Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 514

Thread: 101 Warren Street - Condo, Rentals - TriBeCa - by Skidmore, Ownings & Merrill

  1. #61

    Default

    ehhh....It's okay. This is going to be residential correct?

  2. #62
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Its in Lower Manhattan, what else would it be these days

  3. #63

    Default

    True

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6
    Bloomberg and his administration actually killed the Office Tower, the Board wanted it to be lowered in height. Bloomberg only wants to develop the Far West side for his stupid Olympic bid and would rather Lower Manhattan just become a residential district. If you went back to the 1980's and said to some that in 20 year more people would live below Chambers Street then work, you'd be called crazy, its a dahm shame what's happened Down there. Working here in Midtown having uses to work there makes it even more sad for me
    Do some research on the history of business exodus from Lower Manhattan.

  5. #65
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    I work for Citigroup, i have all the history i need

  6. #66

    Default

    OK, but what's your analysis of what happened to downtown business?

    I think you're going to have to go back further than the 80s for an accurate picture.

  7. #67
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    What happened to downtown is very simple, in the 1960's firms, as employees moved more and more to the suburbs started to relocate and locate there firms in Midtown, closer to Suburban commuting facilities based on closeness to transportation and because Downtown had no available spaces. To try and buck that they built the WTC complex to revitalize the whole westside of the Financial district that was lacking adequate space already on the eastern side, thus also helping the exodus to Midtown gain further and also the WFC, thus creating a River to rive financial district.

    However in the 1980's as the financial industry became a more technologically driven industry, many of the older building in downtown became outdated and there was lack of space to build anything new. Thus again the tide of business moving to Midtown started up again, but this time the business also started moving out to Jersey and many other places as lack of space, higher construction costs and other factors became involved.

    So facing this exodus what did the city and the State do, NOTHING. Instead of promoting the renovation/demolition of outdated offices in Lower Manhattan and encourage the development of new spaces, they provided no incentive for firms to stay there, so they moved out and built office in Midtown were these incentive were given. Thus all the older buildings have bees converted.

    If i missed anythign let me know

  8. #68

    Default

    During most of the 20th century, although dominated by financial market employment, Lower Manhattan had a more diverse business community than it now has. Port of New York shipping was still dominant. Piers 1-20 (now BPC) were mainly food import/export piers, which served Washington Market (now Tribeca). This was the main food processing center for NYC before the move to Hunt’s Point. The wholesale textile industry was centered at Worth St (Textile Building on Leonard St).

    After WWII these industries began to decline and eventually disappeared from Lower Manhattan. But other things were happening. Postwar economic boom, and returning servicemen began moving to suburbs (Levittown). Inner cities were increasingly viewed as not the ideal environment. As flight continued, supporting areas around CBDs began to decay, but businesses still needed them to centralize a workforce.

    What changed were the places business searched for employee talent. There was little interest in attracting people from inner city neighborhoods – the focus was the suburbs, so the need was commuter transportation. There was also the need to dispel the perception of the dangerous city.

    Lower Manhattan was at a disadvantage to Midtown on both counts. Midtown had direct links to Long Island and Westchester. Although crime was a citywide problem, Midtown still had amenities that projected the glamorous city. (Think about the 1950s and 60s films about people coming to New York to make it in the big city.Were they located on Wall St or Park Ave? Downtown, on the other hand, emptied after dark.

    And I mean EMPTY. With no one living there and most workers gone home, it was an eerie and (perceived) dangerous place. If you think Lower Manhattan is a little desolate at night now, you should have seen it in the 70s. At the time, I worked on Worth St, and frequently worked late. A daughter of neighbors of my parents got a job with Merrill Lynch and sometimes had to stay after market close. Her parents were terrified, and asked me on days when I worked late, if I would accompany her home.

    For a business either contemplating leasing or building new space, the considerations are not just the quality of the space and the price, but the ability to attract employees. Everything else being equal, Company A in Midtown would have a distinct advantage over Company B in Lower Manhattan.

    The trend in loss of business never really stopped, but was masked by increases in rent. It wasn’t so much that companies could not find space in Lower Manhattan, but that the demand to build the space was in Midtown.

    One of Lower Manhattan’s problems began to change in the 80s – the perception of the neighborhood, and that was the result of the influx of residents to Tribeca, BPC, and the Financial District. When Merrill Lynch vacated 1 Liberty Plaza, they considered moving across the Hudson (they took space at 101 Hudson in JC). Instead they moved into two towers of the WFC. The neighborhood had amenities. One of the positives of the WTC beside the office space, was the retail mall and the PATH hub. It attracted workers from suburbs in New Jersey.

    In a 2002 report Rebuilding Lower Manhattan for the Creative Age author Richard Florida (Economic Development professor at Carnegie Melon) writes about the importance of neighborhood amenities in attracting what he defines as the Creative Class of workers.
    Consumer activities and amenities are an important part of the mix. Lower Manhattan
    must be seen as a center for consumption as well as production. As shown in research by the
    economist Edward Glaeser and the sociologists Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark, the
    new city is becoming defined more and more as a city of consumption, experiences, lifestyle
    and entertainment: creative workers “increasingly act like tourists in their own city,” write
    Lloyd and Clark. This means thinking of Lower Manhattan as a diverse, integrated live-worklearn-
    play community where the distinctions between them all begin to blur. Retail is part of
    this strategy as is lifestyle in general.

    In my opinion, focusing on Lower Manhattan as the center of finance to the exclusion of everything else is old-thinking and dangerous. As electronic trading began in the late 60s, the need for firms to be physically near Wall St has diminished. Wall St doesn’t need to be on Wall St. These firms could move out in the blink of an eye.

    It’s time for Lower Manhattan to confront the 21st Century.

  9. #69
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    DON'T get me wrong I agree Zippy, but the general feeling of business is that the city no longer wants the Financial district to have any business, thus every city owned site, like 5-B and 5-C that are large and would be able to hold large floor plates, as well as the city okaying every single conversion, even in some building that are borderline class A and currently have tenants that are forced to move out.

    Do you feel this is a misinterpretation? How long will it be till there is no business promotion in Lower Manhattan

  10. #70

    Default

    Where we differ is in the cause of business leaving Lower Manhattan, and what is keeping that business from returning. Your view is that residential pressure and city policy in that direction play a major role. I don’t think that was ever the case, although it is not quite as easy for business to move back as it was 20 years ago.

    Sites 5b and 5c are the only city-owned vacant land Downtown. They were cleared in the 60s, and were always available for development. The school wasn’t there, neither was the St John’s building. The residential buildings across Greenwich St were boarded-up tenements that could have been acquired for a song. The present situation at sites 5b and 5c is the result of market conditions, not city or community policy. The CBs have no decision-making power; they can only make recommendations. The city was set to approve the project, if Minskoff had an anchor tenant.

    Sites were available along Broadway near Fulton St.

    Residential population in the Financial District was very low before 1990. One of the first conversions was Sinclair Oil in 1981. Excluding Tribeca and BPC, Financial District population began to significantly grow in the mid 90s. At that time, the vacancy rate for class-B office space downtown was over 25%. I know that commercial tenants are being evicted from some of these buildings, but if they were occupied to the point of reasonable profitability, I don’t think they would be undergoing costly renovations – especially landmarked buildings.

    If the sentiment of business is that it is being squeezed out of Lower Manhattan, why is there no long line at Silverstein’s door? If and when these buildings come on line, we’ll see if they are really interested.

    At any rate, so far I am happy at the direction Lower Manhattan has taken – assuming the infrastructure improvements are made. Although the loss of business is troubling, I am more concerned with the lack of NEW businesses to New York City in general. Of all the new industries that have grown in the last 30 years, how many have developed in New York? All the Manhattan corporate giants were once start-up companies. That’s where real growth is. An example was given in the report I previously mentioned – Detroit and Seattle.
    Seattle and Detroit. Both have major research universities. Thirty years ago, both had dominant industries — aerospace in Seattle, the automotive industry in Detroit — that were very technically sophisticated, but mature and non-growing. Since then, Seattle has enjoyed new growth in a host of industries that didn’t even exist 30 years ago — from software production, biotechnology and Internet services to coffee house chains — while Detroit has been notoriously unable to generate much of anything new.
    The author goes on to explain that places like Seattle have created environments that attract creative people, with new ideas. There should be no reason why the two guys that turned a university project into Goggle couldn’t have done it in a garage in LIC.


    From Downtown Express

    Whole Food hopes for Tribeca tower

    By Ronda Kaysen

    Whole Foods Market, the high-end grocery store that has New Yorkers salivating for sushi grade tuna and calamata olive bread, may soon plant itself on Greenwich St.


    When plans for a 1 million sq. ft. development on Site 5B in Tribeca were unveiled at a Jan. 5th public scoping session, the familiar green Whole Foods Market awning was sketched into the Skidmore, Owens & Merrill-designed illustrations.

    “There is a very good chance that we’ll get a Whole Foods,” Ben McGrath, C.F.O. to Minskoff Equities Inc., the site’s developer, told Downtown Express. “We’ll know for certain in the next month or so.”

    Whole Foods is less committal about the possibility. “We don’t have anything finalized yet,” said Angela Rakis, a spokesperson for Whole Foods Market, in a telephone interview. “We’re always looking at new locations.”

    Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff and City Councilmember Alan Gerson signed a deal in September giving developer Edward Minskoff the go ahead to build on the city-owned undeveloped site at 270 Greenwich St. At the time, Gerson said Minskoff indicated he had hopes for a 170,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods Market, but the councilmember did not know how likely the chances were. Part of the agreement requires Minskoff to make his best efforts to secure a large grocery store for the space, which will lie on the Greenwich St. side of the development.

    The Economic Development Corporation-led public scoping session for the site bounded by West, Murray, Greenwich and Warren Sts., opened the public comment period for the project’s environmental review process. The comment period will end on Jan. 18th at 5 p.m.

    In addition to a possible Whole Foods Market, the developer revealed other details for the site. Residents will enter the building’s condo tower, which may increase in height to 382 ft., on Warren St. According to Chris Cooper, an S.O.M. architect on the project, the increase in height will not affect the tower’s square footage.

    A separate Warren St. entrance, closer to Greenwich St., will be reserved for the townhouse properties. Most of the retail space will be located on the bottom two floors beneath the townhouses, separated by a garden terrace, and along Greenwich St. Additional retail space is located at the corner of West and Warren Sts. Rental tenants will enter the building from Murray St.

    “The proposal departs from some of the aspects of the agreement,” said Robert Davis, a lawyer for Minskoff, at the session.

    The main point of community concern, voiced by various members of the public, was the proposed 64-foot height increase along the Warren St. side of the site, across the street from P.S. 234. According to the agreement, any stray from the 70-foot street wall would require C.B. 1 and city approval. In exchange for an increase in height, Minskoff would contribute money to the planned community center at 5C, where construction is expected to begin in several months.

    “It would be a substantial amount of money,” said McGrath, estimating a contribution of anywhere from $1 million to $10 million. The exact number will have to be worked out with the city, he said. “We would love to be able to find that number.”

    George Olsen, a member of C.B. 1, found the height increase problematic because of the effects of the added shadows. “This is excessive,” he said at the session. “I believe there are reasonable alternatives to this.” Olsen also voiced concern about increased traffic on Warren St., a concern echoed by Kevin Doherty, a Tribeca resident.

    The long term construction project, not just at 270 Greenwich St., but also at neighboring Site 5C and at the new World Trade Center — part of which will be designed by S.O.M — concerned Kevin Fisher, president of P.S. 234’s P.T.A. “We have a perfect storm of construction in the area,” he said at the session. “The 720 children of P.S. 234 will be living through four or five years of major construction. There’s going to be dust and incredible amounts of noise. One wonders whether some analysis of the structural effects on the school should be looked at as well.”

    Albert Capsouto, chairperson of C.B. 1’s Tribeca Committee, did not make a formal comment at the session, but was pleased to see that the plan did not call for a Floor Area Ratio increase. All other conflicts between the developer and the community, he said, could be resolved. “There are ways of addressing the school’s concerns and the developers concerns either through architectural or schematic ways of dealing with Warren St.,” he said. The Warren St. changes will need C.B. 1 approval to go forward.

    For years, neighbors have been objecting to various tower proposals for Sites 5B and 5C, with some more concerned about the shadow effects to Washington Market Park and P.S. 234 and others focused on increasing the size of the rec center. Minskoff’s proposed change could reopen this debate over competing concerns.

    Public comments can be mailed to Marilyn Lee, New York City Economic Development Corporation, 110 Williams St., 10038, or faxed to 212-312-3989 before 5 p.m. on Jan. 18th.



    Ronda@DowntownExpress.com

    Downtown Express is published by
    Community Media LLC.

    Downtown Express
    487 Greenwich St.,
    Suite 6A | New York, NY 10013

    Email: josh@downtownexpress.com

    Email: news@downtownexpress.com

    Site plan info, clockwise from upper left:
    382 ft condo tower - retail at street
    134 ft townhouses - retail at street
    Supermarket, retail
    139 ft rental building.

  11. #71
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    A quote from a guy involved with lower manhattan develop, again making my point that this site should have been commercial and it was Bloomberg not the area boards that killed this. This guy is not pro-business at all


    (T)he city wants to oust Edward J. Minskoff, whom it chose in April 2001 to develop a 600-foot commercial building, and find a new developer for what could be an even taller residential tower.
    In pushing for a new central business district on the far west side, the City administration is saying in effect that developable sites in midtown and downtown are nearly gone. Yet here the City is removing a prime downtown site from commercial development. The Minskoff tower would have added 1.5 million square feet of Class A office space.

    The effort to create a 24-hour downtown is long overdue, and there are many old buildings and small parcels where residential development will work well. But the Minskoff site can accomodate large floor plates that modern office towers require. It should be left for that purpose, even if it has to be land-banked until the market is ready.

    The City hasn't fully explained why it wants to swap the airports for the WTC site. Is it possible that they wish to eliminate downtown commercial sites that would compete with their proposed West Side office district?

  12. #72

    Default

    When was this statement made? It seems tied to the airport-WTC land swap, which fueled suspicions that the city wanted to remove commercial development from the WTC. But that didn't happen.

    So with 7 WTC coming on line, the WTC getting most or all of its commercial space replaced, Goldman Sachs moving into a new building and creating more vacancy in their existing property, continued development in Midtown, and future Westside development - how long should the city have deferred any tax revenue from the property by land-banking?

  13. #73
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    I don't want to be the only one to say this but did anyone ever think the reason that know one is moving into the WTC towers is because they don't want to be on a graveyard???????????

    A for Goldman, the West street tunnel has become such an issue to the firm, they are ready to abandon there plans, as told to me be a person who works at the architectural firm. Why should they care, they have a 2 million sf building 10 minutes away waiting for them.

    Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better

  14. #74
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6
    I don't want to be the only one to say this but did anyone ever think the reason that know one is moving into the WTC towers is because they don't want to be on a graveyard???????????

    A for Goldman, the West street tunnel has become such an issue to the firm, they are ready to abandon there plans, as told to me be a person who works at the architectural firm. Why should they care, they have a 2 million sf building 10 minutes away waiting for them.

    Downtown is dead as a commercial district, people should just face it and no multi million dollar subway station will change that, it will only help those residents coming home from work in Midtown get around better
    Downtown is not dead. The WTC buildings are paid for entirely from insurance proceeds unlike other projects which need tenants to receive financing. They have hired CBRE to lease them and have been reported in final negotiations with more than one client.

    Goldman's own employees are part of the reason why they are going to build in Manhattan. They want to work here. Hearsay doesn't cut it, if you have a source quote them.

  15. #75
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Silverstein only got funding to build Seven and Freedom Tower and has only one half, $400 million of the $800 million plus. SO far no tenants are lined up for Seven or Freedom Tower, but even i will give it time. Fact is that if they don't get tenants, with the city already giving the Liberty Bonds to Commercial Projects in Midtown and Conversion Residential projects in lower Manhattan, there is just no money.

    And I don't know who you work for but in most companies, they don't take a poll and ask were employees want to work, if the firm wants to move or relocate jobs they do it, money and profit motivate business, not employee opinions.

    Plus I have quotes from a employee of a firm that designed the Goldman project, cant give out a name based on his signing a confidentiality agreement and thus I could put his job in jeopardy.

    Its okay to admit that Lower Manhattan futures is as aresidential districtr, but its not okay to fool yourself into thinking that it is a relative place to do businees, its just not anymore.

Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 165 Charles Street @ West Street - by Richard Meier
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 05:36 PM
  2. J Condo - 100 Jay Street - DUMBO - by Gruzen Samton
    By Edward in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2007, 07:46 AM
  3. Rentals on the Bowery
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 14th, 2003, 06:16 AM
  4. Making a Change in Chelsea: Rentals Go Co-op
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 12th, 2002, 12:04 PM
  5. Special Issues for Merrill, the Landlord
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2002, 12:04 PM

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