Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 293

Thread: St. Vincent's Hospital (7th Ave) - Redevelopment Plan

  1. #151

    Default

    Yes. Great info, Lofter.

  2. #152

    Default

    From today's curbed:
    Revised St. Vincent's Plan is Even More Hated
    Tuesday, January 6, 2009, by Joey

    Back in October, the Landmarks Preservation Commission—in a close and controversial vote—decided to allow St. Vincent's Hospital and developer Rudin Management to demolish the O'Toole Building along Seventh Avenue in Greenwich Village to make way for a big new hospital tower. That ruling merely covered the hospital's right to raze the loved/hated "Overbite Building," and not the details of the Pei Cobb Freed-designed elliptical hospital tower or the various residential buildings that are part of this massive project. In fact, some commissioners have already trashed the bulk and look of the plan. The Architect's Newspaper reports that St. Vincent's and Rudin recently brought their revised plan back to the LPC, but it got ripped a new one again. Why? Because the only significant change was turning the proposed curvy hospital tower into a rectangle. An ugly rectangle!
    From AN's report on the December hearing:
    "For the better part of a year, we've been looking at this project, and I think it is as inappropriate as when we started," commissioner Stephen Byrns told the applicant. “I cannot even begin to comment on the architecture given its out-of-scale bulk.” Commissioner Elizabeth Ryan even poked fun at the design. “Ever since you presented us with your designs, there has been talk about how the tower disappears from its base,” she said. “I think it needs to disappear entirely.” Thus began round two in the saga of St. Vincent’s and the O’Toole Building, a project that is all but certain to drastically reshape its West Village neighborhood. Indeed, an alternative design presented for the tower caused almost as much anger as it was meant to assuage, and prompted several commissioners to offer their support for the hospital’s original plans.
    Which may have been St. Vincent's/Rudin's strategy all along! Some LPCers favor a proposal that would have the hospital bridge or build over a section of West 12th Street, allowing St. Vincent's to incorporate a triangular lot that is slated to serve as a loading dock and then lower the height of the tower.

  3. #153
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Such a cynical presentation by StV's team ...

    Disgusting and uncivic behavior.

    The Mother Superior should slap their butts and chop off some body parts.

  4. #154

    Default

    March 10, 2009, 5:30 pm

    Landmarks Panel Approves St. Vincent’s Tower

    By Glenn Collins

    Michael Christopher Brown for The New York Times
    The O’Toole building, in Greenwich Village, is to be razed under a plan for a new hospital tower, which landmarks officials approved on Tuesday.

    In a victory for St. Vincent’s Hospital Manhattan after a yearlong battle with preservationists, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted Tuesday to approve a slightly smaller version of a planned $830-million medical tower, a key component of the hospital’s $1.63-billion, two-tower plan to modernize its facilities.

    The commissioners voted 8 to 3 to issue a certificate of appropriateness that would permit the hospital to build a 19-story, 286-foot-tall medical building in the Greenwich Village Historic District. St. Vincent’s had originally proposed a 329-foot tower, and then put forth a 299-foot-tall redesign, but were forced to whittle away the height of the tower yet again in response to requests and criticisms from the commissioners in December.


    The vote reflected a significant shift in the positions of the commissioners, who had expressed sharp disagreement and were deadlocked on the issue in December, according to their public statements. And the vote was another milestone toward the demolition of the 44-year-old Edward and Theresa O’Toole Medical Services Building. The new hospital would be built on the site of the building, a landmarked, sawtooth-sided neighborhood monument the hospital owns on Seventh Avenue between 12th and 13th Streets.

    “We are very pleased at the commission’s vote, and this is obviously a major step forward in our mission to provide 21st-century health care,” said Henry J. Amoroso, president of St. Vincent Catholic Medical Centers, the entity that includes the hospital.

    Several of the commissioners said that the hospital’s modifications to the original plan persuaded them to change their votes. Thanks to the design changes, “I can accept the current height,” said Roberta Washington, a commissioner who had previously spoken against the tower.

    But three commissioners were sharply critical in casting their nay votes. “I find this building very damaging to the Greenwich Village Historic District,” said one, Roberta Brandes Gratz, adding that “the loss of O’Toole is tragic.”

    St. Vincent’s proposed the medical building as part of a plan that includes a 233-foot-tall luxury condominium in the historic district, in conjunction with the Rudin Management Company. The new 614,000-square-foot hospital would be devoted solely to inpatient services, with operating rooms and diagnostic imaging facilities. It would have 366 acute-care beds — all of them in single-bed rooms — and an emergency department sized to accommodate more than 60,000 visits a year. Outpatient services and beds for mental health patients would be moved to other sites.

    Ian Bader, an architect for the hospital at Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, said at the hearing that though the building was now 286 feet high, its “perceived height” from the street was 278 feet, given setbacks for the mechanical facilities atop the tower. To lower the building 13 feet, the hospital moved its cooling plant and other mechanical elements out of the tower to a building it owns across West 12th Street. In addition, the ceiling height on patient floors was reduced four inches to 13 feet, while the height of the ceilings on operating-room floors was reduced eight inches to 15 feet, 4 inches.

    In response to commissioners’ criticisms, the architects made the new tower’s windows larger and more prominent and created wider canopied entrance bays to make the building more inviting, Mr. Bader said. The architects also tried to make the facade more approachable by replacing rows of sunshades at the windows with a random checkerboard of louvers to screen out the sun.

    After the two-and-a-half-hour hearing before 90 people in a meeting room at New York University, Mr. Amoroso said that the commission “provided many thoughtful comments over the 15-month landmarks process and the building design is the better for it.”

    And during the hearing, Robert B. Tierney, the commission’s chairman, termed the hospital’s curving proposed redesign “a superb effort.”
    But Stephen F. Byrns, who voted against the appropriateness certificate, said it was too tall, adding that “it is 60 feet higher than the highest adjacent building in the neighborhood.”

    And Margery H. Perlmutter, another commissioner who voted no, said, “This is a precedent-setting decision,” adding, “I can’t wait till all the developers come to ask for more.”

    At a future hearing the commissioners will consider the appropriateness of the condominium plan. “The Rudin family is excited to continue its work on the responsible development of the residential components of this plan,” said the developer William C. Rudin. He added that despite the economic recession, “hopefully the economics will come back into alignment” four or five years from now, he said, when the hospital would be built, adding construction and hospital jobs for the city.

    But some preservationists at the hearing said that the recession should make it possible for St. Vincent’s to find a better site for the tower. “I’m surprised and disappointed there wasn’t more meaningful consideration of alternative sites, given the way in which the real-estate landscape has changed,” said Andrew Berman, Executive Director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation.

    The O’Toole building would have to be razed to make way for the new hospital, and St. Vincent’s seeks to demolish four of the other building it owns. The commission said in May that the hospital could not tear down O’Toole under landmarks law. But the hospital reapplied under provisions that permit institutions to claim hardship as an excuse to demolish old buildings if they can prove that the maintenance of structures they own interferes with their ability to carry out their charitable purpose.

    On Monday, a coalition of New York historic-preservation and community groups filed a lawsuit against the commission and the hospital, seeking to block the destruction of O’Toole. It challenged a 6-4 vote of the commission last October approving the hardship application put forth by the hospital.

    The legal filing claimed that the commission members failed to follow the hardship standard established by the United States Supreme Court during two previous preservation battles that saved Grand Central Terminal and that prevented St. Bartholomew’s Church from demolishing its community house to build a 59-story office tower so it could finance church programs.

    If the hospital moves to demolish O’Toole, “we will seek to prevent that in the courts,” said Tom Molner, chairman of Protect the Village Historic District, speaking after the hearing. His community advocacy group spearheaded the lawsuit.

    The New York City Law Department, speaking for the commission, declined comment on the suit until it could review the filing. St. Vincent’s said in a statement that it regretted that the preservationist groups would seek to prevent the hospital from “building a modern medical facility to serve Manhattan’s West Side.”

    During the hearing, some commissioners continued to propose alternatives to razing O’Toole. But one of the commissioners who voted for the tower, Christopher Moore, said that “if O’Toole is going to go down for a good cause, this is a great cause.”

    After the vote last fall, some preservationist groups charged that the decision would set a precedent weakening protection for the city’s historic structures, but St. Vincent’s countered that the approval was unique to the hospital’s need to modernize.

    After final acceptance by the landmarks panel, the project would need approval from the city Planning Commission and the City Council.

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...r-st-vincents/

    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

  5. #155
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    The design does not look promising.



    NY Times

  6. #156

    Post St. Vincents

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    The design does not look promising.

    Mediocre design in general; but that tall section that meets the street wall and goes strait-up without any set-back looks particularly clumsy.

    I would prefer to see a restoration of the O'tool building, as opposed to this POM: Piece Of Mediocrity.
    Last edited by infoshare; March 10th, 2009 at 10:37 PM.

  7. #157

  8. #158
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    Very, very sad to see the O'Toole building destroyed, especially to be replaced by that. I think it's horrible.

  9. #159

    Default

    ^ Agreed. The building about to be destroyed with the Landmarks Commission's blessing is certainly a landmark, and another lonely survivor of the rapidly-vanishing architectural sub-style that included 2 Columbus Circle. You could call this classico-modernism. Other deceased examples include the World Trade Center, the currently-being-trashed Lincoln Center and the substantially-altered GM Building. Thank goodness the hotel with the portholes is still around (the last survivor left standing?).

  10. #160

    Default

    Too much focus on its size rather than its design. How does shrinking the building 40 feet make much of a difference? The tower would be a blight at 12 stories.
    It seems preservationists just desire for new buildings to hide away, hoping that if the builders shrink them down enough and clad them in brick we'll be lucky enough not to notice the mediocrity.



    Look at old pictures of New York and see how this hospital building beautifully towered over its then brownstone neighborhood on the UES. It's tragic we don't build like this anymore. As soon as I found out St. Vincent's hired Pei Cobb Freed to design the building, I knew it would be a curved bomb.



    The public in New York has given up believing that building anything can be visually enriching. Everything new is damned and readily assumed to be an instant eyesore. Their only hope in new construction is for it to be small and inoffensive.

    These low expectations further allows developers to get away with building more crap (as long as it's compliant with zoning). I bet there would be civic outrage if a McSam was built in any first world city's treasured area; legal or not. Here, the public and media seem oblivious to his hotels since he can legally build them as-of-right. Tear down some bullcrap in an historic district, fuggetaboutit, celebrities, babies, and orphans pop out in protest.

    We only build to meet minimum space demands and to line our pockets. How sad. I always hoped that a wave of innovative buildings would inspire people to pay attention and raise their expectations of the built environment. It's obvious that the builders and the public in Chicago, Paris, & London have standards that ensures a minimum aesthetic in their new buildings. It's a shame we do not.
    Last edited by Derek2k3; March 17th, 2009 at 03:55 PM.

  11. #161
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    I know, but NY is all about the $.

  12. #162

    Default

    May 12, 2009, 4:55 pm

    For St. Vincent’s Tall Tower, the Agony of the Feet

    By Glenn Collins

    FXFowle Architects
    A rendering of St. Vincent’s proposed condominium tower on Seventh Avenue and West 12th Street, looking south.

    Rekindling the 17-month debate over the proposal by St. Vincent’s Hospital Manhattan to modernize its facilities in the Greenwich Village Historic District, members of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission on Tuesday sharply criticized the height and mass of a planned luxury condominium on Seventh Avenue that is the financial linchpin of the hospital’s two-tower, $1.63 billion reconstruction proposal.

    “The proposal is very, very tall, and that is going to be an issue going forward for us here,” said the commissioner Pablo E. Vengoechea, echoing the negative public comments of most of the 11 commissioners who spoke at the hearing, which did not result in a ruling on the tower.

    Originally, the hospital, in conjunction with the Rudin Management Company, proposed a 266-foot-tall residential building for the east side of Seventh Avenue between West 11th and West 12th Streets in the historic district. After objections from the commissioners over its size and architectural features, the tower was whittled to 233 feet last year.

    But judging by their public comments, the commissioners want more downsizing. “The Seventh Avenue building is still problematic,” said Christopher Moore, another commissioner, “and needs to be reduced as much as possible.”

    The commissioners voted, 8 to 3, in March to permit the hospital to build a $830 million, 286-foot-tall medical building, after St. Vincent’s had originally proposed a 329-foot tower. It subsequently suggested a 299-foot-tall redesign, but requests and criticisms from the commissioners in December spurred the latest, shrunken version.

    St. Vincent’s is seeking to sell eight of its buildings on the east side of Seventh Avenue — all of them part of the historic district — to the Rudins for $310 million, to reduce the hospital’s debt and pay for part of the new hospital, which would face Seventh Avenue between West 12th and West 13th Streets. Four of the buildings on the East Side of Seventh Avenue would be razed, and the rest adapted for residential use.

    But the commissioners had ample criticisms of the proposed renovations of the adapted buildings as well, including the replacement of several sets of bronze doors on the hospital’s Student Nurses’ Residence on West 12th Street. “I feel these doors are an important historical consideration,” said one commissioner, Diana Chapin.

    Dan Kaplan, a senior partner at FXFowle Architects, designer of the residential component of the hospital’s proposal, said that the bronze doors were heavier than required for their function in a residential building.

    On the heels of the March vote, the hospital won another victory on Tuesday, when commissioners formally voted to demolish the 44-year-old Edward and Theresa O’Toole Medical Services Building, a landmarked, sawtooth-sided neighborhood monument the hospital owns on Seventh Avenue between 12th and 13th Streets, where the hospital would be built.

    A year ago the commission said the hospital couldn’t tear down O’Toole given its status in a landmarked district, but the hospital reapplied and won approval under provisions that permit institutions to claim hardship as a reason to demolish old buildings if they can prove that the maintenance of structures they own interferes with their ability to carry out their charitable purpose.

    At the Tuesday hearing one commissioner, Roberta Brandes Gratz, termed O’Toole “an iconic modern landmark” and said that demolishing it would “set an alarming precedent” since the building is currently suitable to be used by the hospital.

    A coalition of New York historic-preservation and community groups filed suit against the commission and the hospital in March, seeking to block the razing of O’Toole. The suit, which is pending, claimed that the commission members failed to follow the hardship standard established by the United States Supreme Court during two previous preservation battles that saved Grand Central Terminal and that prevented St. Bartholomew’s Church from demolishing its community house to build a 59-story office tower so it could finance church programs.

    The commissioners who supported the hardship application have defended their votes, and the hospital has said it regretted that preservationist groups would seek to prevent the hospital from “building a modern medical facility to serve Manhattan’s West Side.”

    After the Tuesday hearing, the developer William C. Rudin expressed satisfaction that the commissioners had approved the demolition of O’Toole. Of the criticisms of the condominium, he said that “there were many good comments about our application,” adding that “we are going to regroup and take the critiques and see how we can incorporate them into our design.”

    After final acceptance by the landmarks panel, the project would need approval from the city Planning Commission and the City Council.

    Community critics have long assailed the bulk and height of the proposed towers and their impact on the neighborhood, while the hospital’s supporters have underscored the necessity of upgrading St. Vincent’s.

    On Tuesday, community members in the audience of 80 in an auditorium at the New School burst into enthusiastic applause several times after sharply negative comments of the commissioners about the condominium. But others were more restrained.

    “The tower needs to be made smaller, but not miniaturized,” said Gil Horowitz of the Washington Square-Lower Fifth Avenue Block Association. “You could keep making it smaller and smaller, but then you might not have a viable project, and St. Vincent’s wouldn’t be able to pay for their hospital.”

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...y-of-the-feet/

    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

  13. #163

    Default

    I had inquired about the triangular lot on the east side of 7th which intersects Greenwich, and Lofter provided the following great info.

    Upon reading curbed today, I was surprised to learn that the diner pictured in Edward Hopper's Nighthawks once sat on this site. It really shows what a pathetic city NY is in that such a culturally significant site was razed. (Also, look at the absurdity of the recent demolition of Warhol's studio on Madison.) While it's still the best city in the US, NY has a disgusting mentality.

    http://curbed.com/archives/2009/07/0...tiles.php#more



    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    The lot is currently the site for Tiles for America, which began as a spontaneous memorial immediately following 9/11.

    According to DOB that triangle has the address of 179 Seventh Avenue South / 61 - 61-1/2 Greenwich Avenue, a combination of three separate plots which now, together, are designated as Block: 613 / Lot: 59.

    NYC Department of Finance shows that control of the lot was, by a Court Order, granted to The NYC Transit Authority in regard to the Seventh Avenue South - Greenwich Avenue Substation. A stipulation of settlement in that case awarded $823 K to the previous owner.

    Seemingly there were environmental issues with the plot, which may be one of the reasons why it was not developed for the emergency ventilation plant / substation.

    The lot formerly housed a Brewery (see Map below) and according to a Report from the MTA regarding CONTAMINATED MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT both the former Brewery and a Gas Station which was later built on the site posed potential problems:


    The concerns for the triangular lot were, in particular, as follows:



    More on the Brewery which sat here before Seventh Avenue was extended South and cut through the Village:



    The pdf version of the MTA Report contains Maps and Charts

    *
    Last edited by londonlawyer; July 8th, 2009 at 08:45 PM.

  14. #164
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Yesterday the LPC gave the OK for the new St. Vincent's project ...

    The Doctor Will See You Now: St. Vincent's APPROVED

  15. #165
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer View Post

    ... the triangular lot on the east side of 7th which intersects Greenwich ...

    I was suprised to see that the diner pictured in Edward Hopper's Nighthawks once sat on this site.
    Cool LINK to a site where NIGHTHAWKS can be studied in detail, with big zoom feature.

    And another LINK where WOTBA has photoshopped NIGHTHAWKS over the existing Tiles for America Memorial Chain Link Fence on that corner.

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Transit Plan for Lower Manhattan
    By amigo32 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: March 21st, 2008, 01:24 PM
  2. Coney Island Redevelopment
    By billyblancoNYC in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2005, 11:10 PM
  3. Downtown Brooklyn, the Plan
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2004, 09:01 PM
  4. Financing Plan Adds Complexity to Remaking of West Side
    By Fabb in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 11th, 2003, 05:55 AM
  5. Officials Plan New WTC '93 Memorial
    By amigo32 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 27th, 2003, 04:51 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software