Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 132

Thread: Columbus Square - 808 Columbus Avenue between West 97th & 100th - by Costas Kondylis

  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    ^ Are you suggesting that the failure of the developer to obtain the necessary work permits prior to commencement of work at the site is of no great importance?
    Depends. I don't know the whole story. Chances are you don't either. Also do you mean in the real world or in the world of regulation and enforcement?

    Odds are you wouldn't turn in someone you knew was smoking pot, which is also illegal.

    Since it's part of my job to know the code, I can tell you that every visit to New York finds me marvelling at the extent of petty code violations in new construction in this city. I wouldn't dream of turning those folks in because there's no issue of public safety involved --just bureaucratic crossing of t's-- and the violation almost always allows architecture of higher merit.

    There's also the issue of personal ethics, but if you decide to take too prissy a view of your duties as a citizen you might want to turn in your pot-smoking buddies. And yourself while you're at it?
    Last edited by ablarc; May 18th, 2006 at 04:04 PM.

  2. #17

    Default

    Well it's just Amsterdam Ave. that we have to find out about. I can see it right outside my window, but nothing has really happened yet. There are still two places open (home decorations thing, and karate school) so I haven't seen any demolition teams there.

  3. #18
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc
    I don't know the whole story. Chances are you don't either.
    Only know what I hear based on the posts from "John Roebling":
    I woke up to the sound of a construction crew atop the former Central Park Cafe at 760 Columbus Ave ...

    ... with certainty, the demolition of the 760 Columbus lot began this morning ...

    I wish I had a camera, as they're back up on the lot again as I type. About ten of them, in blue jumpsuits with masks chipping away at the roof of the one-story building.
    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc
    Odds are you wouldn't turn in someone you knew was smoking pot, which is also illegal.
    But hardly puts another in potential danger ...

    Gotta pick your battles, my friend.

    No doubt you've heard of deaths to construction workers in NYC in recent years, often involving situations with unpermitted / improperly supervised work.

    Maybe trying to control those situations seems "prissy" (??) to you -- just the cost of doing business?

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    But hardly puts another in potential danger ...
    Most of the public shares your touching faith that there's a strong relationship between building regulation and on-the-job safety, but you'll find much less belief in this correspondence among folks who are actually in some aspect of getting a building constructed. You won't find many actual construction workers, for example, who see the building department as their protectors.

    Naturally the building department wants you to believe they're the public's protector and they do what they can to spread the faith, until indeed it reaches mythic proportions --among the public. Theoretically they should be the public's protector, to some small extent they actually are. But truth is, the public's already well-protected by fear of lawsuits, while the building department and indeed the code itself often provides blind adherence to bureaucratic strictures and numerical formulas that in reality serve the interests of building materials suppliers more than public safety. That helps explain high and steeply escalating construction costs, with all the attendant woes so amply lamented on this forum.

  5. #20
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    None of which ^^ explains the situation described at this building site or the others that I've referred to where non-permitted crews show up on weekends and nights to work "undercover" -- whether it be demolition, construction or improper asbestos removal in the public hallways (as was the case in the building where I live and in which DOB wasn't quick enough to act to thwart the removal). And please don't even try to say "what's the harm with improper work / asbestos removal?" as the levels detected in and around the area required two cleanings in order to get the asbestos fibers removed.

    Bottom line: If a developer / contractor is attempting to do a siderun around regulations then it would seem more in line to question THEIR business ethics -- rather than the ethics of someone who might report said violator.

    But in this crazy world I guess that depends upon the vantage point from which one views the situation ...

  6. #21
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    The cubed has found a rendering of the retail base....




    As usual, you cried out for renderings yesterday amid the scuttlebutt over 808 Columbus Avenue, and we felt your pain. But alas, all we have are scraps today, in the form of an "ad placed in a real estate journal by the agent responsible [Winick Realty] for leasing the new retail space," which you see above. Gone is the shuttered C-Town supermarket, just south of 100th Street. In its place? Boilerplate signage: BANK! FASHION! HOME IMPROVEMENTS! SHOES! We can't even be sure if these are real plans, or just stunningly creative placeholders. Ditto for the bottom half of the 29-story residential building you see hiding out in the back there. Whatever it'll look like eventually, Crain's says it's slated for '08 completion. Get it? Crazy eights!


    Copyright © 2006 Curbed

  7. #22
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    hmm... I think that atleast they should built two towers insted of one. Each tower on each corner. Becuase it is too stupid and ugly to have a one story low rise for the rest of the stretch of the block.

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krulltime
    hmm... I think that atleast they should built two towers insted of one. Each tower on each corner. Becuase it is too stupid and ugly to have a one story low rise for the rest of the stretch of the block.
    I totaly agree. For them to close down all those stores and the just build something like that, it just makes me think if it was necessary to close all of those places.

  9. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    None of which ^^ explains the situation described at this building site or the others that I've referred to where non-permitted crews show up on weekends and nights to work "undercover" -- whether it be demolition, construction or improper asbestos removal in the public hallways...
    Using amateurs to remove asbestos is certainly bad. About as bad as unpermitted work gets. What makes it bad is not that it’s illegal per se (pot smoking is that), but that it's genuinely hazardous and antisocial, and it harms people.

    So we agree, lofter.

    Will you in turn believe me when I claim that neither the building department nor the building code is the final arbiter of virtue in building design and construction –not even the safety aspect of it? Last month I rearranged a building design to meet a plan reviewer’s insistence on a letter-of-the-law condition. In doing that, I made the building a little less safe. You could say I violated the spirit of the law to meet the letter of the law. But that makes me immune to lawsuit and it gets my client a permit; after all, the letter of the law was met. Every architect can tell you stories like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    Bottom line: If a developer / contractor is attempting to do a siderun around regulations then it would seem more in line to question THEIR business ethics…
    This one would be more cut and dry if it weren’t for the fact that the code adopted five years ago is opaque, complicated, sometimes incomprehensible, often subject to alternative interpretations and badly written enough that in many cases no one on the face of the planet (thank you, Nick-Taylor) really knows what it says on some issues.

    There’s only one person whose opinion really counts, and that’s your plan reviewer. And you don’t find out what he thinks until you actually submit and get his comments. Is it an end-run, if you put an optimistic interpretation on an ambiguous phrase in such an atmosphere of ambiguity? To be fair, even the plan-reviewer doesn’t usually think so; he just thinks architects are stupid.

    But you never argue with him, because his word is law –even if his reading abilities were honed to perfection by a partial high school education. If we operated that way on this forum –where misinterpretation of the written word is rife—why, there’d be universal agreement, wouldn’t there?

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    But in this crazy world I guess that depends upon the vantage point from which one views the situation ...
    To some extent, it does.

  10. #25
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krulltime
    hmm... I think that atleast they should built two towers insted of one. Each tower on each corner. Becuase it is too stupid and ugly to have a one story low rise for the rest of the stretch of the block.
    I agree. This should be a lesson for all these people that are complaining about sliver buildings on other threads. Thin buildings with small footprints are always better for streetlife than all these ridiculous buildings with huge bases that take up an entire block.

  11. #26

    Default

    Best of all in this location might be a boulevard building (or better still, two or three) like the ones on West End Avenue. Thirteen stories of streetwall would be about right. Make it rise sheer from the line of the storefronts. And break it up into at least two independent buildings, preferably by different architects. They can touch but should have separate entrances, lobbies, circulation, elevator banks and fire stairs.

  12. #27

    Default

    who is the developer of this?

  13. #28
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    The tower...

    Last edited by krulltime; January 3rd, 2007 at 08:40 PM.

  14. #29

  15. #30

    Default

    The base looks like it's a Toyota showroom.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Year in Times Square
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: November 16th, 2013, 05:29 AM
  2. Toys R Us Times Square
    By noharmony in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2008, 10:37 PM
  3. W New York - Times Square Hotel
    By hyperfine in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 18th, 2005, 08:55 PM
  4. Times Square 2002 Celebrations Part I
    By Edward in forum Photos and Videos of New York
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 31st, 2001, 11:39 PM
  5. Pictures of luxurious W Hotel - Times Square
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 29th, 2001, 12:36 AM

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