Page 20 of 93 FirstFirst ... 101617181920212223243070 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 1387

Thread: Con Ed site on the East River

  1. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex ballard
    How big will the footprint for the 85 story tower be? if it's like 40,000 ft per floor, then that's over 3 million sq ft.

    Do you think it will all get rented?

    Is there a second office tower planned? How about twin 80 story buidlings? That would be cool.

    I think it's zoned for about 2 million square feet...

  2. #287

    Default




    A few shots from the area of development (June 26, 2005). At least two of the sites have been cleared for a while now, with a third one basically a parking lot (below). If there is a tower at this site, that may mean one tower on the site of the actual plant itself...




    And the site of the potential 85-story (we hope) office tower...






  3. #288

    Default

    when will the con ed plant be demolished?

  4. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686
    Unfortunately, it wasn't a joke. And while I don't mind correcting people sometimes, as I understand mistakes can be made, I don't appreciate being insulted and told to "shoot myself" for pointing it out. You don't have to tell me the difference between Goldman Sachs and Saks Fifth Avenue, as I explained the difference in my original response. It seems now that you're trying to cover your tracks, but in doing so, you've managed to create an even more nonsensical post. Firstly, I believe the word is "paraphrase", not powerphrase. Secondly, you've stated that American Eagle, a clothing company, opposed the Goldman Sachs tower. Because of your awkward wording, I originally thought that you were describing Goldman Sachs as the clothing company, but apparently you were describing American Express (which you conveniently happened to change to American Eagle this time). Let me point out that American Eagle is not located in the world financial center. Rather, American Express - the Fortune 100 firm that has a credit card division, travel services, insurance, and all other kinds of financial services - has its own building in the world financial center. Thus, not only did you state your original post very awkwardly, but didn't realize the inherent absurdity in saying a clothing store would object to a new highrise tower.
    I was trying to do you a favor in enlightening you about the difference between Goldman Sachs and Saks Fifth Avenue. You've turned it around against me by pointing out my apparent stupidity. But now it seems you've made an even more improbable error in associating a different, singular clothing store with a corporate giant that has its own tower. Congratulations, you've managed to outdo yourself.

    In retortion solely to your last post on this matter.

    If you are going to go around correcting people on mispelled words all over the forum, good look with that and first make sure that all of you posts are with out flaw.
    when i corrected my first post so that it could be understood by forum more easily, i didn't change american my words from American express to American Eagle, you must have misread.
    In my initial post, i didn't even elude to the possibility of Goldman Sach's being the clothing store, i actually quoted a previous post and stated that eventhough i wasn't aware of that specific example, and i credited them saying that this type of thing has and can happen.

    Also, If in your "correction", you were trying to enlighten my "mistake", i don't know what your idea of critism is. In your highlighting an "apparent flaw" in my post, you sucessfully made me seem like a dumb ass on the forum...over some mistake that wasn't even there.
    And please, do not try to claim your innocense in all of this. I was not mixing up a corporate giant with a clothing store, in any moment of my post; not before my initial rewording, nor after. And by you saying that i did such a thing, i believe that you have out done yourself.

    On a broader theme and a different note.

    I fully admit that my post was too harsh and vindictive. There were a lot of things that i included that shouldnt have been posted. It is a simple mistake and we are blowing it up into something which doesn't deserve this much credit. I was wrong to have said the things that i hd said...i should have thought about it and tried to seen the reason for your post, instead i posted a rather mean post. Again that was my fault. I will reiterate what i said in the Pinnacle thread, i am willing to burry this if you are too.

  5. #290
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Kolbster: I don't view it as my job to go around correcting people's spelling errors on this forum. It is a place for informal discussion, and typos will be made. There's at least one typo in almost every post I read, mine not excluded. It's not something that bothers me or that I feel must be corrected. That wasn't my intention in "correcting" you the first time and second time in this thread. The only reason I did so was because your posts discussed a "clothing store" and I couldn't think of a reasonable connection between that and a dispute between American Express and Goldman Sachs, which as we both know are two corporate giants, and as far as I know, the only players that were involved in this particular dispute. I was only trying to give you advice on how to make your posts easier for people to read and understand, because, as you can clearly see, I had trouble with them. I hereby retract my previous statements which suggested that you made the unlikely mistake of confusing either of the two financial companies with a clothing store, because now I realize how absurd that sounds. I simply felt, at the time, that I should let you know the truth so that you wouldn't keep misassociating one with the other.
    All that being said, apology accepted. Let's do the right thing in putting this silly discussion behind us and focus on the real issues at heart in this forum.

  6. #291
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N40° 44' 53.977" W073° 59' 10.812"
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deimos
    One thing to remember is that the community is livid about the loss of the Robert Moses park, and wants to have that parking lot on the west side of 1st ave between 39th and 40th turned into a replacement park. Having a massive tower on that site will hurt the Tudor City neighborhood, as it will block all sunlight into the quaint little parks, however the rest of the plots of land shouldn't impact all that many people. The only unfortunate matter is that 5 Tudor City is the only Tudor City building that has east facing apartments, so the 708 First Ave building will impact some people.
    Now that the previous conflict has been resolved, it's time to start anew.

    Deimos, you are correct re the pressure to turn the plot on the west side of 1st Avenue into a park, and this may be a viable solution if FARs are increased along the FDR. However, can you please clarify your assertion - or perhaps, opinion - on the issue of shadows? At what time of year will a tower on this site cast a shadow to the northwest, i.e. into Tudor City Park (quaint) or the playgrounds along 42nd Street (not so quaint)? I can't recall seeing the sun rising from or setting into the SE.

    In any case, TC Park is bathed in shade virtually all day from the surrounding ring of mid-rise structures, coupled with mature trees supporting unimaginable numbers of squirrels.

  7. #292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GLNY
    Deimos, you are correct re the pressure to turn the plot on the west side of 1st Avenue into a park, and this may be a viable solution if FARs are increased along the FDR.

    I don't see how. Most of the buildings in that area have their own personal park space anyway. Turning that small piece of property into a park won't help as far as that goes. I'm guessing the Con Ed development will feature park space as part of the overall plan.

  8. #293

    Default

    when will the con ed plant be demolished???

  9. #294
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N40° 44' 53.977" W073° 59' 10.812"
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NYguy
    I don't see how. Most of the buildings in that area have their own personal park space anyway. Turning that small piece of property into a park won't help as far as that goes. I'm guessing the Con Ed development will feature park space as part of the overall plan.
    Re FARs, I believe the lots west and east of 1st Avenue can trade air rights as one contiguous parcel. The east side clearly contains more prominent development sites, and preliminary designs have pushed these towers close to 1st Avenue to open up green space along the river (actually, the FDR). The CB has focused on the west parcel, possibly because a) it's more integrated into the neighborhood; b) it could compensate for any future loss of the similarly-sized Robert Moses Park, and c) the (slight) possibility of eliminating a Con-Ed substation occupying the remainder of this block to create a more substantial park. Paradoxically, the shadows generated by the Con Ed site towers would exert their greatest impact on this area.

    On a comic note, the community’s self-appointed advocates are leafleting neighboring buildings - including the Corinthian (58 stories) and Horizon (44 stories) - to find high-rise denizens opposed to tall(er) structures. Not sure if anyone will fall for such hypocrisy.

    Hey19932: Demolition is underway, with a cleared site at 41st and 1st, and work continuing on the rear of the plant between 38th-39th Street. Scaffolding encloses most of the remaining structure.

  10. #295

    Default

    thank you so much GLNY!

  11. #296

    Default

    >>

    On a comic note, the community’s self-appointed advocates are leafleting neighboring buildings - including the Corinthian (58 stories) and Horizon (44 stories) - to find high-rise denizens opposed to tall(er) structures. Not sure if anyone will fall for such hypocrisy.

    <<

    Don't be too sure the NIMBY's won't find plenty of like-minded company in those high-rises, GLNY. If I were on the fifty-fifth floor of the Corinthian looking east over the river, I'd probably sign a petition to make all of those empty lots into parks myself. When it comes to nearby towers, the average resident likes his nabe frozen in time...to the precise moment that he or she moved in.

  12. #297
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Jackson Heights
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hey19932
    when will the con ed plant be demolished???
    Hopefully, the plant won't be completely demolished. I'd love to see the facade incorporated into one of the new buildings. This area has a long industrial history, and the Con Ed plant is just about the only remnant of that.

  13. #298

    Default

    The following are the NIMBY's demands:

    1. We want sensible development in our community but not the high density that is proposed by the DGEIS.

    2. We want as much park space as possible. We are especially concerned about this in view of the recent New York Times article that appeared on September 20th. It discussed the United Nations' plan for building a 35 story, 800,000 square feet, office building on a 1.3-acre asphalt active park. This park is located at 41st Street on the east side of First Avenue ands is called the Robert Moses Park. Obviously, the loss of this park would further reduce park area in our community. Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff suggested that the city construct an esplanade and bike path along the East River to compensate for the loss of the Robert Mosses Park. MECA finds this suggestion unacceptable for two very important reasons:
    a. First, the esplanade is not an active park.
    b. Second, the esplanade has always been part of the city's master plan going back during Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger's days. Therefore, the esplanade would not give the community a true replacement for the Robert Moses Park.

    We suggest that PSC, as a condition of sale of the Con Edison Properties, insist that the 685 First Avenue property be giving to the community to be used as an active park. By so doing, would solve a number of problems:
    a. It would drastically reduce the shadow impact on the land marked Tudor City Parks.
    b. It would create a much-needed open space, air and light for the many buildings near the 685 First Avenue property.
    c. It would show special respect for the land marked and historic Tudor City Buildings.
    d. It would replace the loss of the active Robert Moses Park that the UN wants for a 35-story office building.

    3. We would like to see a platform constructed above the FDR Drive that would create a beautiful park on it, similar to the one that is being promoted by the Municipal Art Society of New York.

    4. We do not want to see a tall building on 38th street so close to the FDR Drive. We want to see more park space between the building and FDR Drive. A tall builds on 38th street would have a great adverse impact on many residences of the Horizon and the Corinthian.

    5. We want 39th and 40th streets, between First Avenue and the FDR Drive remapped, not merely reopened.

    6. We want to see local retail shop and a supermarket that will serve the needs of the community.

    7. We do not wish to retain the old, contaminated, industrial-looking Waterside plant buildings, but would rather see new buildings that are sensible in density and that allow for open space, light and sightlines around them.

  14. #299
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    That's quite a long wish list.

  15. #300
    Architectural Padawan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Turtle Bay
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GLNY
    Now that the previous conflict has been resolved, it's time to start anew.

    Deimos, you are correct re the pressure to turn the plot on the west side of 1st Avenue into a park, and this may be a viable solution if FARs are increased along the FDR. However, can you please clarify your assertion - or perhaps, opinion - on the issue of shadows? At what time of year will a tower on this site cast a shadow to the northwest, i.e. into Tudor City Park (quaint) or the playgrounds along 42nd Street (not so quaint)? I can't recall seeing the sun rising from or setting into the SE.

    In any case, TC Park is bathed in shade virtually all day from the surrounding ring of mid-rise structures, coupled with mature trees supporting unimaginable numbers of squirrels.
    Mid afternoon in the fall/spring is when I would expect a 70ish storey building's shadow to impact the south park in tudor city. That lot is pretty big, and it extends to 2 tudor city place (if my memory serves me correctly) so any building will be visible from the park. I'm not sure what the height will look like next to 5TCP however. If from the park it won't look any taller than windsor tower, then it shouldn't be all that bad.

    However I do feel that the issue is more or less moot, as utilizing that space as parkland to replace robert moses (and perhaps actually making a park that is more than an asphalt jungle) would be the best of all worlds for the area. A place for kids to blow off some steam is always a good thing... one of the aspects of tudor city that I fell in love with back when i lived there is how kids were playing in the street in the cul-de-sac (if you can call it that) south of 41st street on tudor city place. However, if those kids had a real park to go to, it would be even better! Of course the transfer of that parkland should also transfer the air rights to the rest of the project to help make the new buildings even grander.

    On a side note (and i really hope this doesn't add any fuel to other fires), I never found the view eastward all that special... long island city isn't quite the same as viewing over the hudson to midtown from jersey. A modern landmark building could actuallly help the residents of the corinthian et al with their views. Does someone in 45 tudor city place complain that a big needle looking building blocks their view westward? Of course not, that big needle actually raises their land values even though it's a newer building... oh by the way, I'm talking about the chrysler building.

Similar Threads

  1. Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2014, 05:21 PM
  2. Pier 57 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: December 17th, 2013, 04:00 PM
  3. Pier 45 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 10th, 2012, 10:58 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2011, 04:09 AM
  5. Third Avenue Bridge - Across Harlem River
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 10th, 2002, 06:36 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