NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS - Page 60

alex1217 · #**1181** Posted **Sep 4, 2015, 9:10 PM**

1404? Could it be that they are talking about roof height? I hope so, 1 Vanderbilt could use a hundred foot increase, not decrease.

scalziand · #**1182** Posted **Sep 5, 2015, 4:03 AM**

Initial filings probably would be just roof height.

Pete8680 · #**1183** Posted **Sep 7, 2015, 6:34 AM**

What is the deal with air rights? Can the spire go up 2 the FAA 2,000 ft limit?

Foosh · #**1184** Posted **Sep 7, 2015, 7:44 AM**

I've really grown to love this building and it's form, it'll look good in the skyline.

Submariner · #**1185** Posted **Sep 7, 2015, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete8680

What is the deal with air rights? Can the spire go up 2 the FAA 2,000 ft limit?

I think the 1,414 roof, 1,514 spire height is pretty much a done deal.

Not that those figures are much to complain about...

drumz0rz · #**1186** Posted **Sep 10, 2015, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY

All tenants of 5 buildings to be demolished has left except for TD Bank which according to JR will move out before July 25th.

I will miss this white building. I wish they could preserve the facade.

Are there any plans to save any of that facade? I'd love to have one of those intricately carved blocks.

sparkling · #**1187** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 2:44 PM**

Demolition underway

credit: Brad Hargreaves
https://twitter.com/bhargreaves

Hypothalamus · #**1188** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 3:49 PM**

^^ That was quick! It was seven stories not too long ago: https://www.google.com/maps/place/48...780013!6m1!1e1

CityGuy87 · #**1189** Posted **Sep 17, 2015, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypothalamus

^^ That was quick! It was seven stories not too long ago: https://www.google.com/maps/place/48...780013!6m1!1e1

By next year, this site will be well in to construction mode (I hope)

sparkling · #**1190** Posted **Sep 29, 2015, 4:54 PM**

Owner of Grand Central Sues Developer and City for $1.1 Billion Over Air Rights

CHARLES V. BAGLI
SEPT. 28, 2015

Quote:

When he bought Grand Central Terminal nine years ago, Andrew S. Penson figured that the unused development rights, or air rights, over the country’s busiest train station were worth a fortune.

The soft-spoken real estate investor, however, failed to come to terms with a developer next door who needed them, or to sell even one square foot of more than a million square feet of those rights.

On Monday, Mr. Penson filed a $1.1 billion lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan that argued that the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, the City Council and the developer, SL Green Realty Corporation, had deprived him of his property rights when the city gave SL Green permission to build a 1,501-foot tall office tower, without having to buy any air rights from him.

Continue Reading

Yackemflaber69 · #**1191** Posted **Sep 29, 2015, 8:18 PM**

Does this mean its gonna get delayed?

chris08876 · #**1192** Posted **Sep 29, 2015, 8:20 PM**

If the courts make the ruling in favor of the developer, and dismiss it or they come to a compromise, it shouldn't impact the time table for this tower. Couple of lawsuits in the past over this. This looks like a weak argument from the owner, and SL and the city has every right to make this occur. Top corporate lawyers will make mince meat over this in favor of the city and SL.

Submariner · #**1193** Posted **Sep 29, 2015, 10:58 PM**

Unsurprising. There was too much money at stake.

Any lawyers around who could shed some light onto this issue?

mrnyc · #**1194** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 1:34 AM**

well we knew this was coming. i am sure the army of barristers are well prepared to put their wigs on and head into battle.

dc_denizen · #**1195** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 3:37 AM**

too bad they cant tear down the hyatt, or the ugly 1960s box at 45th and lex, instead of this.

CityGuy87 · #**1196** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

too bad they cant tear down the hyatt, or the ugly 1960s box at 45th and lex, instead of this.

I may be in the minority but I hope they never tear down the Hyatt because the Chrysler Building deserves a bit of breathing space. It's already starting to get lost in the Midtown skyline and if a new tower was to be built on the Hyatt site, it would have to be a design that's truly worthy of standing directly next to an iconic landmark, ex: 30 Park Place complements the Woolworth Building extremely well.

Besides, there will be plenty of other development sites in Midtown East whenever the full rezoning takes effect and considering that the Hyatt continues to be successful for Trump, I highly doubt that it's going anywhere.

De Minimis NY · #**1197** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner

Any lawyers around who could shed some light onto this issue?

I'm not really qualified to opine as to matters of zoning or Constitutional law, but my gut reaction is that this is an entirely frivolous law suit that isn't going anywhere.

The takings clause of the 5th Amendment is generally construed fairly conservatively, i.e., something actually has to be taken from you for it to apply. Penson is arguing that the grant of air rights to SL Green is effectively a "taking" because it reduces the value of Grand Central's air rights. In order to prevail, Penson would have to demonstrate that:

(1) the rezoning, which is funding over $200mm in public infrastructure improvements, does not serve any public purpose (good luck with that), and

(2) the government action has effectively "taken" property from him, which is going to be pretty hard to argue with a straight face given that he could still sell the air rights for a 500% profit (he bought them at $60 psf and they are estimated to trade at over $300 psf under the rezoning).

If this argument were to hold up, then every upzoning would trigger a "taking" in that it would reduce the value of unused air rights by current property owners in the surrounding areas. This would effectively destroy the model of funding public infrastructure with the sale of development rights and make it nearly impossible for the city to accomplish any upzoning anywhere. Thus, despite the fact that this already seems like a bullshit claim as a purely legal matter, the public policy implications of the precedent make it that much less likely a court would side with Penson.

This guy is just crying about having timed his bet wrong, I wouldn't take it very seriously.

dc_denizen · #**1198** Posted **Sep 30, 2015, 11:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

I may be in the minority but I hope they never tear down the Hyatt because the Chrysler Building deserves a bit of breathing space. It's already starting to get lost in the Midtown skyline and if a new tower was to be built on the Hyatt site, it would have to be a design that's truly worthy of standing directly next to an iconic landmark, ex: 30 Park Place complements the Woolworth Building extremely well.

Besides, there will be plenty of other development sites in Midtown East whenever the full rezoning takes effect and considering that the Hyatt continues to be successful for Trump, I highly doubt that it's going anywhere.

probably true: but this deserves to go...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7533...8i6656!6m1!1e1

scalziand · #**1199** Posted **Oct 1, 2015, 4:08 AM**

^We do have a thread for that building, in fact.

237 Park Ave

phoenixboi08 · #**1200** Posted **Oct 1, 2015, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Minimis NY

I'm not really qualified to opine as to matters of zoning or Constitutional law, but my gut reaction is that this is an entirely frivolous law suit that isn't going anywhere.

The takings clause of the 5th Amendment is generally construed fairly conservatively, i.e., something actually has to be taken from you for it to apply. Penson is arguing that the grant of air rights to SL Green is effectively a "taking" because it reduces the value of Grand Central's air rights. In order to prevail, Penson would have to demonstrate that:

(1) the rezoning, which is funding over $200mm in public infrastructure improvements, does not serve any public purpose (good luck with that), and

(2) the government action has effectively "taken" property from him, which is going to be pretty hard to argue with a straight face given that he could still sell the air rights for a 500% profit (he bought them at $60 psf and they are estimated to trade at over $300 psf under the rezoning).

If this argument were to hold up, then every upzoning would trigger a "taking" in that it would reduce the value of unused air rights by current property owners in the surrounding areas. This would effectively destroy the model of funding public infrastructure with the sale of development rights and make it nearly impossible for the city to accomplish any upzoning anywhere. Thus, despite the fact that this already seems like a bullshit claim as a purely legal matter, the public policy implications of the precedent make it that much less likely a court would side with Penson.

This guy is just crying about having timed his bet wrong, I wouldn't take it very seriously.

Well, it will be argued as being a "per se" takings. What the courts will have to determine is whether or not this rezoning removes all use of the land...in this case, the use is a transfer from the landmark to an adjacent site. From what I understand, the entire purpose of air rights was to allow owners to profit from land value since the current landmarks law doesn't not allow them to extract that value, on-site.

From a strict reading of the law, this guy probably doesn't have any standing, since the air rights simply guarantees that development can be transferred from the landmark site elsewhere, but doesn't guarantee/protect the value of that right.

Theoretically, a depreciation of the air rights does not remove all economically viable use of that [transferable property].

I don't predict an injunction from the court...but you never now.