Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 133

Thread: Sheffield57 - 322 West 57th Street - Midtown - Condo - by Emery Roth & Sons

  1. #31

    Exclamation Sheffield ripoff . . .

    the old driveway is boarded up because the lobby is being expanded to that area.
    but the new proposed driveway is literally right next to your building. that Plaza will be practically destroyed.
    Has your board decided on what to do ?
    there is more than your permission needed for the driveway .

  2. #32

    Default

    The expansion of the Sheffield lobby appears a fait acompli. There will be unintended consequences of this reconfiguration. Residents of the neighborhood are familiar with the wind-tunnel effect of the prior configuration. By narrowing the channel significantly, winds through the remaining space will likely be quite severe.

  3. #33

    Exclamation Lobby

    yes they will expand the lobby but they dont have a permit for the driveway and may never get one.
    pretty funny having an exit to the plaza only.

    the buyers dont know this and its not in the black book or any amendments.
    they may end up with a small indentation on 56 st

  4. #34
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Can't seem to pinpoint the application for changes to the exterior driveway at DOB ...

    Any pointers???

  5. #35
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Talking Here's a few!

    Arf!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dogs.jpg 
Views:	338 
Size:	37.7 KB 
ID:	3614  

  6. #36

    Default Sheffield Driveway

    Its in the hands of the NYC Dept of City Planning not DOB
    They want to put the moved driveway in a privately owned public space


    [Can't seem to pinpoint the application for changes to the exterior driveway at DOB

    Any pointers???[/QUOTE]

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

    Default

    Can't afind anything at CPC about the applicaton for the driveway.

    But Sheffield Plaza space is listed HERE as "Privately Owned Public Space" - "Neighborhood"

    However the Sheffield "Arcade" is also listed there but as "Marginal"

    Found THIS at DOB:

    Job Description: ENCLOSED PORT CONCIERGE AND CONSTRUCT NEW PARTITIONS AND DOORS AND NEW BOLLARDS IN PLAZA. ZONING FLOOR AREA CHANGE FILED UNDER #104353762. APPLICATION FILED IN CONJUNCTION WITH 104353762

    Permit Issued 12.15.06

  8. #38
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    NEW YORK CITY HOUSING COURT JUDGE RENDERS HISTORIC DECISION

    New York, NY, March 20 – New York City housing court judge, David Cohen, today ruled that New York City landlords are barred from evicting market-rate tenants during the course of converting rental buildings to cooperative or condominium status. The judge ruled that the 23 tenants at the Sheffield apartment building on West 57th Street who had been defending against eviction proceedings were now “protected tenants” for the purposes of the Martin Act, the law that governs the conversion process. As such, they are now entitled to a lease at market rent from the landlord, Kent Swig. In response to the news, Nancy Rovelli, President of the Sheffield Tenants Association, released the following statement:

    “We are extremely gratified that Judge Cohen has ruled that it is illegal to evict market-rate tenants once a co-op or condo conversion plan has been accepted for filing by the N.Y. State Attorney General’s office. Judge Cohen’s ruling shows that the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of New York City landlords and developers, who believed that their victory in eviscerating City rent regulations several years ago meant that market-rate tenants were no longer protected under the Martin Act, which governs the conversion process. We now know that the Martin Act protects all tenants, not only from harassment, but also from eviction when it states:

    ‘It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any course of conduct, including but not limited to, interruption or discontinuance of essential services, which substantially interferes with or disturbs the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any tenant in his use or occupancy of his dwelling unit or the facilities related thereto.’
    “Our victory today is a victory for all New York City tenants in the continuing struggle to reverse a decade of increased exploitation by landlords and developers, which has inexorably led to the expulsion of large segments of the middle class from this great City.”

  9. #39
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Ruling on Sheffield Conversion May Give
    Market-Rate Tenants More Rights

    NEW YORK OBSERVER
    Matthew Schuerman

    A housing court judge on Tuesday slammed Kent Swig's plan to kick out market-rate tenants at Sheffield 57--even though their leases were up and had not been renewed--as part of his conversion of the West 57th Street building to swank condominiums.

    The ruling, if upheld, is going to put Mr. Swig and numerous other developers in a bind. They have long been unable to kick market-rate tenants out after a conversion has been completed. Now, thanks to Judge David B. Cohen, they will not be able to kick them out while the conversion is under way, either.

    "It is a very important case," said Arthur Weinstein, a real estate lawyer and vice president of the Council of New York Cooperatives. "If it survives on appeal, it closes a significant gap in the existing law governing the conversion of occupied buildings into cooperative or condominium status."

    Rent-regulated tenants have long been protected from eviction during a conversion, but the rule on market-rate tenants is more vague.

    Landlords are prohibited from emptying buildings by more than 10 percent before a conversion is filed, so generally they wait until the conversion is under way and then get rid of market-rate tenants by letting leases lapse, which is what Mr. Swig did in the case of Sheffield 57. That allows landlords to renovate, combine units, and generally make a profit.

    Judge Cohen's decision closes this option for now, and leaves landlords to either negotiate down to sell condos to the market-rate tenants, or crank up the rents to force them to leave -- although the tenants are also protected against excessive rent increases.

    The ruling centers on the part of the state law governing conversions which states that "no eviction proceedings will be commenced at any time against non-purchasing tenants for failure to purchase or any other reason applicable to expiration of tenancy." Judge Cohen said that it applies to market-rate tenants with expired leases.

    Needless to say, Mr. Swig is appealing.

    "We chose not to renew the leases of the market-rate tenants, and there were 23 of them who did not want to leave," Mr. Swig told The Real Estate. "The law is black and white. If you don't have a lease and you are not rent-regulated, then you have no right to occupy."

    Since buying the high-rise in March 2005, Mr. Swig has pretty much emptied the 50-story building except for the 23 defendants and about 100 rent-regulated tenants.

    Mr. Swig said that he offered the defendants insider prices at "way below the market."

    The president of the tenants association and a defendant in the eviction case, Nancy Rovelli, told The Real Estate that in most cases the offers did not represent a discount off the black book, or first offering prices, but rather off later amendments.

    "When Judge Cohen was hearing the case, he did indicate and encourage negotiations, and at that point we did, but nothing ever came of it," Ms. Rovelli said. "Not only was [Mr. Swig] jacking up the prices but he was inflating the square feet."

    copyright © 2006 the new york observer, L.P.

  10. #40

    Default NY observer article on the Sheffield


  11. #41
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    There is asbestos -- or at least "Asbestos Containing Materias" aka "ACM" -- in just about every building in NYC built before 1970.

    With proper procedures the ACM can be removed from the premises with little to no concern to the health of workers / tenants.

    The problems arise when owners do not comply with regulations for removal of ACM. This is componded when there are tenants in residency where removal of ACM is required / taking place.

    The owner of one buiding I know of attempted to rip out some ACM insulation one weekend -- the workers were not properly protected. The owner gave no notice to tenants and did not contain the ACM.

    The tenants were able to document the improper and potentially dangerous removal of the ACM

    Subsequently a housing court judge kicked the owner's butt for breaking the law / putting the tenants at risk.

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Ruling on Sheffield Conversion May Give Market-Rate Tenants More Rights
    I'm wondering how this might affect the situation for 333 Rector Place ("River Rose"). Rockrose recently sold this building to Buttonwood and the word is they are converting to condos on a "non-eviction" basis. Starting last fall, Rockrose was only renewing leases subject to a 60 day Early Termination Rider. Naturally many tenants elected not to renew and the building has been emptying out. The new ladlord just exercised the Early Termination, telling tenants to vacate by June 30, 2007.

    For tenants who need more time than that (but are willing to move out eventually -- just need a few more months), what is the best negotiating position? Does this ruling give them significant leverage? Does it help their negotiating position if there are more than 10% empty apartments in the building? Or that there are other tenants without the ET clause whose leases run through September? Does it matter if the conversion plan has not been approved (I have no idea whether this one has but I doubt it could be so quickly -- would be glad for confirmation)? How bad can the landlord make it for people who try to stay a few more months?

  13. #43

    Default to answer your question . .

    the tenants there would have to stay as holdover tenants until the black book comes out.once in residence at black book time they then have to hope that Judge Cohen's ruling is upheld on appeal.
    they also have to live through a renovation.which is no fun.
    these are market rent non stabilized people im talking about btw.

    unless they really love the building they are better off moving.

  14. #44

    Default

    whats your take on this building and the surrounding area? i am going to see the sales office sometime this week. from its website it looks like it will have really nice ameneties. gym, pool, saunas. its only a few blocks from the park and time warner center. whats your take on pricing of its units?

  15. #45
    http://tinyurl.com/2ag28z Front_Porch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Manhattan 90210
    Posts
    1,413

    Default

    I live next door to the Sheffield (in the Vendome) and the location is second-to-none in terms of convenience. It is a pretty noisy block though, in between the Sheffield renovations (which should end) and the Hearst loading dock (which ain't going nowhere).

    The units are nice -- I saw some 2-BRs for a client -- just be aware that the floor numbers do not quite match reality (which I believe is discussed earlier in this thread) and that the floors in the models are somewhat buckled (which you or your agent can talk to the sales office about).

    ali r.
    {downtown broker}

    ps: you might also want to check the Link thread to ask about the area
    Last edited by Front_Porch; June 4th, 2007 at 11:50 PM. Reason: to mention the Link

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. CyberCenter - Durst - West 57th
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 6th, 2010, 03:18 PM
  2. East 57th Street Tops Retail List Highest Rents In the World
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 30th, 2008, 12:33 PM
  3. West Midtown Ferry Terminal on Pier 79
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 12th, 2005, 01:23 AM
  4. Midtown Manhattan: Town Houses Used by Banks Are for Sale
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2002, 07:49 PM
  5. Carnegie Mews - 211 West 56th Street
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 19th, 2001, 10:14 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