Move ins
Welcome neighbors. I see the move ins have started. Those ugly temporary blinds are popping up. Might be tough times now, but you are buying into a great neighberhood. Looking forward to seeing the new neighbors at the pier this summer. Its been a long long windy cold winter.
Oops wrong thread.
Last edited by ramvid01; May 2nd, 2009 at 01:55 AM.
Thanks but here's the thread your looking for.
Silver Towers
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...t=3173&page=22
They're all designed by the same hack Kondylis so it's east to get confused..
Ohh. Oops. They look all the same to me. Thanks for the heads up.
Rear courtyard revealed!
The fences came down earlier this week to reveal a landscaped rear courtyard across from the wonderful little "pocket park" between West End Ave and (the future) Freedom Place South.
Although Kostas sucks, these twins and Silverstein's on 42nd are nice in my opinion.Originally Posted by Derek2k3
The Rushmore
Love those Twins! I look at them almost every day. And more to come
Fourth Riverside South Tower Almost Ready to Rise?
[L-R: Avery, Rushmore, Aldyn, 40 Riverside Boulevard and Riverside Center.]
The picture of the Upper West Side's Riverside South planned community is starting to look complete. Working north to south from 64th Street down to 59th Street, megadeveloper Gary Barnett's Extell has already completed the 274-unit Avery (at 100 Riverside Boulevard), and the twin-towered 289-unit Rushmore (80 RSB). Construction is underway on the Aldyn (60 RSB) and now The Real Deal reports that Extell has filed plans for the as-yet-unnamed 40 Riverside Boulevard, designed, like the Rushmore and Aldyn, by Costas Kondylis & Associates. The 33-story tower is slated for a whopping 530 units, a staggering amount considering the Aldyn, at a comparatively measly 279 apartment, is five stories taller than the planned 40 RSB building. Of course, all these Riverside South buildings so far are really all just appetizers for Riverside Center, the five-tower complex designed by Christian de Portzamparc for the superblock between 59th and 61st Streets. Baby steps.
Attack of the Fine Print
By JOSH BARBANEL
THE Rushmore, a new 41-story glass and stone condominium tower on Riverside Boulevard at the Hudson River, seemed serene on a recent visit. The flowers in the interior courtyard were in full bloom; the ground-level pool had been filled. Sixteen buyers had already moved in.
And yet an error of a single digit in an arcane document — the densely worded 732-page offering plan — could upset that happy picture, and cost the sponsors, the Extell Development Company and the Carlyle Group, tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue, lawyers say.
The Rushmore, surrounded by parks and with extensive river views, sold well when it went on the market, and 60 percent of the apartments are now in contract. But as the economy soured and the real estate market slid, sponsors were forced to allow new buyers discounts.
Buyers at the Rushmore and at other new condominiums began struggling to get out of their contracts and to repocket their deposits — at the Rushmore, 15 percent of the purchase price. Lawyers pored over the offering plan and pondered obscure state and federal laws looking for ways to invalidate the contracts.
At the Rushmore, they may have found a loophole. Both the buyers and the sponsors agree that there was an error in a date in the offering plan, a document painstakingly prepared by a major New York law firm. Now they are debating whether the mistake was a trivial clerical error that should simply be ignored, or a one-time opportunity for Rushmore buyers to back out and recover their deposits or negotiate a better deal.
Late last month, Richard N. Cohen, a real estate lawyer, filed an application with the New York State attorney general’s office seeking a refund of deposits for a group of buyers in contract at the Rushmore. After several buyers joined the action last week, he now represents 23 who paid about $10 million in deposits on $70 million in apartments, including a four-bedroom apartment with a terrace that is in contract for $7.1 million.
Under state regulations, a sponsor is required to provide an operating budget for the first year of a new condominium, so buyers know what to expect when they move in. If the first closing does not occur by the end of the budget year, the sponsor is required to submit a new budget, and give the buyers a right to rescind their contracts.
At the Rushmore, somebody goofed. The offering plan promised to give buyers a right to back out of the plan if the first closing did not occur before the first day of the budget year, Sept. 1, 2008, rather than Sept. 1, 2009, after the last day. The first closing occurred in February 2009.
At the time the plan was prepared, in 2006, law firms were deluged by developers with plans for new condominiums. In those heady years of rising prices, few buyers paid much attention to the fine print.
Now that the market has turned, Mr. Cohen is arguing that the error in the plan was significant. He said that although Extell had a right to choose a deadline a full year later under state rules, it also had the right to choose an earlier date. Many buyers relied on the 2008 date and statements from sales agents that the project would be completed by the fall of 2008, he said.
The delay, he said, damaged “the very fabric of purchasers’ lives and their financial obligations.” Buyers had leases that were expiring, he said, and at least one timed the purchase to a baby’s arrival.
Extell, in turn, is arguing that the error was insignificant, what lawyers call a “scrivener’s error,” which should be interpreted to reflect the plain meaning of the state regulations. The plan for the Rushmore was prepared by Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, a firm with 750 lawyers, and reviewed by the development team at Extell, but no one caught the mistake.
Michel S. Evanusa, a real estate partner at Stroock, did not return a telephone call or an e-mail message. In an interview, Gary Barnett, the president of Extell, declined to discuss the legal challenge while it is pending.
Other lawyers were divided over whether the challenge would be upheld. One condominium lawyer noted that the error was an easy one to make in boilerplate paragraphs, but should be enough to give buyers a chance to back out of the contract. The lawyer, who is not involved in the case, declined to give his name because he is a colleague of some of the parties.
Steven Sladkus, a real estate lawyer at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, said that unless other contradictory dates or language appeared in the offering plan or the sales contract, the attorney general was likely to treat the error as a serious one.
Yet another real estate lawyer, Adam Leitman Bailey, was of a different opinion. He said the burden was on the buyers to show that a reasonable buyer would have relied on the 2008 date, or that the error harmed a buyer in some way.
Property records show that in the last few months, buyers have negotiated discounts of as much as 12 percent, and brokers say discounts of as much as 18 percent have been offered to prospective buyers on some units. If all buyers still in contract walk away from the apartments with their deposits, the sponsors will have to resell the units at current market prices and stand to lose perhaps $50 million or more. The building was valued at nearly $800 million under the offering plan prices.
But many buyers at the Rushmore don’t want to walk away. What they want is the chance to buy in at a lower price, Mr. Cohen said.
The complaint before the attorney general does not focus on the construction quality or apartment size discrepancies used in other buyer challenges.
Mr. Barnett of Extell says that buyers who do close won’t be disappointed, no matter what price they pay. He expects the entire Riverside Boulevard development only to increase in value as the neighborhood is completed over the next few years.
“People who move into the building will be getting a bargain,” Mr. Barnett said. “They will buy into water views, park views and a super high-quality building.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/re...ref=realestate
Huge Rushmore Duplex Can't Keep Our Eyes Off the Water Wall
November 23, 2009, by Joey
(click thumbnails to enlarge)
We've been a bit obsessed with the Rushmore lately, as buyers in the twin-towered development in Extell's cluster of pricey West Side "Riverside South" buildings have looked for ways to duck out of sealing their deals. But what about what's going on inside the new towers of Riverside Boulevard? We sent Curbed intern Greg O'Malley to the wilds of the Upper West Side to check out the Rushmore's #31/32, 7,200 square feet of space asking $12.45 million that is, according to its Nest Seekers listing, "The Biggest Apartment on the Upper West Side." (Though another Extell building would probably disagree.)
The condo is actually a duplex-to-be; the floors won't be combined until there's a sale. In the meantime the whole space will be staged, but we caught it in its raw form. Not wanting to pass up a good chance to snoop around the Rushmore, we also sent young Greg wandering around the building to get some shots of all those spiffy new amenities. Maybe seeing the water wall will convince a few plaintiffs to drop their cases. Serenity now!
· Listing: The Biggest Apartment on the Upper West Side [Nest Seekers]
· The Rushmore [Official Site]
· Rushmore coverage [Curbed]
http://curbed.com/archives/2009/11/2...r_wall.php?o=3
Ouch! That lighting in the kiddie's play room is killing me.
A positive experience
My husband and I took title to our apartment in The Rushmore at the end of August. We had ideas about how we'd reconfigure the space, add crown moldings, outfit the closets, build book cases. We spoke to Reuven Feldman, President of Total Home, and his chief foreman, George Cabessa. Two days later, they assembled the appropriate subcontractors. We knew we were in good hands. They installed an audio-visual system, with a tv that drops down from the ceiling - James Bond style. They built cabinets, and painted, They provided a cleaning service when the job was complete. Everything was handled professionally, courteously, and in a timely manner. No request was too small. The quality of the workmanship was top notch. We couldn't be happier in our new home. Extell made a good choice by designating Total Home as their in-house contractors. Total Home has everything needed for the home.
Ellen Danziger
I could Not agree more!
We are so pleased with the contracting work that Total Home Solutions did for our Apartment. For starters, the fact that Total Home maintains a show room within our building made communication and the product selection process very convenient. It also made it very easy to get in touch with Total Home if I had a question. Kudos to Extell for setting up this valuable resource in our building.
Reuben coordinated the activities of a host of different vendors for Painting, electrical work, window treatments, shower doors and Audio/Video work. Every vendor selected without exception was supremely competent and the quality of work was flawless. Reuben and George oversaw all of the vendor work and ensured that everything was done in a timely and professional manner. George Cabessa, the chief technical guy for Total Home Solutions is perhaps the most Knowledgeable person that I have ever met in terms of Home improvement and General Contracting. George oversaw or was personally involved with all electric work, recessed and track lighting installation, garbage disposal installation, crown molding installation and just about everything else. He is a fountain of information and his involvement in my home project put me at ease.
One thing that really impressed me about Reuben was that there was a minor defect in one of my new shades that I had not noticed. Without any prompting from me, Reuben immediately brought the flaw to my attention and had a new shade ordered and installed immediately. Integrity is hard to come by in the contracting world (just look at the new Yankee Stadium), but Reuben and his team are above reproach. I strongly endorse Total Home Solutions
Assaf Alster
lol
Hilarious!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks