That sucks. The phoney a..holes who fight Midtown's rezoning should focus their attention on landmarking the City.
Last edited by londonlawyer; July 26th, 2013 at 07:42 AM.
If anyone is interested, I created an olline petition asking Trinity Church to reconsider their plans to demolish 68-74 Trinity Place. Its a small step, but I believe this building is worth the fight. The link is below...
https://www.change.org/petitions/the...rinity-place-2
These perverse incentives are just so awful. Regulators are forcing them to spend $33M on alterations to get up to code, but for just $2M more they can get a brand new code-compliant building including demolition. What do you think 99.9% of property owners would do in this situation? It's the sort of thing that drives you crazy
Why, oh why, is this not landmarked?
http://www.washsquare.com/portfolio/...ity-place.html
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=206364
The people who run this Church are greedy d.i.c.k.s.
Well this is depressing.
hardly greed, they are making a sound economic decision. If the regulators weren't forcing code upgrades on them the building wouldn't be going anywhereOriginally Posted by londonlawyer
I don't understand how a new building of this size could cost only $35 million. Are they taking advantage of some kind of city or federal incentives?
$35 million?
That seems more ballpark for the cost of demolition.
The cost analysis of renovation or replacement was done by Washington Square Partners. I couldn't find any details.
I was just going by the numbers quoted in the article posted above:
"the church’s vestry, or overseeing board, is considering razing the existing structure and building a new, fully-compliant one for an estimated $35 million"
Towering ambition: Trinity Church set to build after fight
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
The real-estate-obsessed rector of Trinity Church is sealing his dream deal — and altering the downtown skyline.
The board of the historic lower Manhattan church has approved a plan to demolish two Trinity-owned buildings and replace them with a residential and office tower.
The Rev. James Cooper’s development push was one of many sore points that led to a mass exodus of church board members two years ago. Cooper replaced the disgruntled vestry with his cronies, who late last month approved his grand vision.
The church hired the firm Pelli Clarke Pelli, headed by renowned architect Cesar Pelli, the designer of the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in lower Manhattan.
The firm’s conceptual plan shows a modern glass box of six to seven stories, which would house church offices and meeting rooms, topped by a 25-story residential tower. The project would total 296,000 square feet.
Trinity refused to reveal the project’s cost or how it would be paid for. A spokesman would say only that renovating the existing Trinity Place buildings — one of which is five stories and dates to 1915 and the other a 25-story brick structure completed in 1927 — would have cost $33 million.
The church, established in 1698, is among Manhattan’s largest property owners, with an estimated $2 billion worth of commercial real estate in the Hudson Square area. The net rental income from those buildings was $71 million in 2012.
The new building, slated for completion by 2017, is expected to generate more money for Trinity, but will stand in sharp contrast to the Gothic revival church, which was rebuilt after a fire and opened in 1846. The view of its spire from Wall Street is considered iconic.
“The new condo tower is going to be the worst possible backdrop, and will be much taller than the current building,” said parishioner Jeremy Bates. “It may be an economically smart decision, but it’s symbolically wrong.”
Bates sued Trinity this year over its board-election process.
Critics say Cooper focused much of his energy on the development of the two-building site to the detriment of the church’s philanthropic missions.
Former board member Tom Flexner noted in a December 2011 letter to fellow members of the vestry that Cooper wanted “to pursue ill-conceived projects in order to promote his own power.”
“I would specially note his almost obsessive desire to redevelop 68-74 Trinity Place into a sort of mega-monument — a facility more expensive and more expansive than any reasonable assessment of our needs would suggest is appropriate,” Flexner wrote.
In the midst of the controversy over his leadership, Cooper considered retiring, but only if he got perks, including a burial plot in the historic church graveyard. His compensation package in 2010 topped $1.3 million, including his church-owned Soho town house. He announced in February that he would retire in 2015.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...y1NeXMVH3ME2bN
Can't find many photos of this magnificent building. (Apologies for the monstrosity in the top far right
.)
It would be great if all you NYers on WNY could get out there and take more pics before it disappears...please.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1642816
Almost all the buildings surrounding the property compliment it.
These fights usually involve an outside entity disturbing the environment around an iconic building, but Trinity is doing it to itself. Would the vestry be jumping up and down if someone else owned 68-74 and proposed this new building?
It's all about $$$$. I guess tax-exempt status isn't enough.
Views of Trinity Church are iconic.
-Colin Campbell Cooper c1908
I don't know this building but a lot of these older buildings may look nice on the outside but are complete crap on the inside. Everything's old and cramped. There's a reason for new buildings.
It's going to be residential. More easily renovated.
Even accepting the demolition, why couldn't they choose a design more contextual with the church?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks