Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 137

Thread: Battery Maritime Building - by Walker & Morris

  1. #31
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    I was down there on Sunfday and the restoration of the terminal is gorgeous. They don't need to develop the ferry terminal. They need a destination for the ferries runinng out of this place. Governors Island is a National Park site for now, but it is only open on weekend Memorial Day to Labor Day. Building a hotel here is very shortsighted (although it would offer the best hotel views of the Brooklyn skyline from Manhattan.

  2. #32
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    No one will raise a stink about it because the addition isn't "tall."

    Betcha if someone had proposed a 20 story tower on top, everyone and their grandmother will be out to protest.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC View Post
    Why???
    There's no attempt to relate the addition to the building it sits on. It's treated as no more than a platform, an opportunity for great views.

    It looks like the addition would be over the side of the building facing the river, and not too visible from the street. Don't they think the harbor view is at least as important? Or maybe no one will notice.

    Let's see what LPC does with this - a five floor addition to a six story building. They raised a furor over a 20 foot addition to 145 Hudson St (far left).


  4. #34

    Default

    http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_23...ksasksfor.html

    Landmarks asks for changes to Battery’s hotel design


    Rogers Marvel Architects’ design to add a
    glass hotel to the roof of the Battery Maritime Building.

    By Cristina P. Alesci

    The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission sent architects for the Battery Maritime Building project back to the drafting table on Tuesday. The commission did not vote on the proposed plan to renovate and expand the ferry terminal but recommended that the architects incorporate elements that reference the building’s original architecture.

    “The building feels segmented,” said Pablo E. Vengoechea, the commission’s vice chairperson. “It feels like there is something happening at the bottom and something else happening on top.”

    The project’s developers propose a short but wide glass hotel addition extending the length of the building. Landmarks commissioners were generally receptive to the plan, and the American Institute of Architects backed it entirely.

    But the Historic Districts Council opposes the whole idea of adding to the building, and the New York Landmarks Conservancy and the Municipal Art Society are calling for a redesign.

    Tuesday’s non-vote, although less than ideal for the developers, did not come as a surprise.

    “No one expected this thing to be approved off the bat,” said Peter Poulakakos, whose family, along with Dermot Company, Inc., is developing the building. “We have an aggressive timeline; hopefully, we can have this project complete by 2010.”

    The historic Beaux-Arts ferry terminal fell into disrepair shortly after it was built in 1909. Currently used as a terminal for the Governors Island ferry, the landmarked building barely received any attention until 2001. That year, the city’s Economic Development Corporation poured $60 million into restoring the building’s exterior to attract investors. In 2007, the city awarded the project to the Dermot Company, Inc. and the Poulakakos family to develop the building commercially and renovate its interior.

    “The thing that drew me to the project was the building itself — it’s beautiful. The city did a tremendous job fixing the façade,” said Poulakakos, whose family owns restaurants in landmarked buildings on Stone St. and Hanover Square. “It will be the crown jewel of Downtown.”

    Jonathan Marvel, an architect at Rogers Marvel Architects, P.L.L.C., presented the Dermot/Poulakakos plan to the commission. In response to the commissioner’s questions about whether the two-and-a-half-story extension could be made more vertical and set farther back, Marvel said the decision to go horizontal was based on the engineer’s recommendations. Changes to where the addition rests on top of the building may require reinforcing piles under the water, which would be prohibitively expensive, he said.

    The clear glass edifice will be home to a boutique hotel and a rooftop lounge. The second floor, potentially the site of a gourmet food market, cooking school and restaurant, would be open to the public. The hotel, however, is the economic force driving the project’s profitability.

    Stephen Benjamin, a principal at Dermot Company, said his group had whittled down the list of potential hotel operators to three “very New York” candidates.

  5. #35

    Default

    ^ If the addition followed the original's tripartite organization, it would be much improved.

    What really worries me is the street side, not illustrated but hinted at: brick stair/elevator towers obscuring much of the facade?

    All in all: Terrible.



    No ... make that an OUTRAGE.

  6. #36
    Forum Veteran macreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    This addition is dreadful right down to the brick elevator core in the corner. Looks like some kind of cheap Holiday Inn was plopped on top of this painstakingly restored landmark terminal.

    There is no need for the hotel component. Keep the structure as is and turn it into a gourmet market.

  7. #37
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    I'm not liking this proposal from Rogers Marvel either, but the "elevator core" already exists to some extent.
    It is now clad in what appears to be metal of some sort -- and can be seen HERE and HERE ...

    ***




  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc View Post
    ^ If the addition followed the original's tripartite organization, it would be much improved.

    What really worries me is the street side, not illustrated but hinted at: brick stair/elevator towers obscuring much of the facade?

    All in all: Terrible.



    No ... make that an OUTRAGE.
    I agree its just disgusting.

  9. #39
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    They have some nerve peddling that hideous plan.

  10. #40

    Default

    I sometimes wonder if some of these obviously bad proposals are submitted with the intention of getting what you really want - something only half as hideous - accepted at a later date.

  11. #41
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_23...ksasksfor.html

    Landmarks asks for changes to Battery’s hotel design


    Rogers Marvel Architects’ design to add a
    glass hotel to the roof of the Battery Maritime Building.

    By Cristina P. Alesci

    The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission sent architects for the Battery Maritime Building project back to the drafting table on Tuesday. The commission did not vote on the proposed plan to renovate and expand the ferry terminal but recommended that the architects incorporate elements that reference the building’s original architecture.
    Good to see that LPC is finally doing something productive. The current proposal is completly inept and careless.

    And lets not try to make this another banal SI ferry terminal. I love the contrast between the two and they should still be very distinct.

    Ablarc brings up a very good point and I think that they probably dont even need elevators; perhaps adding escalators on the inside if the layout permits.

  12. #42
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I sometimes wonder if some of these obviously bad proposals are submitted with the intention of getting what you really want - something only half as hideous - accepted at a later date.
    Sort of. Not so much intentionally trying to be bad but more of something like, "well, since it's very likely they're going to ask for changes anyway, why don't we just give them a 'rough draft' and then we'll go from there."

  13. #43
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    ^^^ They claim that the hotel component is needed to generate the money necessary to maintain the Battery Maritime Building.

    Looking through this thread I did not find any images of how the BMT now looks from the water. A comparison ...

    Now:



    Michael Moran (c) Dorling Kindersley / dkimages

    ***





    ... LINK

    ***

    And what has been proposed for the Hotel addition:



    ***

  14. #44

    Default

    Glass Crown Proposed For Landmark
    By Nick Pinto
    POSTED NOVEMBER 2, 2007

    It took more than $60 million to restore the historic Battery Maritime Building's exterior to its original glory. Now the city’s Economic Development Corporation and its development partner want to crown the 1909 ferry building with a four-story glass-encased hotel. But Community Board 1 and the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission have their doubts about the plan.
    The EDC, which owns and restored the building, announced in June that it had accepted a proposal by the Dermot Company to develop the building over a 99-year lease. The building’s first floor would continue to be used by the Governors Island ferry. But the developer says the EDC's other main request-for a public food market on the second floor-is impractical. Instead, they are planning a warren of small retail spaces, culinary instruction facilities and “food-related media content,” surrounding the second floor’s 9,000-square-foot great hall.
    Dermot partner Stephen Benjamin said the great hall would function as a public space during the daytime.

    “Our imagining is that this space becomes the living room for Downtown,” he said. At night, the space would become a private hall, “akin to Cipriani’s.” Dermot said the hall’s private use would help bankroll its public use.
    But the real money-maker in Dermot’s plan, designed by Rogers Marvel Architects, is the construction of a 146-room hotel and rooftop restaurant, housed in a four-story glass cap on top of the existing building, nearly doubling the landmark’s height. Benjamin said he expected the hotel rooms to cost between $350 and $500 per night. While no hotel operator has been selected, the restaurant would be run by the Poulakakos family, whose several Downtown eateries includes Harry's of Hanover Square.

    In presentations to public officials last month, William Higgins, a preservation consultant hired by Dermot, tried to settle doubts about putting a glass hotel on top of the landmark. The eclectic style of the original building “invites dialogue” with more modern styles, Higgins argued, and because the it was planned as part of a never-realized ferry complex, the building is a fragment in need of completion. The glass addition, he said, gives the building the more finished proportions of a classical triumphal arch.
    “Without its top, the Arch of Titus looks like it’s missing something,” Higgins said, adding, “When you have a really strong base like this to work with, it can support a foil.”
    The building’s ornate beaux-arts industrial expressionist architecture does make a strong impression. Combining exposed rivets and industrial elements with classical geometry and organization, it is typical of New York ferry terminals from its period.
    But Higgins’ arguments met with skepticism from Community Board 1, which will take up the complicated plan again this month before voting on a final recommendation to the Landmarks Commission. Landmarks Committee chair Roger Byrom described the design as “a beautiful building destroyed.”
    “To have this building taller than the Staten Island Ferry is a real problem for me,” he said. “This is a massive addition.”
    Benjamin countered that the size of the addition was necessary to make the renovation make financial sense.
    “We have to spend a fortune to make this work,” he said, citing the project’s $150 million cost. “We have to find the economics to balance that.”
    Other CB1 members had doubts about the wisdom of planning any traffic-intensive use in a location where circulation is already bad. “I can’t think of a worse place in the city for a hotel and a Cipriani-type place,” Marc Ameruso said. “Traffic is terrible there.”
    Julie Nadel, chairwoman of the Waterfront Committee, worried that the second-floor space could have trouble drawing the public up off the street. “I’m concerned that this is going to just be a really nice lobby for the hotel,” she said.
    Landmarks Preservation Commissioner Pablo Vengoechea asked similar questions on Oct. 23.
    “Are these really going to be public spaces or just spaces for the hotel?” he asked. “From the indications of the plan they seem like very private spaces.”
    Commissioners also questioned the size and design of the addition. Commissioner Roberta Washington said it would look like a “marquis” from the water side.
    Nadezhda Williams, representing the Historic Districts Council, said her organization is opposed to the proposal.
    “This is rather like a spaceship sitting on top of the building,” she said. “It is over-scaled and insensitive to the original design. After all the work that went into this, it would be a shame to see it smothered. Is this really any way to treat a landmark?”
    Last edited by brianac; November 3rd, 2007 at 05:40 AM.

  15. #45

    Default

    Nadezhda Williams, representing the Historic Districts Council, said her organization is opposed to the proposal.
    “This is rather like a spaceship sitting on top of the building,” she said. “It is over-scaled and insensitive to the original design. After all the work that went into this, it would be a shame to see it smothered. Is this really any way to treat a landmark?”

    I think this statement just about sums up most peoples oppinion.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WTC Memorial - by Michael Arad (Architect) and Peter Walker (Landscape)
    By Jasonik in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 5102
    Last Post: June 1st, 2017, 09:17 PM
  2. 30 Rockefeller Center - GE Building / former RCA Building - by Raymond Hood
    By ddny in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2015, 10:04 PM
  3. Herculean Effort to Restore Verizon Building - 140 West Street - by Ralph Walker
    By Fabb in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: April 28th, 2015, 02:25 PM
  4. The Fuller Building renovation - 42-story Art Deco trophy - by Walker & Gillette
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 25th, 2010, 10:37 PM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 9th, 2008, 03:55 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