West 57th Street by Hilton Club - 104 West 57th Street - by HLW International

**Peakrate212** · March 8th, 2006, 12:05 PM

You just know the new owners are reading our comments every day and pushing for demolition......Meanwhile Tierney and Landmarks snoozes yet again......While we are at it, say good The Drake and west 56th street townhouses... and also the corner of 53rd and Madison, 60th and madison......

Meanwhile, there are tons of underused and/or vacant lots on the far west side - and lets not mention the WTC site.

I am pro development - buts lets not keep destroying the good stuff.

**kerrydyr** · March 8th, 2006, 07:29 PM

The question is, is there anything that we can do NOW??

Today, there did not appear to be any work being done at all. No jackhammering.

I can't believe that people get away with this without anyone paying any attention. They do not have a permit for demolition, yet it appears that that is exactly what they are doing. It really bothers me so much to watch it every day but not be able to do anything about it. I am convinced the goal is to get as much of it down as possible so that there is really nothing left to landmark.

**londonlawyer** · March 8th, 2006, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Peakrate212

You just know the new owners are reading our comments every day and pushing for demolition......Meanwhile Tierney and Landmarks snoozes yet again......While we are at it, say good The Drake and west 56th street townhouses... and also the corner of 53rd and Madison, 60th and madison......

Meanwhile, there are tons of underused and/or vacant lots on the far west side - and lets not mention the WTC site.

I am pro development - buts lets not keep destroying the good stuff.

What's going on at 60th and Madison? What's there now. Everything in that vicinity is extremely nice (except for one 15 story or so 1960's building).

**lofter1** · March 8th, 2006, 08:13 PM

Demolition and facade removal / repair (for which a DOB Permit has been issued) are two entirely different types of DOB Permits.

This building isn't located in any sort of protected area (neither Landmark District or Historic District) so the building owner is fairly free to do what it sees fit.

I see that this building is featured on the NY Landmarks Conservancy site:

http://eguana.net/organizations.php3...1c47d0e2ced542

**Peakrate212** · March 9th, 2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by londonlawyer

What's going on at 60th and Madison? What's there now. Everything in that vicinity is extremely nice (except for one 15 story or so 1960's building).

Developers are assembling a site using air rights from the Grace Church and Grolier Club (its been announced)......I am not sure what buildings will be torn down to do this.......I thought that area was part of the UES landmark district.....guess not.

I always liked the fact that 59th street was the divide between highrise midtown and the Upper East Side...

**londonlawyer** · March 9th, 2006, 11:13 AM

Oh, that site.... That's mid-block. I thought that this referred to something actually on the corner. The buildings that are part of Macklowe's proposed project are nothing special. They are unadorned, simple brick buildings. Sadly though, there are some dilapidated buildings just west of them which presently are not part of his project (though I'm sure he's making every effort to acquire them). If this project overcomes the recent problems posed by some Grolier's Club members and actually goes forward, it will be quite comical to have a residential tower with $3,000 per square foot apartments next to dilapidated buildings that probably have rent-controlled tenants paying $200 per month for a two bedroom apartment. The really funny thing is that these same tenants will complain that Macklowe's tower adds too much density to the area and that "more luxury stores" at the base (if they're included) are not needed. Such chutzpuh is found only in NY!

**Peakrate212** · March 9th, 2006, 12:30 PM

I think "dilapidated" is a strong word.

I dont think the buildings at 53rd or 60th are dilapidated at all. Old yes...

They can all be restored. I don't think you should tear them down just because they have not been maintained. That was the logic of Robert Moses and slum clearance projects of the post war era. (He wanted to eliminate what is now Soho.)

**londonlawyer** · March 9th, 2006, 06:18 PM

They are not on Madison, and they are dilapidated. Go and look for yourself. I agree that they can be restored, and I'd like to see that. However, I know that that will not happen. Therefore, when faced with the choice of razing it and replacing it with something nice or keeping it as is, I choose the former. The Drake, the 56th Street townhouses, Shelly's, the YMCA, etc. should not be razed. The buildings next to Macklowe's site on 60th (or 61st -- I forgot) are no loss.

**jeffpark** · March 9th, 2006, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by londonlawyer

Oh, that site.... That's mid-block. I thought that this referred to something actually on the corner. The buildings that are part of Macklowe's proposed project are nothing special. They are unadorned, simple brick buildings. Sadly though, there are some dilapidated buildings just west of them which presently are not part of his project (though I'm sure he's making every effort to acquire them). If this project overcomes the recent problems posed by some Grolier's Club members and actually goes forward, it will be quite comical to have a residential tower with $3,000 per square foot apartments next to dilapidated buildings that probably have rent-controlled tenants paying $200 per month for a two bedroom apartment. The really funny thing is that these same tenants will complain that Macklowe's tower adds too much density to the area and that "more luxury stores" at the base (if they're included) are not needed. Such chutzpuh is found only in NY!

Why are mixing up the 2 developments

1. in regards to what you wrote
"Sadly though, there are some dilapidated buildings just west of them which presently are not part of his project"

That is 100 percent not true, because MACKLOWE’S project includes all the S buildings on 53rd west of Madison until the building at
12 Madison Avenue which I think there is school in it, and is a beautiful landmark type building.

2. "(Though I'm sure he's making every effort to acquire them)"
100 percent false again because MACKLOWE allowedly owns all the buildings 14/16/18/20/22 Madison Avenue, accept 12 Madison which as I said before is a beautiful building and even if he did own it, he would not tear it down.

**londonlawyer** · March 10th, 2006, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by jeffpark

Why are mixing up the 2 developments

1. in regards to what you wrote
"Sadly though, there are some dilapidated buildings just west of them which presently are not part of his project"

That is 100 percent not true, because MACKLOWE’S project includes all the S buildings on 53rd west of Madison until the building at
12 Madison Avenue which I think there is school in it, and is a beautiful landmark type building.

2. "(Though I'm sure he's making every effort to acquire them)"
100 percent false again because MACKLOWE allowedly owns all the buildings 14/16/18/20/22 Madison Avenue, accept 12 Madison which as I said before is a beautiful building and even if he did own it, he would not tear it down.

You're mixing up the two projects, amigo. I was referring to the project next to the Grolier's Club -- not to the 53rd St. project.

**londonlawyer** · March 22nd, 2006, 04:58 PM

As long as we're losing Shelly's, it would be nice if the developers incorporate the crap Directors' Guild building next door. As you may recall, it was going to be razed and redeveloped a few years ago. The deal fell through, and the DG's owners spent pennies giving the crap building the most superficial refurbishment possible. If the developers of the Shelly's site can acquire the DG mierda, they'd have a huge site with a lot of air rights and a building tall enough to have Central Park (and maybe even Hudson River) views. The DG building is largely empty at the moment (at least I assume it to be given that huge banners exclaiming 'SPACE AVAILABLE" are posted everywhere on its sorry facade).

**Peakrate212** · March 27th, 2006, 10:48 AM

we are still talking - but all these buildings are comng down.

Where is Tierney and Landmarks?

**lofter1** · March 27th, 2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Peakrate212

Where is Tierney and Landmarks?

Asleep at the wheel, as usual lately ...

NY Times
Letter to the Editor
Mar. 26, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/op...s/l26city.html

To the Editor:

I have to laugh at Chairman Robert B. Tierney's defense of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Brooklyn has a few rare Dutch Colonial farmhouses, the city's oldest architectural form, yet nearly half are still not landmarked. In 2003, after the demolition of a 1790's example the city itself had owned, I urged Mr. Tierney to finally landmark them all. He never responded.

Another example, built about 1830, hits close to home. I asked the commission to landmark it in 1990. Seven years later, with the house in ruins, its members had a hearing on the matter, only to announce that they had to study the question.

They're still studying. In the meantime, I bought and renovated the house, with help from the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Society of Lords of Colonial Manors, the 42nd Street Fund and the Netherland-America Foundation. The house is now listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Christopher Gray has written about it in The Times. No one but the landmarks commission seems to doubt it deserves saving.

I've tried to ensure that my house will outlast the commission's current, laughable form. I hope Brooklyn's other unlandmarked Dutch Colonial farmhouses can survive that long as well.

John Antonides
Gravesend, Brooklyn

**ManhattanKnight** · March 27th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Peakrate212

we are still talking - but all these buildings are comng down.

Where is Tierney and Landmarks?

The answer to that one is, unfortunately, obvious. The larger question should be where is the Mayor? Tierney and the other commissioners are his appointees, and LPC policies and funding are ultimately his responsibilities. I'm pretty sure that the limited success last year in getting LPC to begin to expand the GV Historic District to include a few adjoining blocks that never should have been excluded in the first place was achieved through relentless pressure on Bloomberg, not Tierney.

**londonlawyer** · March 27th, 2006, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by lofter1

Asleep at the wheel, as usual lately ...

NY Times
Letter to the Editor
Mar. 26, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/op...s/l26city.html

To the Editor:

I have to laugh at Chairman Robert B. Tierney's defense of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Brooklyn has a few rare Dutch Colonial farmhouses, the city's oldest architectural form, yet nearly half are still not landmarked. In 2003, after the demolition of a 1790's example the city itself had owned, I urged Mr. Tierney to finally landmark them all. He never responded.

Another example, built about 1830, hits close to home. I asked the commission to landmark it in 1990. Seven years later, with the house in ruins, its members had a hearing on the matter, only to announce that they had to study the question.

They're still studying. In the meantime, I bought and renovated the house, with help from the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Society of Lords of Colonial Manors, the 42nd Street Fund and the Netherland-America Foundation. The house is now listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Christopher Gray has written about it in The Times. No one but the landmarks commission seems to doubt it deserves saving.

I've tried to ensure that my house will outlast the commission's current, laughable form. I hope Brooklyn's other unlandmarked Dutch Colonial farmhouses can survive that long as well.

John Antonides
Gravesend, Brooklyn

That's a great letter! Are you John Antonides?