Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 130

Thread: The Rushmore at 80 Riverside Blvd - Condo - Upper West Side - by Costas Kondylis

  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117 View Post
    6/30


    The Avery is disappointing.
    Just curious, why do you say it is disappointing? I didn't end up buying there after extensively looking at it, but just wanted to hear your opinion.

  2. #17

    Default

    It's a boring design and looks a bit cheap

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117 View Post
    It's a boring design and looks a bit cheap
    I always amazed when you guys say you can tell that it was cheaply made. Any hints for us non architects, but aspiring real estate junkies?

  4. #19

    Default

    it may be built like crap but the land on which its built sure as hell is the opposite. $$$

  5. #20
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Not necessarily applicable to The Avery, but on many new buildings one thing I note that is "cheap" is the use of extruded aluminum for storefront / facade at street level. This material will inevitably get bumped, banged and bent out of shape -- it really has very little strength when hit dead on and it doesn't take that much of a punch to make it look bad.

    Another way to go "cheap" is the use of thin veneer stone to clad a building at street level. When it is used you'll see around loading docks, etc. that within 6 months - 1 years that some of this stone has been banged / cracked chipped away. Cheap.

    Other things that reek of "cheap": The infamous exposed floor plates. And "Fedders" inserted air conditioning units. Pre-cast brick-like panels.

  6. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Far West Village, NYC
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spaceboy View Post
    I always amazed when you guys say you can tell that it was cheaply made. Any hints for us non architects, but aspiring real estate junkies?
    It doesn't take an architect or an engineer to spot flagrant cheapness.

    Some examples:

    Cheap:

    Courtesy: Scumonkey


    Courtey: Antinimby

    Not Cheap:

    Courtesy: ZippytheChimp


    Courtesy: Lofter1

    Sadly, in the past few years there are scores of examples of the former and only a handful of the latter. And this dilution of architectural integrity is severely damaging the priceless character and quality of the City.

  7. #22

    Default 60 Riverside Boulevard

    Does anyone know what will be built on this site between 62nd and 63rd st.

  8. #23

    Default

    I believe Extell has two more buildings planned south of the Rushmore, one between 61st and 62nd, and one between 62nd and 63rd. You can see them in the rendering of the Rushmore's surroundings on the Rushmore website.

  9. #24
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    I noticed the same thing you can see them in the 'line up' here: http://www.riverside-south.com/

  10. #25
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    OMG, get a load of this news ...

    Seems all my wrath toward Trump in regards to the cruddy exteriors of his RivSOuth buildings should have been aimed at the locals

    BTW, how long is it before this generation of "build nothing new" UWS NIMBY's have fallen by the wayside?

    Extell Has Too Much Glass for Angry Upper West Siders

    CURBED
    Friday, November 30, 2007
    by Joey



    Extell's bottom line would look far less impressive without the stats padding
    of its Upper West Side developments, but the company just can't seem to
    stop ticking people off up there. This time around, the Sun reports that a
    community group called the Riverside South Planning Corporation is asking a
    judge to block Extell's development at 80 Riverside Boulevard, arguing
    that the glassy towers do not follow the design guidelines agreed to by
    Donald Trump in the early 90s when he owned the land—guidelines that were
    passed on to following landowners. The problem? Too much of that sweet,
    sweet glass. But this little squabble is coming a little late in the game, no?
    After all, 80 Riverside Boulevard is the Rushmore, and our records indicate
    that it's been doing its thing for a while now. What's your game, mysterious
    Riverside South Planning Corporation?

    · UWS Group Asks Judge To Block Development [Sun]
    · Rushmore Making Friends With Neighbors [Curbed]
    · The Rushmore [Official Site]

    ***

    UWS Group Asks Judge To Block Development

    NY SUN
    By SARAH PORTLOCK
    Special to the Sun
    November 30, 2007

    A community group is asking a state judge to prevent the development corporation Extell from going through with its new project along the Upper West Side on grounds it violates a 12-year old design agreement about the land, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday in New York State Supreme Court.

    Designs for the building at 80 Riverside Blvd., located in the Riverside South complex, include more glass than the original design guidelines permit, according to the suit, which was filed against Extell by the nonprofit organization Riverside South Planning Corporation. The suit further charges that Extell has not sought the planning corporation board's approval before its construction and it has not calculated the building's energy efficiency.

    A spokesman for Extell said he had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment.

    Donald Trump originally owned the property, located between Eleventh Avenue and the Hudson River between West 59th and 72nd streets, and built several towers there in the early 1990s.

    When he first purchased the land to create Riverside South, the local community was outraged and in order to secure community and government approval for his plan, Mr. Trump agreed to a series of binding design construction agreements in 1993. The agreement included a stipulation that if Mr. Trump sold the property, its new owners would also be subject to the design guidelines.

    When Hudson Waterfront Associates purchased the land in 1994, it abided by the guidelines, the suit says. Extell then purchased the land from Hudson in 2005.

    The development plan focuses on environmental sustainability and design criteria for buildings and open spaces.

  11. #26

    Default this is why there need to be limits on how long people have to sue

    These guys could have sued a long time ago. The renderings and details for this building have been available for an extended time period. The state needs to disallow buildings from being halted when they are fairly far along towards completion.

    As an aside, I think the state should invalidate a clause that binds a new owner to a clause he didn't sign. If these guys want to sue someone, it should be Trump. A private agreement these people didn't sign and probably weren't aware of shouldn't be binding on them.

  12. #27
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Binding clauses / declarations regarding sales of real estate are well established in property law.

    If every new owner were not bound by previously-negotiated contracts between parties we would have the Wild West.

    One could negotiate a deal and then sell the property to a new corporate entity -- thereby, under the proposed "not bound by previous contracts" rule, cancelling the previous stipulations.

  13. #28

    Default liability should be on the seller

    You probably know the law better than me but it doesn't seem right. Even curbed is wondering why they waited so long to sue.

  14. #29
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    I'm not saying they sould be allowed to sue at this late date.

    There is a legal term -- "laches" -- which pertains to delinquent action in regards to enforcing provisions of agreements. If a party waits too long to seek enforcement then the argument can be deemed "stale" (too old to be valid).


    LACHES, DOCTRINE OF - Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

    Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations' except is equitable rather than statutory and is a common affirmative defense raised in civil actions.

    Laches is derived from the French 'lecher' and is nearly synonymous with negligence.

    In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial.

    But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.
    Seeimg as how the USW group was a party to the original agreement they would be hard pressed to prove that they should be excused from a claim of delinquent filing this lawsuit based on any of the instances cited in the last paragraph above.

    I think their lawsuit will be dismissed.

    And they should fire their lawyer -- or at least not pay the bill for this latest legal motion.

  15. #30

    Default

    See this is what I mean. Maybe I'm just a greedy capitalist pig, but why are locals upset that these new condominiums are raising their property values and improving the local area in general??? I don't think I'll ever "get it".

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fading Into History: The Jewish Lower East Side
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 8th, 2014, 09:44 PM
  2. Riverside Park South
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: September 8th, 2012, 03:53 PM
  3. Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 21st, 2012, 01:38 PM
  4. Upper Manhattan, the Urban Jungle
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 24th, 2003, 09:17 AM
  5. Rich and Poor, Side by Side
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 5th, 2003, 07:11 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