Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 264

Thread: 200 West 72nd Street - (a.k.a. 2075 Broadway) - UWS - Condo - by Handel Architects

  1. #46

    Default


  2. #47

    Default

    A beautiful group of historic buildings. The circular corner ( like the Ansonia up the street) is spectacular and unusual. Combined together and restored, this corner would be as elegant as anything on Madison. If this group of buildings were in the Ladies Mile district it would already have been turned into a very cool co-op. The UWS deserves the same.

    http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attach...1&d=1139697174
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	72ND.jpg 
Views:	2376 
Size:	84.5 KB 
ID:	1472  
    Last edited by Fabrizio; February 11th, 2006 at 05:42 PM.

  3. #48
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    The architectural detail is very nice, although the building could use a good facial scrub. I'd save it.

  4. #49

    Exclamation Please inform the LPC ASAP!!!

    Fabrizio and antinimby, as well as my fellow members who agree in landmarking & restoring this 1888 Colonial Club gem, please let your comments be known to the Landmarks Preservation Commission & please carbon copy me at unlockthevault@hotmail.com Thanks!

  5. #50

    Default again

    Again, yet another last minute scramble to save a building.

    There is a finite number of quality buildings - why not have a citywide (or at least Manhattan -wide) inventory of what needs to be saved. So to avoid these situations.

    BTW - its actually unfair to the developer too, who buys the building based on the developable sf. If the building cannot be redeveloped, the value is less.

  6. #51

    Default Any update on this?

    Has anyone heard anything about this site since this flurry of postings?

  7. #52

    Default

    How is this site not landmarked?

    Jezzzz, save this building and tear down the Sleepys/Grey's Papiya crap across the street.

    No logic in this city when it comes to development that make sense

  8. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peakrate212
    How is this site not landmarked?

    Jezzzz, save this building and tear down the Sleepys/Grey's Papiya crap across the street.

    No logic in this city when it comes to development that make sense
    I could not agree with you more. The building which will be razed is quite nice. The Sleepy's/Gray's building, by contrast, is quite possibly the worst structure on the UWS.

  9. #54

    Default

    Anyone hear back from the Landmarks Preservation Commission on this one?

    It's probably my lack of understanding on these issues, but why have people posted that there is nothing that can be done about this building, but then on other threads like the East River Con Edison site people are saying that community groups have extreme amounts of control over what gets built there. Can someone clarify that for me?

  10. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peakrate212
    How is this site not landmarked?
    Maybe because it's a crappy/old/ugly building that should be demolished and replaced by something newer and better?

    Should every old building be a landmark? You must be kidding me - this corner looks so ugly. I am so glad they are going to build something new there.

  11. #56

    Default

    Spicy -

    That was the logic behind those who fought the landmark districts in Soho and the West Village - AkA - The buildings are old, the retail is sh-t, the landlords don't take care of the buildings, therefore - tear them down.

    Put in some nice retail, steam clean the facade, update the interiors and the building would be saved.

    Your atitude actually encourages landlords to put no money in buildings, rent to porn, crap, etc. ........then the city wont complain while you file plans to demolish.

  12. #57
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The site at the SW corner of the Broadway / W. 72nd St. intersection lies just outside the Historic District (see map below: YELLOW shows the Historic District; PINK shows the site in question).

    Ironically the "uglier" site at the SE corner across Broadway is within the HD.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	UWS_HD_01.JPG 
Views:	434 
Size:	10.4 KB 
ID:	1708  

  13. #58
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, but to me the existing building (decidely in need of some tender loving care) sings Upper West Side, while the proposed building screams out something that I can't really comprehend (except $$ for the developer) ...
    Quote Originally Posted by MrSpice
    ... crappy/old/ugly building that should be demolished ...




    Quote Originally Posted by MrSpice
    ... replaced by something newer and better?

  14. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peakrate212
    Spicy -

    That was the logic behind those who fought the landmark districts in Soho and the West Village - AkA - The buildings are old, the retail is sh-t, the landlords don't take care of the buildings, therefore - tear them down.

    Put in some nice retail, steam clean the facade, update the interiors and the building would be saved.

    Your atitude actually encourages landlords to put no money in buildings, rent to porn, crap, etc. ........then the city wont complain while you file plans to demolish.
    I think that if the buildings don't have any historic or cultural value and are not recognized by respected institutions as such, developers should and can do whatever they want with those buildings. That's the nature and the greateness of free market. I don't know where you're coming up with the conclusion that this is in the landlord's interest not to maintain their buildings in good shape. Under normal circumstances, any landlord want their building to be attractive to perspective tenants. There are planty of older buildins in Soho and West Village that are in excellent shape and they are often beautifully maintained. I just think it's silly to be outrages when the old and poorly maintained buildins are sold and replaced by new developments - it's a nature of progress. There will always be someone who wants to preserve things the way they are no matter what. Someone will always be missing that inexpensive bagel shop even if objectively, it has little value to most people. Fortunately, New York is not Moscow in the Soviet Times, and the market will and should dictacte what's built and where.

  15. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, but to me the existing building (decidely in need of some tender loving care) sings Upper West Side, while the proposed building screams out something that I can't really comprehend (except $$ for the developer) ...
    I think it's your constitional right to protest this new development. That's why we have community boards and hearings. I would think that the developer has a reason why that design was chosen. I look at it this way - if I own a house and decide to make it look really ugly - it's my right. You cannot "baby-sit" every developer and what he/she is building. There are plenty of new glass towers that were build on UWS in the last 10-15 years. Look at Millenium Tower on 67th street (home of John Bon Jovi, Regis Philbin and Howard Stern, by the way) - I am sure many people felt that it would not look good on UWS among its many pre-war buildings), but it actually became an integral part of this block and looks nice.

    And yes - the developer needs and wants to make money. He/she would not invest more than necessary into building some kind of UWS castle unless it was requested/needed by the marketplace, like 15 CPW where ultra-wealthy are willing to pay $3000-6000/sq feet in order to live in a building that looks as if it was built before the war but has all the modern amenities.

Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 21st, 2012, 01:38 PM
  2. Broadway Musicians Considering Union Strike
    By Agglomeration in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 12th, 2007, 09:20 AM
  3. J Condo - 100 Jay Street - DUMBO - by Gruzen Samton
    By Edward in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2007, 07:46 AM
  4. The Zebra at 420 West 42nd Street
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: August 30th, 2007, 01:28 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