/rigrij/.Pictures/New%20York%20Stuff/nytower2.jpg

[Stern]

Stern, are you talking about this thing?

Yes.

[alonzo-ny]

That would be amazing for the skyline!

[PHLguy]

If this is only 50 floors it cant be much bigger than city, BOA has 57 floors and is 945 feet, a 50 floor tower would be about as big as citicorp if it was office but more in the 600 range for residential, why all the excitment?

[alonzo-ny]

The report says at least 50 floors suggesting maybe more and they wouldnt buy all those air rights if they werent going to use them. Also if it looks anything like those renderings it would be a good addition to the skyline. Why so negative?

[kliq6]

If they built a mixed-use hotel/residential/office kinda like 731 Lex up the block they would go alot higher, maybe this is what they may do

[Derek2k3]

With the YWCA out this summer demolition could probably commence this year.

http://www.globest.com/news/286_286/newyork/134312-1.html

Globe St.
YWCA Moves HQ Downtown
By Barbara Jarvie
Last updated: May 17, 2005 02:08pm

[kliq6]

this site should not be wasted as justcondo's it should be like 731 Lexington

[Gulcrapek]

I doubt it will be (wasted). And the developers hold some real trophy properties.

[kliq6]

i went in term of use, thi slocation warents a number of good ideas, not just a plain office or condo tower, but a good mixed-use building

[NYguy]

NY POST

E. SIDE HOTEL IS IN WORKS

By STEVE CUOZZO


October 11, 2005 -- SIR Norman Foster, designer of Hearst Corp.'s striking new tower at Eighth Avenue and 57th Street, has landed his next big Manhattan commission: the residential/hotel project that Aby Rosen's RFR Holding LLC plans on the site of the former YWCA at 610 Lexington Ave. at 53rd Street.

My colleague Lois Weiss first reported RFR's $31.5 million purchase of the site last winter.

Now, Rosen's spokesperson confirms the hiring of Foster, one of the world's greatest architects whose green glass Hearst tower rises like a jack-in-the-box atop the original masonry base.

RFR also owns the landmarked, Mies van der Rohe-designed Seagram Building at 375 Park Ave. on the same block as the Y site.

RFR plans to transfer air rights from Seagram to the new project, which will likely be 50 stories or more.

[alonzo-ny]

Sounds promising. GREEN glass, what?

[Gulcrapek]

Nice. However, hotels generally have low floor to floor heights. Meh.

[alonzo-ny]

At least we'll get a awesome design from foster

[krulltime]

Oh this sounds promising... Hope they stick with a similar desing of the Hearst Corp tower! :)

[krulltime]

You know I was thinking, now that there seems to be a drop on condo sales, the next construction boom will be Hotels (Like this one, and I also heard Shangri-La hotels is looking in manhattan), Offices (Midtown available office space is in decline) and rental towers (there is need for more).

So maybe we will still have alot to talk about after there is a decline in the condo towers construction.

[londonlawyer]

You know I was thinking, now that there seems to be a drop on condo sales, the next construction boom will be Hotels (Like this one, and I also heard Shangri-La hotels is looking in manhattan)...

Where did you hear about Shangri-La? That's great news! I have been predicting that Shangri-La and the Taj Mahal Group of India would enter the NY market. Shangri-La has recently started developing outside of Asia (e.g., they have new hotels planned for London and Vancouver), and it was inevitable that they'd enter the NY market -- particularly since there's a room shortage.

There are a few sites on 5th in the 40's and Madison in the 50's that have small dilapidated buildings which should be redeveloped into trophy properties with a mix of hotels, condos and high-end office space for hedge funds, etc.

[krulltime]

^ I don't want to post offtopic stuff here... so check your PM. ;)

[TonyO]

NY Observer

Seagram Switch

http://www.observer.com/therealestate/uploaded_images/610Lex%20-768337.jpg


Last night, Community Board 5 narrowly passed a resolution supporting the transfer of air rights from the iconic Seagram Building, at 375 Park Avenue, to a new development at 610 Lexington Avenue (the transparent building in the photo of the developer's model).

RFR Realty LLC is the owner of both the Seagram Building and the property to be developed, currently home to to a YWCA that will be demolished to make way for the new 257,000-square-foot, 62-story building, which will be 709 feet high.

The board's resolution was the first of several steps that RFR Realty must go through before construction of the new building begins. RFR is utilizing section 74-79 of the city's zoning resolution, a provision that sets forth rules for transferring air rights from a landmarked building to another property. In return for selling the air rights, the owner of the landmarked building must agree to maintain it for perpetuity (and if the building changes hands, that provision is written into the deed transfer).

Since RFR owns both properties, representatives readily agreed.

The new building will feature commercial retail space, 14 stories of hotel space and 44 stories of residential condominiums. A representative of architectural firm Foster and Partners, which is designing the building, told the community board that the building was designed to fit in seamlessly with the surrounding buildings with its bold mullions and toned-down spandrels to emphasize its vertical sweep.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission must still rule on the application; after that, its next stop will be the community board's land-use committee. It will then go before the Department of City Planning.

-Matthew Grace

[londonlawyer]

I was just going to post that story and saw that you beat me to it. Let's hope that they're not razing the nice, old YMCA building for this. Hopefully, the actual building does not look like this box.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Very slender looking neighbor for Citicorp.

[Dagrecco82]

I'm really hoping this gets built. Hopefully New York will starting taking more examples from Hong Kong and start building more "pencil towers". I hope I'm stating this correctly,but these building give a greater impression of verticability. <--- I hope that's even a word :D

[krulltime]

Oh! A very nice and slender tall tower. It looks good to me. :)

[krulltime]

Here is more on the story...


Slender, new, mixed-use tower at 610 Lexington Avenue will have 44 floors of condos


11-NOV-05

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1131742982_610lex.gif


The Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold a hearing November 22 on a proposal by RFR Realty LLC, which is headed by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs, to transfer air-rights from the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue to 610 Lexington Avenue, the former home of the YWCA, where it intends to erect a story tower with commercial retain space, 14 floors of hotel space and 44 stories with residential condominiums.

RFR Realty LLC owns both properties, which are on the same block. 610 Lexington Avenue is on the southwest corner of 53rd Street, diagonally across the avenue from Citicorp Center. It also owns Lever House on Park Avenue and developed 425 Fifth Avenue and are nearing completion of Park Avenue Place at 60 West 55th Street.

The proposed new tower is being designed by Foster and Partners, which has designed the new notched tower addition to the Hearst Building now nearing completion on the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 57th Street. The land-use committee of Community Board 5 last night approved a resolution supported the transfer of the air rights for the proposed 709-foot-high tower, according to the website of The New York Observer.

If approved, the new building will contain about 257,000 square feet of space.

A block model of the proposed tower indicates that it will be a very slender tower setback above a low-rise base and that it will be significantly higher than the Seagram Building.

The existing YWCA building occupies a small corner lot of about 10,000 square feet and it contains about 91,000 square feet. It was bought earlier this year for about $31.5 million and the YMCA has subsequently relocated its facilities to leased space at the United Federation of Teachers Building at 52 Broadway.

Sir Norman Foster, who heads Foster and Partners, is widely regarded as one of the world’s foremost “high-tech” architects and his projects include the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts in Norwich, Norfolk, England, which was completed in 1978, the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank Headquarters in Hong Kong, which was completed in 1986, the Torre de Collserole in Barcelona that was completed in 1992, the Commerzbank Headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany, which was completed in 1997, the Great Court at the British Museum in London, which was completed in 2000, the Swiss Re Headquarters building in the City of London, which was completed in 2004, the Asprey Store at Trump Tower in New York, which was completed in 2003. His current projects include the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Beijing Airport.


Copyright © 1994-2005 CITY REALTY

[Stern]

This could be a very late modernist masterpiece. A 66 storey building should be higher than 700 feet, but its good news nevertheless.

[Derek2k3]

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/52114964.jpg

[antinimby]

I think it says 62 stories.
I'd prefer commercial instead of residential.

Don't slender buildings have problems with sway?

[Dagrecco82]

This could be a very late modernist masterpiece. A 66 storey building should be higher than 700 feet, but its good news nevertheless.

I'm sure 66 residential stories are a lot smaller in height than 66 commercial floors. Can anyone tell me if I'm right?

[City Spire]

I'm sure 66 residential stories are a lot smaller in height than 66 commercial floors. Can anyone tell me if I'm right?

Yeah, you´re right. I remember reading somewhere why, but I´ve forgotten where. It could have been on this very board.

[Jim Koeleman]

I'm sure 66 residential stories are a lot smaller in height than 66 commercial floors. Can anyone tell me if I'm right?

Just look to the Bank of America tower. there you see the same at what you're talking about.

As you look between the high and the number of floors. and then compare the Bank of America tower to the Orion, you see you're right.

[Fabrizio]

We better get something brilliant here ......otherwise That Y building should be protected and saved...imagine it as an elegant boutique hotel and how much value it would add to the area. People go NUTS over 2Columbus ...but it is often the unsung buildings like this that are the true treasures and add to the beauty of the city.

[ablarc]

We better get something brilliant here...imagine it as an elegant boutique hotel and how much value it would add to the area...it is often the unsung buildings like this that are the true treasures and add to the beauty of the city.
It's OK, but there are lots more like it.

Ground floor needs to be opened up.

[lofter1]

... a very slender tower setback above a low-rise base

Considering additional square footage for the "low-rise base":

Total 275, 000 ft. sq. / 62 Floors = ~ 4000 ft. sq. / floor.

So it would seem safe to assume that the condos will be full floors, eh?

[TonyO]

This thread should be changed to 610 Lexington.

[stache]

Commercial buildings have taller floors because they have to make room for all the cable.

[kliq6]

This site is a true missed opp for a great commercial office building, based on its closeness to GC, i could rent this out in a heart beat.

[JMGarcia]

^The floor plates are too small for commerical because of the size of the lot. Also, its about 10 blocks from GC which isn't really that close.

[kliq6]

Think perfect location for Hedge funds, they like smaller office and with them being in that Plaza district as much as they are, this would be a great spot to build more fit-to-suite type office space for them. Seagram and 599 Lexington have plenty of these companies in them and the 6 train is right there, one stop to GC. I hope this one does not get built. Ive got over 10 hedgers looking for space right now, we are running out of space in Midtown FAST

[londonlawyer]

I don't mean to sound like a broken record talking about crap buildings, but certain sites on 5th Avenue in the 40's, along with a few sites on Madison in the 40's and 50's, could be developed into boutique office buildings that hedge funds would rent out immediately. Someone smart like Stawski probably will do so.

[kliq6]

True, problem is those old crap buildings are normall owned by various people, it took Skip awhile to force out the Greeks from that one 5th ave site to build 505, so this is not as easy as it looks

[londonlawyer]

That's my guess as to why it takes so long to redevelop these sites which are utter eyesores on such PRIME property. Nonetheless, building two small buildings on the block -- rather than acquiring all five small buildings for one big one might be the way to go.

[ablarc]

Smaller footprint buildings are sure the way to go; that's what promotes the intimate scale we love so about New York. They can soar as high as they want; it makes no difference to the man in the street.

[krulltime]

November 22, 2005


Plan for tall tower behind Seagram Building approved by landmarks commission


http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1132699205_lex610z.gif


The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously approved today a declaration supporting an application by RFR Realty LLC, to the City Planning Commission for a special permit waiving setback and height regulations for the transfer of air rights from the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue, which it owns, to an adjacent site at 610 Lexington Avenue for the erection of a 709-foot-high, mixed-use tower.

Aby Rosen, one of the principals of RFR Realty LLC, told CityRealty.Com that the building will contain 80 to 90 condominium apartments and 45 to 50 hotel rooms.

Mr. Rosen said that the new tower will only utilize about 90 percent of the available, unused air rights from the Seagram Building, which only occupies 52 percent of its site and is widely regarded as an icon of modern architecture.

Mr. Rosen said that Hines, the Houston-based developer and real estate owner that owns the third property on the block, the 36-story, black-glass-clad tower formerly known as Manhattan Tower at 600 Lexington Avenue will be the construction manager for the new tower.

Sir Norman Foster of Foster and Partners, the architect of the new tower, told the commission that the new tower, which will rise without setbacks, will be set back 10 feet from 53nd Street and in plan it will be only 90 by 46 feet. The tower’s entrance is setback in an atrium on 53rd Street and a low-rise "pavilion" will maintain the street-wall with retail uses on Lexington Avenue. He said that the very slender tower will be separated from the tower of the 515-foot-high Seagram Building by 117 feet.

RFR Realty LLC recently bought the mid-rise building at 610 Lexington Avenue, the former home of the YWCA, on the southwest corner of 53rd Street, cattycorner to Citicorp Center, which is 915 feet high. RFR also owns Lever House on Park Avenue and developed 425 Fifth Avenue and are nearing completion of Park Avenue Place at 60 West 55th Street.

Foster and Partners designed the new notched tower addition to the Hearst Building now nearing completion on the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 57th Street. Sir Norman Foster is widely regarded as one of the world’s foremost "high-tech" architects and his famous projects include the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank Headquarters in Hong Kong, the Commerzbank Headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany, and the Great Court at the British Museum in London.

Under the terms of the "74-79" application that will go before the City Planning Commission, the developers will pledge to restore and maintain the landmark Seagram Building and will establish a covenant with the New York Landmarks Conservancy, a civic organization, to that effect. Spokespersons for the Municipal Art Society and the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said their groups supported it.

A spokesperson for the Historic Districts Council, however, told the commission that "the new, enormous building" will have "a negative impact" on the Seagram Building and that her organization therefore does not support the project.

The presentation before the commission emphasized that the new tower would not be visible from street-level from directly across Park Avenue from the Seagram Building. Roberta Brandes Gratz, a member of the commission, remarked during the hearing that the new project was "quite exciting" given “the horror of images of how wrong this could be," adding that the design "almost feels natural." Mr. Foster said that if the building were erected "as of right" it would be about 811 feet high, but he termed that scheme "not entirely successful." Although the north and south facades of the tower will be straight, the east and west facades will have three 3-facet bays, Mr. Foster said, adding that the light-colored facades will contrast with the bronze-clad Seagram Building.


Copyright © 1994-2005 CITY REALTY

[TLOZ Link5]

Can I get a w00t?

[MidtownGuy]

So exciting, because I live one block away, and will see this from my window. I just wish there was a closer image of the model.
The street level retail is badly needed, as are more residents to liven things up at night. Although there are not a lot of residents within a 3 block radius of this, many of us know each other from walking the dogs and going to the only late-night store in the area.
I'll gladly suffer through the construction for this , because I think it will be such a plus for our neighborhood.

[antinimby]

Can I get a w00t?w00t! w00t!

[PHLguy]

Nice looking! Like a baby TWT.

[LeCom]

So exciting, because I live one block away, and will see this from my window. I just wish there was a closer image of the model.
The street level retail is badly needed, as are more residents to liven things up at night. Although there are not a lot of residents within a 3 block radius of this, many of us know each other from walking the dogs and going to the only late-night store in the area.
I'll gladly suffer through the construction for this , because I think it will be such a plus for our neighborhood.
Where do you live?

[MidtownGuy]

52nd st.

[jeffpark]

Sir Norman Foster of Foster and Partners, the architect of the new tower, told the commission that the new tower, which will rise without setbacks, will be set back 10 feet from 53nd Street and in plan it will be only 90 by 46 feet???????????

the footprint will be only 4140.sq.ft?????????
its too small

[jeffpark]

the lot is 100 ft x 103 ft
and the building that is there now (ywca building) is 100 x 103
and the gsf of the ywca buiding is
103,500 s.f

and by the way the building that rfr is developing on east 55th street
his using kpf for the building and som for the inside.
since when did som do interer for condos?

also i think that midtown east of fifth intill lexington and north of 48th needs more new big hi end hotels
like the rits

[lofter1]

footprint will be only 4140.sq.ft?????????
its too small
Maybe not ....

One unit per floor ... or duplexes / triplexes.

And some smaller units (@ ~ 2,000 ft. sq. ea.) on lower floors.

[pianoman11686]

In Deal for New Tower, Protection for Old One

By THOMAS J. LUECK

Published: November 25, 2005

The city's Landmarks Preservation Commission has approved the transfer of unused development rights from the venerated Seagram Building on Park Avenue to an adjacent site on Lexington Avenue that will allow for construction of a large hotel and condominium building there.

In return, the owners of the Seagram Building would be required to permanently maintain the exterior of their 50-year-old modernist skyscraper, which is widely regarded as one of the most significant contributions to the urban architecture since World War II, in something close to pristine condition. The 38-story Seagram Building at 53rd Street and Park Avenue was designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

The arrangement "ensures the highest level of protection for the Seagram Building, one of the world's most significant works by a genius of modern architecture, but it also provides New York City with a landmark of the future," said Robert B. Tierney, the Landmarks commission's chairman. The commission approved the deal unanimously on Wednesday after reviewing a plan for the new hotel and condominium tower by Norman Foster, the British architect.

The terms of the development proposal, which must still be reviewed by the city's Planning Commission, call for transferring air rights, development rights that were not used when the Seagram Building was built in the mid-1950's.

The new residential tower, at 53rd Street and Lexington Avenue, would be taller, but distinctly slimmer, than the Seagram Building. It would replace a former Y.W.C.A. building.

The bronze and glass exterior of the Seagram Building is already protected from alteration as a city landmark. But under the development rights transfer, its present and future owners would adhere to deed restrictions requiring careful maintenance and city inspections every five years.

Similar arrangements have been made to protect other city landmarks whose owners have sold unused development rights. But the terms sanctioned on Wednesday would introduce an extraordinary level of protection for a modern skyscraper.

"You might think that the Seagram building is only 50 years old, and it's in good shape, so why worry?" said Michael T. Sillerman, a lawyer for the building's owner, RFR Holdings L.L.C. "But modernist buildings have to be in pristine condition. They don't age well."

The development plan was endorsed by several civic and architectural groups, including the Municipal Art Society, the American Institute of Architects, and the New York Landmarks Conservancy. But one group, the Historic Districts Council, argued on Wednesday that the residential tower, which would rise 705 feet behind the 515-foot Seagram building, would be too high.

Fredric M. Bell, executive director of the city chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said yesterday that the new building would complement the Seagram Building.

The proposed Lexington Avenue tower would be a thin rectangle, without the lower-floor setbacks of many skyscrapers, and would be built of glass and light-colored structural materials selected to contrast with the dark brown hues of the Seagram building.

"The problem here was, 'How do you build something next to one of the most beautiful modern buildings in the country, if not the world?' Mr. Bell said. He said Lord Foster's design would have a "harmonious relationship" with the Seagram Building and others nearby.

RFR Holdings, which acquired the Seagram Building in 2000, also holds a large stake in the former Y.W.C.A. building, which it bought this year with Hines Interests, a real estate development company.

RFR is controlled by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs, German investors who have acquired 9 residential buildings and 21 office buildings, mainly in Manhattan, since the late 1980's. RFR also owns Lever House.

Mr. Rosen said yesterday that he had always considered the Y.W.C.A. next to the Seagram Building an eyesore in a neighborhood with many distinguished modern buildings, and his interest was piqued when the Y.W.C.A. put its building up for sale earlier this year.

RFR eventually gained control of Y.W.C.A. property over last six months.

"This gives us an opportunity to build from scratch in one of Manhattan's most desirable locations," Mr. Rosen said. The added layer of protection for the Seagram Building "will announce to the world that we do this not just because we love the building, but because there is a control mechanism," he said.

Mr. Rosen said he expects construction to begin next year, pending Planning Commission approval.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[JMGarcia]

"But modernist buildings have to be in pristine condition. They don't age well."

Truer words were never spoken.

[TLOZ Link5]

I heard somewhere that if the Seagram Building isn't cleaned every year, it'll turn green like the Statue of Liberty.

[lofter1]

I heard somewhere that if the Seagram Building isn't cleaned every year, it'll turn green like the Statue of Liberty.
So we'll have to wait for the next depression (when no one has the funds to fulfill their civic responsibilities) to see that?

[LeCom]

I heard somewhere that if the Seagram Building isn't cleaned every year, it'll turn green like the Statue of Liberty.
That would be cool.

[kliq6]

This building is looking like a disapointment already, a waste of a great site, were a nice boutique office tower

[londonlawyer]

This building is looking like a disapointment already, a waste of a great site, were a nice boutique office tower

I agree. I thought that Aby Rosen's statement in one of the articles calling the YMCA an eyesore was absurd considering that there are numerous sites north of this on Lex that are infested with sh..itty, two story buildings.

Hopefully, the east-west facades will be interested. The article stated that the north-south facades will be smooth, but that there will be some treatment for the e-w.

[kliq6]

agreed London, many sites along Lexington could be "Spruced up"

[londonlawyer]

The last sentence below is what I was referring to re: the facade. I can't envision what they mean. Perhaps something like the Hearst facade. If so, that would be nice.....

Plan for tall tower behind Seagram Building approved by landmarks commission 22-NOV-05

The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously approved today a declaration supporting an application by RFR Realty LLC, to the City Planning Commission for a special permit waiving setback and height regulations for the transfer of air rights from the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue, which it owns, to an adjacent site at 610 Lexington Avenue for the erection of a 709-foot-high, mixed-use tower.....

Although the north and south facades of the tower will be straight, the east and west facades will have three 3-facet bays.

[Kris]

http://www.thecityreview.com/lex610.html

[londonlawyer]

Thanks for posting that. Basically, that moron Abey Rosen paid Foster a fortune to design a box. This building sucks.

[Fabrizio]

It sounds great.

I´d love to see the YMCA building saved and reused ...but who would want to miss out on having a new skyscraper by Norman Foster?

"...a fortune to design a box". It will be a jewel box.

[londonlawyer]

I appreciate your ability to see the bright side of things. However, the YMCA building is nice, and, in my opinion, it should not be razed for this box. Moreover, if it was just another building by just another architect, I wouldn't care that it's merely a box, but Foster is supposed to create landmarks. People would be upset if Gehry's building downtown looks like this.

I think that Abey Rosen sucks. He could have built this tower (though perhaps not as tall) on the crap sites north of this one on Lex in the 50's and could have saved this nice Y building.

http://www.thecityreview.com/lex610c.jpg

PS: Are you the same guy who used to post as Fabb from Paris? You have good posts as did he.

[antinimby]

Basically, that moron Abey Rosen paid Foster a fortune to design a box. This building sucks.At first glance, I was thinking pretty much the same thing as you but upon further contemplation, I realized exactly why this is.

First, we know Foster doesn't usually do boxes. Just look at some of his work mentioned in that article: HSBC in HK, Commerzbank in Frankfurt, Swiss Re in London and of course, our beautiful Hearst building to name a few.
These buildings are hardly what you would call boxes. In fact, I would even call them to be cutting edge.

So why I asked myself, would he do a simple box design here?
Again, it comes down to this being NY.
Abey Rosen, like any other developer in this city knows all too well how a proposed project can be easily rejected and knows how many hurdles he must overcome in order to get this (air-rights transfer) approved.

You've got the community board, this commission, that commission (even now there is supposed to be one last approval required from the Planning Commission).
He figured that in order to have the best chance to get through all this red-tape, would be to do an elegant but low-key building.

These organisations are not known to look favourably upon flashy or radical designs. Remember, this city has very conservative skyscraper tastes. Anything more elaborate is looked upon as threatening and out-of-context.

The second reason I could come up with is that Foster doesn't want to upstage the much-revered Seagrams.
Imagine the outrage it would cause here on this forum let alone the public, if he were to do something to the contrary.

Knowing this now, I have the utmost respect for him. Truly an admirable designer with tremendous foresight.

[londonlawyer]

I agree with your points. I think that Foster designed this box in order to complement the Seagram's International Style. It's disappointing though because Rosen could have hired Kostas Condylis to design the box, and none of us would have been disappointed when we saw the uninspired, boring project that's rising. We would have expected that from Kostas.

[ablarc]

I agree with your points. I think that Foster designed this box in order to complement the Seagram's International Style. It's disappointing though because Rosen could have hired Kostas Condylis to design the box, and none of us would have been disappointed when we saw the uninspired, boring project that's rising. We would have expected that from Kostas.
"God is in the details." --Mies

That's what distinguishes Seagram from the other brown boxes.

Foster will probably get the details inspiring, and Kondylis probably couldn't if he wanted to.

[lofter1]

none of us would have been disappointed when we saw the uninspired, boring project that's rising. We would have expected that from Kostas.
Expected, yes ... but it does not ease the disappointment.

[londonlawyer]

Expected, yes ... but it does not ease the disappointment.

I agree.

[Stern]

Not everything's about razzle dazzle....

http://www.thecityreview.com/lex610c.jpg

Look at this buildings in relation to Seagram. It has a lower flank like Seagram has and this is in relation to the flank behind Seagram. Seagram has a mass that rises vertically. This building has a greater and even more dramatic shaft. These buildings work together not as a modernist campus but rather as a single entity. If you look at it as an addition to Seagram, which it really is, you will see how great the design is. Cross bracings or a sloped ceiling would be entirely inapropriate in that respect.

[Stern]

A better way to think of it is to forget this is being built today. Look at the image I posted and think of it is as this is how it was first built, as it was intended to be built, as a full block building, as a single entity.

[TallGuy]

I think it looks amazing; slender and graceful. Its' narrowness gives its' height a much more dramatic presentation than if it were wider or had setbacks.

[BrooklynRider]

It is a very flattering perspective, but not the only one.

[lofter1]

And a perspective that will never actually be seen -- unless they level about ten full blocks to the north. :eek:

[krulltime]

It is ok... Nothing special. It will just become unnoticeable after is built. But maybe I am wrong. I need to see a better rendering.

[Citytect]

I need to see a better rendering.

Definately. It's a little premature to judge this one based on that blurry image.

[NYguy]

I think it looks amazing; slender and graceful. Its' narrowness gives its' height a much more dramatic presentation than if it were wider or had setbacks.

That's exactly right. It makes the 700 ft (plus) height more dramatic...

[BrooklynRider]

A 700ft building that will likely "blend in" and "disappear."

Only in New York.

[TLOZ Link5]

A 700ft building that will likely "blend in" and "disappear."

Only in New York.

Or Hong Kong.

[kliq6]

To be honest Midtown is nothing but a bunch of buildings that dont stand out except Empire, its bulky and tight

[TLOZ Link5]

To be honest Midtown is nothing but a bunch of buildings that dont stand out except Empire, its bulky and tight

I disagree. Conde Nast is very noticeable from all angles, as is MetLife; the Chrysler Building not so much, because it's too far on the East Side to be seen adequately from the Hudson. If you choose to count South Midtown, then you can definitely add the splendidly-isolated buildings of Madison Square, which are also visible from most angles.

[Stern]

Don't forget Citicorp, Bloomberg, and Trump World Tower.

[Kris]

Towering over Mies
02.16.2006

http://www.archpaper.com/images/news/021206_tower.jpg
A proposed office tower by Norman Foster, 610 Lexington Avenue, would
rise adjacent to the iconic Mies van der Rohe–designed Seagram Building.

Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building may be getting a new neighbor, in the form of a slender, nearly 700-foot-tall highrise building from Lord Norman Foster. The project, spearheaded by RFR Holdings, is planned for the site of an old YWCA on the same block, at 610 Lexington Avenue at the corner of 53rd Street. To build the project, RFR is seeking to transfer unused air rights from the 1957 modernist icon in order to build a tower with 80 to 90 condominiums and a 45- to 50-room hotel.

The Seagram Building’s design has been heralded for its dramatic use of a large plaza which sets the building back nearly 90 feet from the sidewalk. As a result, the Seagram only uses part of its site. The building, at 375 Park Avenue, is not built to the maximum height allowable by zoning laws. RFR is a high-profile real estate firm headed by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs. The company owns the Seagram Building and the Lever House, among other properties in the city. The New York Post reported in January 2005 that Rosen and Fuchs paid $31.5 million for the YWCA property.

So far, the project has won approval from the Landmarks Preserveration Commission, a plan that stipulates maintenance standards for the Seagram as part of the transfer. The developers are now seeking approval from the Department of City Planning to waive a setback rule so that the tower could rise as one continuous slab, set back 10 feet from the street. Despite the fact that 610 Lexington Avenue will be nearly 200 feet taller than its neighbor, it is unlikely to cast shadows on the Seagram due to its slender shape and distance from the Mies building. RFR also insists that the tower will be barely visible from Seagram’s plaza.

“When you look at the Seagram building from 53rd Street, the form is that of a shaft and a bustle,” said Michael Sillerman, legal counsel to RFR, noting that Seagram looks like one slender tower but hides a complex at its base. “The process [transfering of air rights] allows us to mirror that bustle-and-shaft design.”

Andrew Yang

www.archpaper.com

[Jeffreyny]

To be honest Midtown is nothing but a bunch of buildings that dont stand out except Empire, its bulky and tight


I agree.
Midtown is a blob of 500-800 story towers that don't stand out accept for the occasional Citicorp Building just "barely" rising above the peaks.
It's very hard to appreciate the buildings in Midtown as all are roughly the same height.
If the ESB were further north in Midtown it wouldn't be so symbolic in the skyline either.
For a building to truly stand out at this point in Midtown it would either have to be at least 1,100 or right on the rivers edge.

[antinimby]

...or be of superior architecture, which in this case, it is not.
Why must this be another box???
How much longer will this nightmare/plague/curse/hex/jinx go on?
Did this city do something really terrible in a previous life or what?

It doesn't seem to matter who or how great the architect is or where they come from.
When they come here and see all these boxes, they seem to immediately catch the New York BOX Syndrome [Warning: highly contagious for architects--put on blindfold immediately upon entering the city].
"Geez, there are a gazillion boxes here, so I think I'll just add another one"!

[MidtownGuy]

I feel your pain antinimby...
I expected a shape that is a little more intriguing. Now I just hope it is beautifully executed- fine tuned in it's details as the Seagram Building is. The clear glass and light color will make a nice contrast with it at some angles. This one is personal for me- I will see it from my window.

[Stern]

...or be of superior architecture, which in this case, it is not.
Why must this be another box???
How much longer will this nightmare/plague/curse/hex/jinx go on?
Did this city do something really terrible in a previous life or what?

It doesn't seem to matter who or how great the architect is or where they come from.
When they come here and see all these boxes, they seem to immediately catch the New York BOX Syndrome [Warning: highly contagious for architects--put on blindfold immediately upon entering the city].
"Geez, there are a gazillion boxes here, so I think I'll just add another one"!

It could have something to do with it being located next to the world's most famous box...

[czsz]

Is the Hearst a box? Is Calatrava's South Street tower a box? Is the Freedom Tower a box? Is the Bank of America tower a box? Is the Park Avenue South tower a box? Is Gehry's downtown tower going to be a box?

[antinimby]

Is the Hearst a box? Is Calatrava's South Street tower a box? Is the Freedom Tower a box? Is the Bank of America tower a box? Is the Park Avenue South tower a box? Is Gehry's downtown tower going to be a box?3 out of the 6 you mentioned are only proposals and may never be built. The fourth, the Freedom Tower is still uncertain. On the other hand I can name a bunch of completed and/or UC buildings that are boxes: 7 WTC, TWC, Bloomberg, Orion, 310 E. 53rd, TS Tower, 5 TS, Lehman Brothers Broadway building, One Sutton Place North, 200 Chambers St., The Link, 6-12 Barclay St., Tower 31, 40 Mercer (Jean Nouvel), any of Trump's Riverside buildings, 505 Fifth Ave., 300 Madison Ave., 2 Gold St. and so on. There are a ton more both big and small that I can't think of right off-hand but you get the idea.

[bkmonkey]

The Freedom Tower is uncertain? maybe delayed, but more certain than ever.

[TLOZ Link5]

He means the design, not the building itself.

[antinimby]

Well...either way, in NY nothing is ever for certain.
As for the FT--although technically not a box--I don't know why but it just feels like one to me.

[BrooklynRider]

Well...either way, in NY nothing is ever for certain....

But a bet that any new building will be a box, is a safe one.:D

[vc10]

There's the Bear Stearns tower -- octagonal cross sections, so not a box. I like that building -- it's not an architectural standout, but it's a lot better than average, especially next to a lot of the drek nearby.

[MidtownGuy]

I agree, Bear Stearns isn't bad looking. The glass crown really jazzes it up, especially when lit at night. A nice addition to the skyline.

[MidtownGuy]

I'm anxious to see closer renderings of this new project, especially of the skin and the design at street level. I hope Foster has some nice touches he will put into this.

[Derek2k3]

http://www.hines.com/toolkit_images/Project%20Photos/610%20Lexington/610%20Lexington%20rendering_lres_web.jpg

Hines Interests Limited Partnership
610 Lexington
New York, NY

http://www.hines.com/property/detail.aspx?id=1855

Address
610 Lexington
New York, NY

Hines' Role
Development Manager

Architect
Foster & Partners, London, England

Net Rentable Area
Residential:
250,000 sq. ft.
(23,225 sq. meters)



610 Lexington Avenue is a 61-story luxury condominium/condominium hotel, located in midtown Manhattan at the corner of Lexington Avenue and 53rd Street. Limited to only a 4,000 square-foot tower footprint, 610 Lexington may potentially rise as high as 709 feet, and will be constructed on the former site of a YWCA. The new building will be in close proximity to many of the most notable architectural landmarks in New York City - the Seagrams Building at 375 Park Avenue, Lever House, Citigroup Center, the GE building, and 53rd at Third. It includes a luxury condominium hotel of approximately 50 rooms at the base with a full complement of amenities and services including a ground floor restaurant.

Construction planning required extensive, complex land-use agreements with adjacent property owners to make sure the new building would have minimal impact on their properties. 610 Lexington has previously obtained approval of the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission. The development team is currently exploring various programming options prior to filing with the New York City Planning commission for a special permit to allow transfer of unused air rights from adjacent buildings. The design architect is Norman Foster and Partners, who have created a building that is architecturally and technically sophisticated. Construction is scheduled to begin in early 2007.

[krulltime]

Well I was hoping to see a better rendering. but for what I can see it is the same rectangular building posted earlier but with a very nice glass. Well I guess I like the glassy part of it but for the design as a rectangular building is just not too creative at all. Too bad. Oh well at least it will add to the skyline.

[stache]

Looks Trump-ish.

[pianoman11686]

Not much you can do creatively on such a small site. I think this building is a fine addition, but despite its height, it will hardly make an impact on the skyline, if any. Between 599 Lex to its east, and Citigroup across the corner, it'll have two giants overshadowing it from the East River view. You may be able to see it from the Williamsburg Bridge, but then it'll probably be just the flat-top roof. Too bad they didn't decide to make this a boutique office building.

[BrooklynRider]

A very "New York" building. Even Foster can only do so much here.

[ablarc]

Gorgeous.

Seems impossibly tall --a function of its proportion. Like RCA's skinny side. Shows you how beneficial a small footprint can be.

Foster could have/should have put some of this slender tallness into Hearst.

[macreator]

I like it. I'm very happy with the proportions and am glad to see they mention a streetlevel restaurant. That area really lacks after hours dining.

The only thing that bugs me a bit is the base. I wish they could have integrated it a bit more into the building. I'm a sucker for curved glass -- I would have liked to have seen the base mold into the tower portion after keeping the streetwall for the first 7 or 8 floors.

Overall, I think this will be a good project and the spot is perfect for a hotel/condo mix.

[sfenn1117]

Gorgeous.

Seems impossibly tall --a function of its proportion. Like RCA's skinny side. Shows you how beneficial a small footprint can be.

Foster could have/should have put some of this slender tallness into Hearst.

Yes, slim buildings really have a way of just soaring into the sky, even at a relatively stumpy 700 feet. Something the nimbys just don't understand and we're left with squat buildings all over the city.

[Deimos]

The new building will be in close proximity to many of the most notable architectural landmarks in New York City - the Seagrams Building at 375 Park Avenue, Lever House, Citigroup Center, the GE building, and 53rd at Third.

I like the building overall, not much can be done on that site with the size restrictions, so i think it's a perfect fit, but is 310 E 53rd really a landmark building????

[Fabrizio]

I think the difference here will be in the details: Foster´s work is super high quality. The rendering doesn´t look like much...maybe just a big tall box....but it´ll be an exquisite big tall box.

[ablarc]

...just a big tall box....but it´ll be an exquisite big tall box.
...just like the one it's next to.

[pianoman11686]

I like the building overall, not much can be done on that site with the size restrictions, so i think it's a perfect fit, but is 310 E 53rd really a landmark building????

310 East 53rd is on the corner of 2nd. I believe the building the article is referring to is Johnson's Lipstick Building, on the northeast corner of 3rd and 53rd.

[Gotham]

Did some feasability research on this site. One concern for residential is the security measures taken at Citicorp... might be an inconvenience to residence when the Citicorp needs to evacuate every now and again due to threats (wasn't too long ago it was a main target.)

Due to the location, we looked at doing office, and considering the way the market is moving today, office still may be the way to go. We also looked at a structure similiar to the new NYTimes bldg, using the existing structure, and building on top of that (potential $$$ savings.)

There are additional air rights available in the area, so it will be interesting to see what they will do with them. Also wonder if there will be any LEEDS Certification sought.

The rendering looks sharp.

[pianoman11686]

The only thing that bugs me a bit is the base. I wish they could have integrated it a bit more into the building.

Actually, if you look at the site, you'll realize that Foster does something even more important with the base: he integrates it with the streetwall. It looks to rise to the same height as the first setback of the tower immediately to its south. If this is executed to a very high degree of quality, the effect will be gorgeous, I feel.

I just can't wait to see what Foster comes up with for WTC 2. This tower and Hearst are a sign of good things to come, and keep in mind that these, unlike Tower 2, had a lot of restrictions going in. With a free hand on that large site, I expect nothing short of brilliance.

Also, I believe that with the advent of this new tower, this particular intersection will be elevated to a higher level. Rarely do you see four modern, tall skyscrapers on every corner of an intersection, and this one will fit the bill. Have I mentioned that I think Foster's design is a perfect fit here?

[TonyO]

I like it. It does look like it is taller than in the original drawing where line of sight from Park Avenue was used to describe how this would not be seen over the Seagram bldg.

[LeCom]

So what if it's a box? It's a great-looking building, tall and slender, and fits the neighborhood perfectly. A tower doesn't have to be a poly****tagon in order to be a nice building.

[BrooklynRider]

I think it is just the desire to see something magnificently different. This city has perfected right angles in its buildings. I know I was hoping to see something "different." I agree that the quality and details will likely be superior to other "boxes" we have seen, but perhaps we anticipate more from these starchitects than what is realistically possible in a city grid.

[TREPYE]

They even got Foster into designing these horrible rectangles. Unbelievable. I don't care if this flat facade was clad in diamonds and gold rectangular buildings suck. They produce no distinction to 80% of the scrapers in this city and if tall enough they kill the skyline. Please build something different something distinct you miserable developers. Stop with the freaking rectangles already! When will it stop?? :mad:

[finnman69]

257,000-square-foot, 62-story building = roughly 4145 gross a floor.
http://www.thecityreview.com/lex610f.jpg
That's goin up way high to be boxed in by other buildings. the office workers at 599 Lex and Citicorp will get great peepshows of the residents.


It's going to look very much like the new Orion condo glass tower on 42nd.http://www.corcoran.com/property/nd/photo/Orion.jpg

[pianoman11686]

Did some feasability research on this site. One concern for residential is the security measures taken at Citicorp... might be an inconvenience to residence when the Citicorp needs to evacuate every now and again due to threats (wasn't too long ago it was a main target.)

I'd be interested to learn more about how seriously this was examined. If it's a residential, why would the evacuations be an inconvenience? Conceivably, they would occur between 9 and 5, when everyone living in the tower would be out at work. Furthermore, the plan for Citigroup Center is very widespread, with certain floors congregating as far out as 3rd & 51st in the case of an evacuation, so the amount of people on Lexington wouldn't be that much.

Due to the location, we looked at doing office, and considering the way the market is moving today, office still may be the way to go. We also looked at a structure similiar to the new NYTimes bldg, using the existing structure, and building on top of that (potential $$$ savings.)

Is it even possible at this stage that the developer will reconsider making this an office tower? (That's what a lot of us here are hoping for.)

There are additional air rights available in the area, so it will be interesting to see what they will do with them. Also wonder if there will be any LEEDS Certification sought.

We know that air rights from Seagram were transferred, which in turn heavily influenced the design of the building. What other air rights are floating out there? And how much more could be transferred to this building?

Thanks in advance for any info you might be able to provide.

[stache]

The office workers at 599 Lex and Citicorp will get great peepshows of the residents.


Rich lady poon tang!

[pianoman11686]

They even got Foster into designing these horrible rectangles. Unbelievable. I don't care if this flat facade was clad in diamonds and gold rectangular buildings suck. They produce no distinction to 80% of the scrapers in this city and if tall enough they kill the skyline. Please build something different something distinct you miserable developers. Stop with the freaking rectangles already! When will it stop?? :mad:

I don't mean to be harsh, but I think this kind of blind criticism is almost as shortsighted as the typical NIMBY reaction to "anything tall or creative in the neighborhood makes it out of context." Every site is different, and it's pointless to apply preconceived notions of what's appropriate, just because it's a new building. In this particular case, the size of the lot is very small, which means the floor plates are already going to be minimal, even with the maximum amount that you can get from using a rectangular plan. Hence, any kind of creative, twisting, or angled structural feature that's put in will make the floor areas that much smaller, while making the costs more prohibitive. What we should be heralding is that this is a very high-quality design, and a building that is very appropriate for its surroundings. If you stack it up against the monstrosity going up next to the Woolworth Building, or many of the new towers on the West side, there is, frankly, no comparison. In the end, they're all "luxury" residentials, but this developer chose to take the high road.

That being said, I too would like to see more creative designs. On this particular site, I don't see the need, as it is surrounded by tall buildings already, and at its allowable height, will hardly make an impact on the skyline. Now, a site like that of the Trump World Tower, or the Con Ed site, is a great place for creativity, and a bold architectural statement. Same goes for Hudson Yards, the World Trade Center, and some parts of Midtown South. There, a new building can really make an impact on the skyline if it is a brilliant design. In fact, the city should encourage some kind of guideline like this for the taller towers. Here, at the corner of Lex & 53rd, I'm delighted that we are getting a new residential of such high quality.

[TREPYE]

^ The outrage on my part has nothing to do with contextualism as this area has various different type of scrapers mixed together and thus it doesn't matter how it relates to its surrounding towers. My problem is that I have a very high regard for Foster and he produced something very mediocre and banal. Has Childs produced this I would have not cared as much because we know he suxs. But to commission a "startitect" like Foster to produce a paltry rectangle (how ever "slender" it may be) becomes very distressing. Specially when almost all new project that you get from developers are of the modernist rectangle type. I don't like to see talent like Foster being watered down.

[finnman69]

Rich lady poon tang!
ROFLMAO!

I predict lots of binoculars will be bought by citicorp employees.

another version of what Foster's tower will look like (in a darker glass and skinnier)

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/08/477719.jpg

[pianoman11686]

^ The outrage on my part has nothing to do with contextualism as this area has various different type of scrapers mixed together and thus it doesn't matter how it relates to its surrounding towers.

I think you missed the point of my post. While I do think that this design is contextual, and therefore indicative of a good architect, my analogy to NIMBY's was just that - an analogy. They see a new design proposed for their neighborhood, and if it's tall, or flashy, or in any way creative, they complain that its out of scale, that it doesn't belong in their neighborhood, without even giving a second thought to the possibility that it might actually make a good addition. It's this kind of blind rejection that I think is very shortsighted. I see a similar problem whenever someone here laments "another box." Your outcry was especially bothersome, and led me to believe that you took one look at the rendering, saw that it was another rectangular building, and just gave up on it. You refuse to see any beauty in it because you want something different; basically, it's the opposite of a NIMBY.

My problem is that I have a very high regard for Foster and he produced something very mediocre and banal.

Banal, it might be, because we've got plenty of boxes. But mediocre? Hardly. Compare it to any new residential highrise that's either been built in the past 5 years, is under construction, or is planned, and I guarantee you, this one will be near or at the very top of the list. It's got a high quality to it, it soars because it's got great proportions, and Foster manages to relate it to both the Seagram and the subpar office building directly to its south.

Has Childs produced this I would have not cared as much because we know he suxs. But to commission a "startitect" like Foster to produce a paltry rectangle (how ever "slender" it may be) becomes very distressing. Specially when almost all new project that you get from developers are of the modernist rectangle type. I don't like to see talent like Foster being watered down

Again, compared to any residential going up in the city these days, this is a great building. As for Foster, he's designed plenty of boxes in his day. So have Richard Meier, Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, even Gehry (for a bunch of the smaller buildings in Atlantic Yards). They can't all design jaw-droppers, all the time. Besides, don't you think it takes a certain amount of talent to be able to create a truly stunning box, when there are so many of them?

So like I said, I think you should put aside your preconceived notions of what's a good design (i.e.: not a box) and give this building a chance.

[Citytect]

I have faith in Foster's ability to create a tower that transcends the 'typical boring manhattan box' classification. And I think most of you do too. But for the life of me I can't make out the 'fine details' thats makes this tower rise above mediocre in the model/renderings we've seen so far. I'm sure it will have these fine details, but that's only presumption. Aside from the massing of the tower, as important as it is, I have no idea how it's going to look at this point.

Hoping for more detailed renderings.

[Deimos]

310 East 53rd is on the corner of 2nd. I believe the building the article is referring to is Johnson's Lipstick Building, on the northeast corner of 3rd and 53rd.

You're right... I must've been on crack last night when i http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gifposted that.. 53rd at 3rd is the official name of the Lipstick Building. And that is a landmark building.... oops

[ablarc]

I have faith in Foster's ability to create a tower that transcends the 'typical boring manhattan box' classification. And I think most of you do too. But for the life of me I can't make out the 'fine details' thats makes this tower rise above mediocre in the model/renderings we've seen so far. I'm sure it will have these fine details, but that's only presumptio

"God is in the details," intoned Mies semi-defensively, as he laid the first glass box upon us almost half a century back --and he made a great case for it with Seagram. But you can find folks right here among the supposed sophisticates of this forum who don't distinguish it from its many inferior progeny --now that it's no longer breathtakingly pristine and unique.

So for some folks fine detailing clearly ain't enough. Was Mies a blowhard or is this just evidence of philistinism in our midst?

[LeCom]

"God is in the details," intoned Mies semi-defensively, as he laid the first glass box upon us almost half a century back --and he made a great case for it with Seagram. But you can find folks right here among the supposed sophisticates of this forum who don't distinguish it from its many inferior progeny --now that it's no longer breathtakingly pristine and unique.

So for some folks fine detailing clearly ain't enough. Was Mies a blowhard or is this just evidence of philistinism in our midst?
It is the evidence that some of us, no matter what, just don't like boxes. Not that it's good or bad, but it's a fact that we have to take it for what it is.

Personally, I think this building is right on point (except possibly could've been taller, even without disturbing the Seagram view from the other side of Park Avenue), but that's just me.

[kliq6]

a residentail building on this lot is a total waste of a prime site

[lofter1]

But it seems that this site doesn't have the size needed for a viable commercial building ...

[pianoman11686]

These days, I don't think it matters that much, as there are a lot of smaller firms that just don't need that much space, and actually prefer smaller floorplates. Just look at 570 Lexington down the street. In the early 90s, it was donated to Columbia because it couldn't be rented out. Now, it's back in business, and probably close to full occupancy.

[BrooklynRider]

Well all of these site with smallre footprints could accomodate smaller companies looking for top-notch space. We keep saying that small floors aren't viable for commercial tenants. Then, we need to discuss the apparent anomaly at 505 Fifth Avenue, which leaed rather quickly. Not every company willing to pay topprice for space needs a full acre. I think we undermine small business growth and catering to the small and midsized company markets at out own peril.

We have discussed how many companies have moved back office operations and operations in general out of New York. We've discussed how many corporate HQ (a.k.a. Executive Offices) have moved to NYC without dragging the entire operational contingent. Couldn't or wouldn't these tenants be prime for a building with this floor space? I understand not building complete commercial, but mixed use? I think there is a great trend to eliminate or minimize commercial space in Midtown and downtown to drive development at the Far West Side. It is a big gamble and, without infrastructure to carry workers to the Far West Side, it could be a costly gamble for the city. Real Estate driven economy is not healthy nor is it sustainable.

We're on a slippery slope.

[kliq6]

this site could offer us a project like 505 fifth that gave us a Fortune 500 firm relocating about 200 people from NJ

[Gotham]

Hey Piano..... we believed that part of the "inconveniances" would be produced by barracades, closed off streets, and large NYPD presence. True that most security issues happen between 9-5, but not all people work 9-5... and if you're paying big bucks for a place, you usually don't like such "inconveniences". That, along with the usually before/after hour deliveries that happen with such a populous bldg as Citicorp (and other surrounding commercial bldgs.) may deter some potential buyers. We saw these as a detriment to residential development.

As far as switching to an office development... I'm sure a ton of money and research was already invested in a residential tower, and the developer's feasability team, I'm sure, knows what they are doing, but I think, as long as there hasn't been any major marketing, and or sales, the design, and use can always be changed. It may cost though.

As far as additional air rights.... developers work out deals all the time, and our person researching the air rights available was "theoretically" able to transfer the 360k SF of unused air rights from the Lever House @ 390 Park. She was able to establish a continuous trail from across Park Ave. The fact that RFR already owns the Seagram rights, I think, makes this possible.

For the record... this was not a professional feasability project, but a University project.

[pianoman11686]

Thanks for the info, Gotham.

[jeffpark]

is there any new news with this site

[macreator]

Building appears to be totally cleared out and has been for at least a few months.

[LeCom]

I'm surprised Foster hasn't cooked up something more creative for this one. Imagine, for instance, if he curved one of its corners. A slender The Bow (Calgary)-like curve stretching 610 feet in the sky. What a simple alternation to the design it would have been, and how much it could do to the building's (and subsequently to the neighborhood's) look.

[antinimby]

Number of apartments at 610 Lexington Avenue reduced to 17

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1171400441_lex610s.jpg

13-FEB-07

The city's Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously approved early this afternoon an amendment to its declaration supporting an application by RFR Realty LLC, to the City Planning Commission for a special permit waiving setback and height regulations for the transfer of air rights from the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue, which it owns, to an adjacent site at 610 Lexington Avenue for the erection of a 709-foot-high, mixed-use tower.

The amendment was necessary because the developer has altered plans for the project. When the initial application was approved by the commission last fall, Aby Rosen, one of the principals of RFR Realty LLC, told CityRealty.Com that the building will contain 80 to 90 condominium apartments and 45 to 50 hotel rooms.

The revised plan now calls for only 17 apartments, which will be on the top 11 floors of the tower, and 207 hotel rooms, a reflection of the crowded residential condominium market and the high demand for hotel rooms especially in midtown.

The new tower will only utilize about 90 percent of the available, unused air rights from the Seagram Building, which only occupies 52 percent of its site and is widely regarded as an icon of modern architecture that was also very influential in the widespread use of plazas in city zoning.

Mr. Rosen said that Hines, the Houston-based developer and real estate owner that owns the third property on the block, the 36-story, black-glass-clad tower formerly known as Manhattan Tower at 600 Lexington Avenue will be the construction manager for the new tower.

Sir Norman Foster of Foster and Partners is the architect of the new tower.

He is also the architect for another Aby Rosen project, the redevelopment of the former Parke-Bernet Building at 980 Madison Avenue. His design for that project, however, was recently rejected for not being "appropriate" to the historic district in which it is situated.

The very slender tower on Lexington Avenue will be separated from the tower of the 515-foot-high Seagram Building by 117 feet.

RFR Realty LLC recently bought the mid-rise building at 610 Lexington Avenue, the former home of the YWCA, on the southwest corner of 53rd Street, cattycorner to Citicorp Center, which is 915 feet high. RFR also owns Lever House on Park Avenue and developed 425 Fifth Avenue and are nearing completion of Park Avenue Place at 60 West 55th Street.

Foster and Partners designed the new notched tower addition to the Hearst Building now nearing completion on the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 57th Street. Sir Norman Foster is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost "high-tech" architects and his famous projects include the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts in England, the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank Headquarters in Hong Kong, the Commerzbank Headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany, and the Great Court at the British Museum in London.

Under the terms of the application that will go before the City Planning Commission, the developers will pledge to restore and maintain the landmark Seagram Building and will establish a covenant with the New York Landmarks Conservancy, a civic organization, to that effect.

Spokespersons for the Municipal Art Society and the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said their groups supported it.

The presentation before the commission emphasized that the new tower would not be visible from street-level from directly across Park Avenue from the Seagram Building. Although the north and south facades of the tower will be straight, the east and west facades will have three 3-facet bays, he continued, adding that the light-colored facades will contrast with the bronze-clad Seagram Building.

Copyright © 1994-2007 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

[kliq6]

Good idea to make more rooms since we will be losing another large hotel ( penn) soon. Plus the Drake on park avenue is coming down as well for a new commercial tower. WE need more hotel rooms in Midtown right now

[londonlawyer]

Good idea to make more rooms since we will be losing another large hotel ( penn) soon. Plus the Drake on park avenue is coming down as well for a new commercial tower. WE need more hotel rooms in Midtown right now

I agree, but the rooms in this hotel won't be a replacement for those that budget travelers will lose at the Hotel Penn.

[MidtownGuy]

I have a special interest in this one, I'll be watching it rise from my window.
I hope they do a good job at street level.
Can't really make out the "three faceted bays" on the east and west sides, can anyone else see what they're talking about?

[londonlawyer]

I have a special interest in this one, I'll be watching it rise from my window.
I hope they do a good job at street level.
Can't really make out the "three faceted bays" on the east and west sides, can anyone else see what they're talking about?

I wish someone would raze the horrible 5 story (or so) brick building just across Lex from this site. It's an eyesore.

[MidtownGuy]

Maybe someone should destroy your home. We can take a vote on it's ugliness, and then bring in the demo crew. What an assinine remark, even for you. I don't even know what you mean anymore when you say "eyesore". You've diluted the word and made it meaningless coming out of your mouth. Get an original thought.

[londonlawyer]

Maybe someone should destroy your home. We can take a vote on it's ugliness, and then bring in the demo crew. What an assinine remark, even for you. I don't even know what you mean anymore when you say "eyesore". You've diluted the word and made it meaningless coming out of your mouth. Get an original thought.

In addition to being a buffoon, you are quite rude.

P.S.: When used as a possessive, "it" is spelled "its," not "it's."

P.P.S.: Beauty is subjective. I find this building to be an eyesore. Nevertheless, unlike you, I'm not about to write caustic comments about someone who likes it.

http://propertyshark.com/mason/components/photo/pic_view.html?size=1&imgname=1-1306-50.jpg&type=nycbw
http://propertyshark.com/mason/components/photo/pic_view.html?size=1&imgname=1-01306-0050.ylexuyvf.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

What can I say, you bring out the best in me.:p
Your redundant and offensive posts suggest that you are the rude buffoon here. Always the same thing to say. POS, tear it down, eyesore, blah, blah, blah. It's getting really tired and I told you about it. I'm not the first, actually.
The most offensive thing about your post is that it reflects so little regard for the human beings that may be living their lives there. Just a cavalier statement about razing it. The building in question is actually a well-maintained brick structure with two thriving businesses at street level.
Get real.

[londonlawyer]

What can I say, you bring out the best in me.:p
Your redundant and offensive posts suggest that you are the rude buffoon here. Always the same thing to say. POS, tear it down, eyesore, blah, blah, blah. It's getting really tired and I told you about it. I'm not the first, actually.
The most offensive thing about your post is that it reflects so little regard for the human beings that may be living their lives there. Just a cavalier statement about razing it. The building in question is actually a well-maintained brick structure with two thriving businesses at street level.
Get real.

Actually, I prefer saving great structures. In my opinion, the YMCA should not be razed. It's a nice building that will be lost due to Rosen's avarice. I have written countless posts lamenting the loss of great structures such as the Drake, Pennsylvania Hotel, the 56th Street townhouses, etc.

I disagree with your opinion re: the building discussed above. Nonetheless, I didn't attack you. In fact, read all of my posts, and you'll note that I never institute attacks.

[kliq6]

Drake and 56th street yes, Hotel Penn time has come to go!

[londonlawyer]

Drake and 56th street yes, Hotel Penn time has come to go!

I respectfully disagree. The Hotel Penn is a beautiful building. Admittedly, it is in a state of massive disrepair, but that can be remedied. I would rather see the filthy hodge podge of small buildings just north of the site razed or the ones on the northeast corner of 34th and 8th.

[stache]

the filthy hodge podge of small buildings

The thin wedge of offensive language returns...

[londonlawyer]

The thin wedge of offensive language returns...

An evangelical preacher could use that phrase without offending anyone. :D

[ablarc]

the rooms in this hotel won't be a replacement for those that budget travelers will lose at the Hotel Penn.
No, but we've got Sam Chang working hard on that one.

[Jeffreyny]

I respectfully disagree. The Hotel Penn is a beautiful building. Admittedly, it is in a state of massive disrepair, but that can be remedied. I would rather see the filthy hodge podge of small buildings just north of the site razed or the ones on the northeast corner of 34th and 8th.

Better than that...how about bulldozing Penn Station and Madison Square Garden, Manhattan's true eyesores and leaving Hotel Pennsylvania and redoing it to be the masterpeice of a hotel that it should be...?

[antinimby]

No, but we've got Sam Chang working hard on that one.Ugh, how unfortunate.

A billion McSams aren't worth a brick of Hotel Penn.

Speaking of which, check out the intricate detailing on the Hotel Penn's top floors.

If anyone did the same thing in a new building today, you guys would all go gaga over it.

(MidtownGuy, I hope you don't mind if I used your photo here.)

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/423/hotelpenngq3.jpg

[Stern]

To be honest I don’t see anything that sets the Hotel Penn from the (count em’) five buildings to the immediate south of it. That said there’s already a thread to discuss the Hotel Penn.

[antinimby]

Using that kind of reasoning, then with all the glass boxes we have, we could certainly use to lose few glass towers, right?

The point being, just because there are others don't mean we should replace it with another glass box.

[Stern]

Using that kind of reasoning, then with all the glass boxes we have, we could certainly use to lose few glass towers, right?

Most definetly, look at Park Avenue just north of the Metlife Building, 6th Avenue, even the new cropping of the former Verizon Building, BOFA, and HBO. I'm not a fan of any of those croppings, diversity of styles is just one of many things that makes NYC great.

[antinimby]

And replace them (the glass towers) with what, if I may ask?

[Stern]

And replace them (the glass towers) with what, if I may ask?

Well how about something along the lines of the Hotel Penn for example. The Hotel Penn is a victim of its current surroudings but place it amongst a sea of glass, it'll add to the character and context of that part of the city's fabric.

[antinimby]

Exactly what I was trying to get out of you. ;)

Glad someone else can also see the value of having Hotel Penn around. :)

As you all know, I am by no means against new construction (I think that is pretty obvious :D) but there are certain buildings you just don't get rid of (given the dearth of quality buildings we get nowadays) and the Hotel Penn is one of them.

[Stern]

Exactly what I was trying to get out of you. ;)

Glad someone else can also see the value of having Hotel Penn around. :)

As you all know, I am by no means against new construction (I think that is pretty obvious :D) but there are certain buildings you just don't get rid of (given the dearth of quality buildings we get nowadays) and the Hotel Penn is one of them.

I would rather have new towers mixed among the old, the Hotel Penn is no different that the plethora of other buildings that are architecturally similar and somewhat unremarkable in the area, so I see no immediate need to landmark the Hotel Penn.

[antinimby]

Damn it Stern! :mad:

I thought I had you there for a moment, on my side. You suck now. :D

[Stern]

Damn it Stern! :mad:

I thought I had you there for a moment, on my side. :D

In the case that they tear down the five buildings to the immediate south of the Hotel Penn and replace them with shiny skyscrapers, and then yes I am on your side, they should save the Hotel Penn. In the case that they tear down the Hotel Penn and then four of the five buildings to the south of the Hotel Penn than I will be in support of saving whatever building is left, in order to create a dynamic cityscape. I notice you’re a proponent of saving Hotel Penn, but haven’t said anything about the buildings to the south, even though they are architecturally analogous.

[antinimby]

I can't really offer an opinion on those other buildings because frankly, I just haven't seen enough of them to be able say one way or the other.

Let's assume you are right, then I would still be in favor of preserving them simply because there is just so much more inferior buildings that could be razed instead.

There are plenty of sites with one story junks all over the place that it's just unnecessary to go after these.

Take the site just the next block north of the Hotel Penn, I couldn't be more happier if they got rid of this:

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6672/435seventhgd0.jpg

or this just across the street:

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8064/swcorner34andseventhxw1.jpg

[londonlawyer]

I agree with you, Antinimby. While there are many beautiful buildings south of the Hotel Penn, that is not a justification to raze it. Perhaps that thinking lead to the demolition of many magnificant structures in the heart of Midtown, which now is one of the worst areas architecturally in Manhattan in my opinion. There are plenty of dilapidated sites near Penn Stn. that could be redeveloped including the ones that you pointed out in the prior posts.

This issue goes beyond the Hotel Penn, moreover. The YMCA building is very nice and should be preserved. Although Midtown Guy freaked out when I called for the demolition of the building across the street from the YMCA, no one would argue that that humble structure has any architectural merit. The YMCA, by contrast, is a very nice building.

http://propertyshark.com/mason/components/photo/pic_view.html?size=1&imgname=1-1306-

[antinimby]

Exactly.

You just look down Sixth, Park, Madison, Lexington or any of the other avenues in Midtown and see how dated it all looks with nothing but 1950's and 60's international-style glass boxes upon glass boxes.

Now, if you throw in some of those stone buildings in there, it all of sudden looks classy and regal. People just don't have appreciation for these oldtimers until they're gone.

Another example would be the HBO building. Now wouldn't that intersection look so much better if that building wasn't recladded in glass?

It would provide such a better contrast to and compliment the BofA and the soon-to-be glassy 1095 so much more.

[MidtownGuy]

Although Midtown Guy freaked out when I called for the demolition of the building across the street from the YMCA, no one would argue that that humble structure has any architectural merit. The YMCA, by contrast, is a very nice building.

I walked away from this yesterday because I don't have the time for you. However, since you chose to put my name in it again, let's get something straight. It's the YWCA not the YMCA. But I won't disparage your intelligence for that.
Secondly I did not "freak out". I criticised your flippant and redundant commentary.
This is my neighborhood, and the people in the "humble structure" are my neighbors, and some are friends. It is well maintained, contains 48 units, and while not possessing architectural merit in the sense that I'm guessing you mean, it certainly does possess merit. It, and the people who live there, are part of my community. You go around calling for structures everywhere to be demolished, based on some misguided notion of what makes a city, never considering the businesses and people who make their lives within them. They are individuals, with faces and lives, and while their building may not win your subjective award for "merit" of some sort, it's not objectionable in any reasonable sense. It's what some of those on this forum have called a background building. What do you suppose would be built there anyway to take it's place? Some architectural prizewinner? I doubt it. Meanwhile lives are uprooted for another glass box with a dumb base. That intersection (52nd and Lex) doesn't need another high rise, if that's what you envision, and I doubt remaining air rights are sufficient anyway.

[londonlawyer]

I walked away from this yesterday because I don't have the time for you. However, since you chose to put my name in it again, let's get something straight. It's the YWCA not the YMCA. But I won't disparage your intelligence for that.
Secondly I did not "freak out". I criticised your flippant and redundant commentary.
This is my neighborhood, and the people in the "humble structure" are my neighbors, and some are friends. It is well maintained, contains 48 units, and while not possessing architectural merit in the sense that I'm guessing you mean, it certainly does possess merit. It, and the people who live there, are part of my community. You go around calling for structures everywhere to be demolished, based on some misguided notion of what makes a city, never considering the businesses and people who make their lives within them. They are individuals, with faces and lives, and while their building may not win your subjective award for "merit" of some sort, it's not objectionable in any reasonable sense. It's what some of those on this forum have called a background building. What do you suppose would be built there anyway to take it's place? Some architectural prizewinner? I doubt it. Meanwhile lives are uprooted for another glass box with a dumb base. That intersection (52nd and Lex) doesn't need another high rise, if that's what you envision, and I doubt remaining air rights are sufficient anyway.

I'm not going to detract from this thread by disputing ad naseum a point on which we obviously disagree. While you needlessly instituted rude comments, I will refrain from further unnecessary exchanges on the issue since we obviously have different perspectives.

[ablarc]

I'm not going to detract from this thread by disputing ad naseum a point on which we obviously disagree. While you needlessly instituted rude comments, I will refrain from further unnecessary exchanges on the issue since we obviously have different perspectives.
...and, furthermore, since you both posted pictures of yourselves, each of you knows how the other looks --and there's some chance you'll run into each other in a bar or waiting for a bus. :cool:

[MidtownGuy]

Ablarc, we actually met at the planting of JB's garden memorial. He seems like a rather nice guy in person. I suspect he is pleasant enough to know personally, with family and friends for whom he cares deeply. The offensive component of his statements are really the ones that imply a callous disregard for the lives, aspirations, and homes of people he does not know, or has never met. This, in favor of a misguided and unsophisticated aesthetic that, if carried out to his satisfaction, would rob this city of the character and diversity(architectural and human) that make it unique.

As for you, Londonlawyer, everytime you make a statement about razing a building, if you're speaking out of your arse again, I will be there to refute your statement. I'll refrain from insulting you, out of respect to the forum. But remember this- a person can be rude and offensive in ways other than just name-calling or using profane language. For example, if a person makes a statement that expresses a will for people to lose their homes or livelihoods for no good reason other than his/her subjective aesthetic assessment (like a building is horrid for not having it's cornice anymore:rolleyes: ), I find it incredibly offensive. So don't act so surprised, sitting there clutching your pearls, when someone calls you out.

[lofter1]

So don't act so surprised, sitting there clutching your pearls, when someone calls you out.


LOL (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=80416343&context=set-1718458&size=o)

***

[londonlawyer]

Ablarc, we actually met at the planting of JB's garden memorial. He seems like a rather nice guy in person. I suspect he is pleasant enough to know personally, with family and friends for whom he cares deeply. The offensive component of his statements are really the ones that imply a callous disregard for the lives, aspirations, and homes of people he does not know, or has never met. This, in favor of a misguided and unsophisticated aesthetic that, if carried out to his satisfaction, would rob this city of the character and diversity(architectural and human) that make it unique.

As for you, Londonlawyer, everytime you make a statement about razing a building, if you're speaking out of your arse again, I will be there to refute your statement. I'll refrain from insulting you, out of respect to the forum. But remember this- a person can be rude and offensive in ways other than just name-calling or using profane language. For example, if a person makes a statement that expresses a will for people to lose their homes or livelihoods for no good reason other than his/her subjective aesthetic assessment (like a building is horrid for not having it's cornice anymore:rolleyes: ), I find it incredibly offensive. So don't act so surprised, sitting there clutching your pearls, when someone calls you out.


Why are you so sensitive? For years, my wife insisted that we live in a horrible, white brick building on York. I would have loved to receive a Notice of Eviction due to the demolition of the monstrosity. It would have been no big deal. I and everyone else in the building would have found alternative housing. It's not hard to do.

In London and Paris, nondescript buildings are routinely razed and redeveloped. Are Londoners and Parisians bad because they disagree with your position that people are entitled to remain in their apartments?

There is no one on this forum who loathes demolition of great structures more than I do. Like Londoners, Parisians and many New Yorkers, however, I applaud the demolition of unattractive buildings. That's my perspective. I don't see why you take offense. Nevertheless, we can agree to disagree and respect one another's positions.

[lofter1]

I and everyone else in the building would have found alternative housing. It's not hard to do.

Are you serious? NYC vacancy rate (http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/pr/vacancy.shtml) is ~ 3%:
The 2005 HVS finds that the number of vacant rental units in New York City was 64,737 and therefore the citywide rental vacancy rate was 3.09 percent during the period between February and June 2005. While the Survey shows a strong increase in the City’s housing stock, the vacancy rate is significantly lower than the 5-percent threshold mandated by State and City laws to justify the continuation of rent control and rent stabilization.

[londonlawyer]

I've always been able to find apatments on short notice. Maybe I've been lucky, but whenever I read the Times real estate section, I see page after page of ads for new apartments in Manhattan and Brooklyn. I assume that they exist in the Bronx, SI, Queens, JC, Hoboken, etc. as well.

[MidtownGuy]

Why are you so sensitive?

So that's "so sensitive"? To express concern for people as people, not numbers, statistics, to be pushed out of their homes? You are clueless. You look at life through a twisted prism devoid of ethics. How's that for a personal attack? Listen. I am through with you and this exchange. You said you were as well, and now your back again instigating with statements like "Why are you so sensitive?" Making it personal again. You must be just trying to piss me off now.

[MidtownGuy]

Londonlawyer, do you know what is really meant by the word home? Now you're going to frame it into a discussion of rental availability. Some people, like you evidently, develop little personal atttachment to their place of residence. Wealth is also a factor. For other people, there's more to it.
No one said save every building,either, so don't twist my words into an absolute position with which no rational person could agree.

[londonlawyer]

Londonlawyer, do you know what is really meant by the word home? Now you're going to frame it into a discussion of rental availability. Some people, like you evidently, develop little personal atttachment to their place of residence. Wealth is also a factor. For other people, there's more to it.
No one said save every building,either, so don't twist my words into an absolute position with which no rational person could agree.


I was perusing the photos of everyone that were posted and when I saw yours, I recall meeting you. You seem like a good guy. We obviously just disagree on this issue. Truce, amigo!

[MidtownGuy]

Truce.

[BrooklynRider]

So, how 'bout that 60-story Foster Tower? Love the tower - hate the fact that he wants to put it on top of the existing landmark structure.

Too bad we don't have more landlords/developers striving for higher standards in architecture.

[ablarc]

So, how 'bout that 60-story Foster Tower? Love the tower - hate the fact that he wants to put it on top of the existing landmark structure.
Which?

[BrooklynRider]

<sigh> My apologies. I meant