Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 92

Thread: Scrapped!

  1. #46
    Forum Veteran macreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    East Midtown


    Quote Originally Posted by Clarknt67
    What do you mean by "public doman?" In literature that would mean the life of the author PLUS 75 years. In this case, the renderings/plans were paid for by the developer, but remain either property of the original developer or the architect.

    My guess is it's mostly ego that prevents a project like that from being picked up by someone else. Would you want to spend $100M to build a building that would forever be known not as YOUR vision, but as the leftovers of another developer?
    I meant more along the lines of the architect of some unbuilt buildings (the rest of MetLife North) being long dead and the price for buying out the design being nominal.

    While I agree that many developers probably would not want to stake their name on a famous old building or design (like the Singer building) and rebuild it, as the building would forever be referred to as the Singer Building no matter what the new name was, there are a good amount of a less famous unbuilt visions that a developer would probably not have an idenity crisis with.

  2. #47

    Default Scrapped!

    Travelstead Tower
    383 Madison Avenue
    70 /72 /74 stories; 1,040' /1,068' /1,080'
    Kohn Pedersen & Fox Associates
    Developers: G. Ware Travelstead and First Boston Inc.
    Commercial Office
    1.4 /1.6 MSF
    Unbuilt 1989

    New York Syscraper Page

    "The Manhattan Savings Bank at 383 Madison Avenue was built by Robert Knapp and was sold to Ware Travelstead in 1982. Travelstead proposed a landmark building as their new headquarters, and the building they selected was exactly that. Travelstead proposed a tower to rise on two sites, each with an equal amount of transferable air rights from Grand Central Terminal. The tower, nearby some of Manhattan's tallest would well exceed the Pan Am Building, and even the Chrysler Building at 1080 feet and at 74 storeys it would encompass a total of 1.6 million square feet. The spectacular design is one of the world's best by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates who proposed a masterful post modern high rise. From a classical base with ornate features, the tower would rise maintaining a form based on "+" shaped base. In between the gaps created by the "+" slanted pyramid projections would slope inwards ending at a point near the towers top. With intricate details the tower would truly be a great addition to the New York skyline, despite that it was blocked by the city due to the towers controversial usage of air rights. In 1989 Travelstead unsuccessfully sued the city, leaving the site abandoned until 2000. In 2000 construction began on Bear Stearn's new headquarters which would also use Grand Central's unused air rights but would rise on a smaller site than that selected by Travelstead. At 777 feet it will become a landmark in time but nothing to the extent of what could have come of the Travelstead Tower, which could have become one of New York's greatest landmarks."

    383 Madison Avenue, New York City

    The two major constraining factors cited by the engineer as influential to the design were the building setbacks designated by code, and the need for clear-span trading floors at the base. The necessity of straddling subway tracks at the foundation posed a third constraint. The design that resulted divides the building above grade into three distinct zones : the concrete trading floors ; mid-level office floors tied together at the top by a "shoulder" truss ; and 20 stories of additional space resting on the shoulder. The drawing at left is a structural axonometric of one quarter of the tower. Because the building has not been presented for review and approval by the civic institutions responsible, no plans or architectural elevations are shown. Complete coverage of the project will appear in an upcoming issue of RECORD.

    LeMessurier's most recent super-tall building design is a proposal for a site in Manhattan. The architects for the project, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, took great care to maintain all necessary setbakcs in the building envelope to conform to municipal codes while providing their client with a maximum "as of right" envelope. The resulting taperings and setbacks suggested two possible structural solutions. First, the building could be supported by columns placed around the periphery at about 10 ft on center. This was rejected for two major reasons : It would lead to a nightmare of geometric complexity since the building slopes inward as it rised, making each office floor unique.(Office floors are planned in the shape of a Greek cross intersected by a square service core.) And, placing columns at the building's edge would restrict window access. A second and more favorable approach was to pull the structure within the building interior at a dimension useful as an office module. With this approach, the engineer designed the structure with diagonal members that will take shear and transfer gravity loads to points at every eighth floor. Like the bracing in the Bank of the Southwest, the shear structure for the 383 Madison Avenue tower will cross to define the service core, thus optimizing the congruence of an architectural and engineering form.(In confining the strucuture to the interior, the architects were afforded greater liberty in organizing the facade.)

    The structure will use both high-strength reinforced concrete and steel. The first 10 stories above grade are to be used as trading floors with clear spans. These floors correspond to the zone in the tower where the strain from wind forces are at their greatest. Here, concrete will be used, since concrete is considerably more rigid per dollar than steel. Steel will be used below grade because concrete would require sections too thick to thread through the subway tunnels the building must negotiate to reach its foundation. The steel above the trading floors is tied together approximately two-thirds up the building at a "shoulder" truss that binds the lower structure together and serves as a platform upon which, in effect, an additional 20-story steel building is stacked.

    Structural engineer: LeMessurier Associates / SCI, Cambridge, in association with Weiskopf & Pickworth, New York
    Architects: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC, New York
    Owner: 383 Madison Associates
    Stories: 70
    Height: 1,040 ft above grade


    383 Madison Is the Wrong Address ($)
    The New York Times
    Editorial Desk
    Published: September 22, 1986

    A Battle Looms Over Grand Central's Air Space
    David W. Dunlap
    Published: July 6, 1989

  3. #48


    Thanks, Derek, for starting this thread. I'm sure it will have a long and distinguished history (sad to say).

  4. #49
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    New York City


    Rockefeller Plaza West, 7th Av between 49th and 50th Street. 55 Floors

    The Lehman Brothers Building is actually one of my favorite buildings in the city. So I don't think I'd trade the design for this one, maybe just add the 20 or so missing floors.

  5. #50
    Moderator NYatKNIGHT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Manhattan - South Village

  6. #51
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    New York City


    Maybe threads can be merged, Moderator's choice.

  7. #52

    Default Rockefeller Plaza West

    Rockefeller Plaza West
    745 Seventh Avenue
    ~800 feet 55 /57 story
    Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates
    Rockefeller Center Development Corporation
    Commercial Office
    1.36/ 1.6 MSF
    Unbuilt 1993


    Gates Merkulova Architects LLP - KPF Projects
    Rockefeller Plaza West, New York, 1987-1990

    The management of Rockefeller Center intended to build the last element of the Rockefeller Center complex, its western-facing entrance, on a site on Seventh Avenue, between 49th and 50th Streets and adjacent to Exxon Plaza in Manhattan. The building was to house offices, an educational-technical center for the performing arts, and was to link into the underground concourse network. The project won a Citation from Progressive Architecture Magazine in 1988.

    The contrasting models of the modernism, Rockefeller Center and Times Square, form the context for the project, and inform its design. The lessons offered by these visions of the city have allowed for a consideration of the building as an assemblage, the pieces of which resolve the various site conditions, while the whole is both monumental and dynamic, embodying the energy of the modern city.

    Four major elements compose the building. A central core pins the building to the site and defines it on the skyline, acting with the RCA Building as a bookend to the Exxon Building. Around this core laminations are placed, creating a condition of rotation which terminates the east-west axis of the complex and creates a new relationship to the Times Square valley to the south. The variety of scales created by these laminations, as well as their irregular composition, allows the building to graft itself onto the existing cityscape. The building is clad in limestone and glass, with metal ornamentation placed on the surface of the stone to articulate setbacks and to shimmer in the sunlight.

    A two-tiered podium, stepped toward the west, defines the Seventh Avenue street wall. This surface is covered by electronic signage, and a building entrance is indicated by a tower of light. An irregular configuration is created at the Plaza to the east, resolving ground level site conditions and providing the main entrance to the building.

    A portion of the building element facing Times Square is disengaged and transformed into an object made of glass and metal, specially lit at night, hovering over the Square and acting as an agent in its definition. The various incisions formed by the manipulation of the building mass are seen as habitable places to indulge in the fantasy of living in the sky which informs the myth of New York.

    The project was subsequently abandoned due to the changes in the marketplace

    Commercial Property: Rockefeller Center;
    The Labyrinthian Path to Building a 55-Story Tower

    The New York Times
    By David W. Dunlap
    Published: September 9, 1990

    LEAD: Something big stood in the way as the Rockefeller Center Development Corporation planned a transfer of air rights from a low-rise Fifth Avenue block to the Seventh Avenue site on which it planned to build Rockefeller Plaza West. That something was the Exxon Building. Because Rockefeller Center sold the Exxon tower in 1986, it broke a direct chain of ownership from the British Empire Building, Maison Francaise, Channel Gardens and Lower Plaza (which generated the air rights), through the G.E.

    ''It is probably the longest reach for the transfer of development rights that we know of in the city,'' said Stephen Lefkowitz of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, lawyers for the Rockefeller Group, of which the development corporation is a subsidiary.

    It was not the only complex solution arrived at in the development of Rockefeller Plaza West, construction of which may begin next year. ''It had always been in the back of everybody's mind here that a day would come when we would build behind the Exxon Building,'' said Lee S. Saltzman, senior vice president of the development corporation.

    But first, assemblage of the site had to be completed. This occurred in a fishbowl, with the sellers knowing who the buyers were and pricing properties accordingly. ''There's no question that the reaction was that they were dealing with a deeper pocket than the usual developer,'' Mr. Saltzman said. He said that the assembler's axiom - ''You pay most dearly for the last pieces'' - held true.

    Rockefeller Center also had to buy out the lease of a Woolworth store at Seventh Avenue and 50th Street that was to run until 1998.

    Although Mr. Saltzman declined to discuss the cost, city records show that the last piece, a 4,200-square-foot parcel, was purchased by the Rockefeller Group for $13.89 million.

    The Seventh Avenue site could have contained a building of 815,500 square feet under zoning rules.

    That was where the air rights came in. All told, Rockefeller Center has about 2 million square feet of unused development rights. Some 739,800 come from the Fifth Avenue block between 49th and 50th Streets, where two six-story buildings flank the Channel Gardens. If developed to the allowable limit, this block could have 912,800 square feet of space, but as built it has only 173,000.

    Because there is no legal limit on the amount of air rights that can be transferred, Rockefeller Center executives hoped their skyscraper would be allowed to exceed the recognized - though not codified - density limit for mid-Manhattan, which is a floor-area ratio of 21.6 to 1 (meaning that a 10,000-square-foot lot can have a building with 216,000 square feet). They proposed a 57-story tower with a floor-area ratio of 22.2.

    But both the City Planning Commission and Community Board 5 objected to that density. ''That was of major concern,'' said Jack Goldstein, chairman of the mid-Manhattan board. ''We asked that the bulk be reduced to below the 21.6 level.''

    The tower lost 40,000 square feet, or two stories. As approved, it is to use 506,000 square feet of development rights.

    Another factor complicating the building's design was its location at the northern edge of the theater district. It has to include entertainment-related space and enormous electric signs, under zoning rules that are meant to preserve some of the district's character.

    Mr. Saltzman described the charge to the architects at Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates: ''Create a new western gateway to Rockefeller Center, integrate the western and eastern portions and, at the same time, don't turn your back on Times Square.''

    ''We didn't want to fall into the pitfall of imitating Rockefeller Center,'' said Gregory Clement, an associate partner in the architectural firm, ''but we wanted to find a way to give a visual sense that this was part of Rockefeller Center.''

    That meant a tower almost as high as the 850-foot G.E. Building (also known as 30 Rockefeller Plaza), to establish a skyline relationship that would bridge the shorter Exxon Building between them. It meant echoing the basic massing of 30 Rock, which has a central core wrapped in thin protruding layers - Mr. Clement calls them ''laminations'' - terminating in setbacks. And it meant a facade of limestone piers.

    What made the assignment ''very difficult,'' Mr. Clement said, was creating Times Square-style signage for a Rockefeller Center tower. The architects came up with large screens for the signs, which appear almost to float in front of the limestone wall, above the first 60-foot-high setback.

    When it came to entertainment-related uses, Mr. Saltzman said: ''The first advice I received was, 'You put two movie theaters at the bottom of the building and you've got enterntainment space.' But we said, 'Let's take a broader look that would allow us to embrace the entertainment-related use as opposed to grudgingly accepting it.' ''

    ''A rehearsal studio was really the direction in which we kept finding ourselves moving,'' Mr. Saltzman said. ''There were plenty of theaters but what seemed to have disappeared from the Times Square district was rehearsal space.'' The studios will be underground but have their own entrance on Seventh Avenue, as well as their own elevators, stairway and building systems.

    Mr. Goldstein said this was ''the only example where a developer in the theater district has opted for rehearsal space because that's what the entertainment community wanted most.''

    ''Rockefeller Center has had a tradition where it does respond to the broad interests of the community,'' Mr. Saltzman said. ''There was a true feeling here that we didn't want to push something that was regarded as hostile by the community.''

    As part of that philosophy, he said, certain key groups like the community board were consulted early and often during planning.

    ''It is a model of how to approach a community board respectfully,'' Mr. Goldstein said. ''They simply decided that was part of the development process. They never misled us. They never hid anything. If they could do something, they said they could; if they couldn't, they said they couldn't. They certainly disagreed with us about density. Nevertheless, that disagreement didn't bring discussions to a halt.''

    With the review and assemblage completed, and demolition under way at the Woolworth site, Rockefeller Center is now beginning in earnest its search for an anchor tenant. It is most unlikely that the tower would be built on a purely speculative basis.

    Last year, Mr. Saltzman said, there were preliminary talks with prospects whose needs ranged from 400,000 square feet to more than 1 million, including financial service concerns, professional firms and communications companies. ''We've now begun to reopen the dialogue,'' he said.


    ARCHITECTURE VIEW; A Gesture To the 'Good' Rockefeller Center
    The New York Times
    Paul Goldberger
    Published: May 21, 1989

    Bear Stearns Is Negotiating For Space in Proposed Tower
    The New York Times
    Charles V. Bagli
    Published: February 12, 1997

    Cablevision/MSG buys Radio City Productions
    Real Estate Weekly
    Published: December 10, 1997

    Big names ignite Rock West plans: lease will initiate construction.
    Crain's New York Business
    Lore Croghan
    Published: April 20, 1998
    Last edited by Derek2k3; January 21st, 2008 at 02:46 PM.

  8. #53


    Some Details.





    This was the initial design for Morgan Stanley:

    Last edited by Derek2k3; January 21st, 2008 at 01:55 PM.

  9. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Far West Village, NYC


    Thanks for all these renderings! Do you have similarly detailed info/renderings on projects like:

    One New York Place (at Fulton Transit Hub)

    10 Columbus Circle

    Television City

    Cintas Tower

    Larkin Tower

    NYSE Tower

  10. #55
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    New York City


    My goodness, Derek you're good! Lofter you too....

    What I like about the design is that its a modern extension of the Rockefeller theme. Rockefeller Plaza meets 7thAv/Times Square. Very Interesting. Unfortunately the building we got (though I like it) is the typical 21st century lack of details.

    Now lemme see you do uummm South Ferry Plaza, I wish they built it.
    Last edited by Tectonic; January 21st, 2008 at 02:59 PM.

  11. #56

    Default New York Stock Exchange Tower

    New York Stock Exchange Tower
    33 Wall Street; Between Exchange Place, Wall, Broad & William streets
    51 stories 900 feet
    Skidmore Owings & Merrill
    City & State of New York
    Commercial Office
    1.8 MSF (600,000 ft of Trading Floors)
    Unbuilt 2002

    Advanced Media Design

    The New York Inside Guide
    New York Stock Exchange Tower

    The New York Stock Exchange has occupied a small 36,000 square foot trading floor since 1903 at 22 Broad Street. The neoclassical building has come to symbolize America's lead in global finance, and made New York a business forerunner. The New York Stock Exchange has been seeking to leave the historic building however, in hopes of finding a space more suitable to its demands, more specifically a larger trading floor. The board first hoped to remain in New York's financial district. Developers offered to move the exchange, several times to the lower east side. The plan never materialized and the site was sold to make way for high-rises. Further east there were several proposals to to build the exchange on piers. Another proposal was for a tower and trading facility to rise on the site of the Signer Building, well financed, the plan fell through due to board opposition. Less serious proposals have also been made for the late World Trade Centers and Battery Park City. It was becoming obvious that the New York Stock Exchange might have to leave the financial district and even New York.

    The New York Stock Exchange made this public and the cities of America responded. From the east coast, to the west and even as far away as Alaska people wanted the New York Stock Exchange in their city. The board finally decided on a move to New Jersey. This is hardly news, the New York Stock Exchange has been planning to move to New Jersey for quite some time now. The New York Stock Exchange has forgone a move to allow New York to come up with a better proposal. And in the year 1999 New York came up with one that met the New York Stock Exchange's requests. The new, New York Stock Exchange will just move across the street, a very simple proposal, you would think.

    In fact this is one of the most complex proposals in New York City history. The plan is to buy everything in between Broad Street, Williams Street, Wall Street and Exchange Place. This calls for the demolition of three office buildings and one residential building with 435 Apartments. The only building remaining will be the historic 5 storey J.P. Morgan Bank building at the corner of Wall and Broad Streets which will be converted into a visitors center. Demolition wise this will not be an easy task since one of the buildings, 15 Broad Street is 40 storeys high! Demolishing a building over 500 feet across the street from the New York Stock Exchange will be by all means be a difficult task. The Landmark Conservation groups have approved demolition on the four buildings, they recognize the loss, but realize the inevitable gain. Demolition has ben delayed in light of the immediate office demand. New York State will pay $900 million for this project a drastic upgrade from original prospects. To make up for the huge sum payed for the New York Stock Exchange, New York will build a huge 1.2 million square foot tower above the trading floors.

    At 900 feet the New York Stock Exchange Tower will be the first skyscraper built in the financial district in a decade, and the tallest since the World Trade Centers. The base of the tower will consist of 600,000 square feet for the New York Stock Exchange. Of the 600,000 square feet there will be two 50,000 square foot trading floors costing $350 million. Above the trading floors for the New York Stock Exchange there will be four more 40,000 square foot trading floors. The combined trading floors are reported to hover 320 feet above Wall Street.

    Above the base will be 1.2 million square feet for other tenants. New York State is currently looking for a tenant for this space. Since tenant negotiations have been taking a long time, the Giuliani administration is preparing to go alone on building the tower. Making the New York Stock Exchange the first large scale speculative office building in more than a decade. This is a huge gamble if the commercial real estate market takes a dip, leaving a $900 million office building vacant of tenants. The office building will rise 50 storeys and will have its own separate entrance. Currently known as the New York Stock Exchange Tower, the building will be renamed for its anchor tenant. The tower is aimed to attract financial tenants who would be lured by being above the exchange, and the prestigious location. One draw back about the building is that it will have small 35,000 square foot plates, smaller than the currently available floor plates in midtown.

    Designed by David Childs of Skidmore Owings and Merril the tower will rise to the east of the landmarked J.P. Morgan Building. The base will have a high tech, flashy design, similar to the new LED screens in Times Square. The tower will be a multifaceted steel and glass box with a flat roof. According to Wesley Moon of Skidmore Owings and Merrill's interior's department the New York Stock Exchange Tower is a beautiful building with an identity all it's own. It is clean, simplistic, and functional with a hint of the way of the facade gradiates from dark to light through a scattering of rectangular panels as the building rises.

    As for the old exchange, the building will house New York Stock Exchange executive and administrative offices along with a Police Department substation.

    Demolition is still set to begin in fall of 2001 with completion anytime between 2004 and 2006.


    NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT: FINANCIAL DISTRICT; Residents Wish Stock Exchange Was Bearish About a New Office
    The New York Times
    Denny Lee
    Published: September 10, 2000

    Without a Developer, City May Go it Alone on New NYSE Building
    The New York Observer
    Andrew Rice
    Published: December 10, 2000

    Stock Exchange rips off New York City (PDF)
    Published: December 2001

    NYSE's Chairman Unplugs His Plans For a New Exchange
    The New York Observer
    Andrew Rice
    Published: December 3, 2001

    Toward a Post-Terrorism Architecture
    U+A Magazine
    David Childs

  12. #57


    Thanks Skylimitone.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandySavage View Post
    Thanks for all these renderings! Do you have similarly detailed info/renderings on projects like:
    Nothing not seen before but I'll do those with time too.

  13. #58
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    NYC - Downtown

    Thumbs down New York Stock Exchange Tower

    Stock Exchange:

    What a massive tank that would have been.

    And would've killed Trump's profits at 40 Wall.

  14. #59
    Random Personality
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Woodside, Queens


    Wow the stock exchange buildings is utterly HUGE. Totally out of scale. I would have to say that if it were built it would have totally killed that southern view of downtown.

  15. #60


    Yep, it was disgusting, thank god it never got built.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


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