NEW YORK | 53W53 (Tower Verre) | 1,050 FT / 320 M | 73 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

The author must have some type macular degeneration like Glaucoma.

It's the same mentality that cause those people to keep saying it's as "big" as the Empire State Building, which is misleading when you consider it's only about a third of the size. At 1,050 ft, it would still be taller than other new towers, like the now under construction London Shard:




But considering the mass of skyscrapers that will surround the Tower Verre, it would seem less tall than it is. That extra 200 ft would have given it the extra boost to really stand out on the skyline, and we now have a potential situation where an even taller tower could go up just a few blocks north.

[Zapatan]

Damn, looking at pictures of what could have been tower verre is like torture


I still really wanna see this building somewhere, I know some might say it won't fit anywhere else but i disagree.

[NYonward]

Posted on WNY by Merry, really exposes Amanda Burden's unjust panning of the 1250' proposal:

An excerpt from the article Look who remade New York in Crain's yesterday:

Quote:
“I have my dream job,” says Ms. Burden. “I want to create places people walk by and fall in love with, and want to be in.”

Some wish she were employed elsewhere. Many New York real estate executives accuse Ms. Burden of overstepping her authority by involving herself in design minutiae, dictating such details as the size of window sills and the height of park benches. Many lawyers, architects, planners and developers complain that she is unyielding in her vision and that catering to her taste adds time and money to their projects. Over a dozen industry heavyweights, however, declined to attach their names to their objections, for fear that offending her could waylay their plans.

Her detractors say her obtrusiveness hit a new high last month, when the planning commission effectively lopped 200 feet off the top of a tower on West 53rd Street being designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Jean Nouvel. Ms. Burden said the unfinished design for the planned 1,250-foot tower was unworthy of the prominent spot it would occupy in the New York skyline. The project had been granted special permission to rise to that height.

In response, New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff praised the architect as “one of the profession's most creative forces,” and warned that Ms. Burden's decision could force harmful changes to the rest of the tower. He also accused her of treating the skyline as a museum with no room for architectural innovation.

Ms. Burden counters that Mr. Nouvel didn't present a finished design, even after having years to complete it, which she calls disrespectful. She brandishes a rendering of the tower with an unfinished top—a simple, open triangle enclosing a box that will house the building's operating mechanisms.

“They wanted special permission for this?” she asks contemptuously.

Mr. Nouvel didn't return a call, and the developer, Hines Interests, declined comment. In the past, Hines has said it needs to build to the full height for the tower to be economically viable.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...FREE/310119996

[Zapatan]

good article, sock it to that biatch! who put her in charge in the first place anyway, seriously?


I think there is still a chance this thing could end up at 1,250 feet, think about it, they won't build it if it isn't and a lot of people want this thing built, especially those selling air rights.


the fact that there is retaliation to that numbskulled bimbo is great.

[hunser]

i did my phone call and the letter is on its way. there is nothing i can do anymore except attending the next hearing / meeting. and maybe praying that TV will get built eventually . god, this thread is the one which makes me most furious!

EDIT: amanda burden can s*** my d***!!

[NYguy]

New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff praised the architect as “one of the profession's most creative forces,” and warned that Ms. Burden's decision could force harmful changes to the rest of the tower. He also accused her of treating the skyline as a museum with no room for architectural innovation.

Ms. Burden counters that Mr. Nouvel didn't present a finished design, even after having years to complete it, which she calls disrespectful. She brandishes a rendering of the tower with an unfinished top—a simple, open triangle enclosing a box that will house the building's operating mechanisms.

“They wanted special permission for this?” she asks contemptuously.

How dare they present this before the Queen! Such contempt! Such disrespect! Off with its head!

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

^

People in government. Sheesh.

[Hed Kandi]

..

[TonyAnderson]

It's crazy to me that there are actually people in New York City (THE new york city) who would complain about a building's height.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

It's crazy to me that there are actually people in New York City (THE new york city) who would complain about a building's height.

People in New York complain about anything, but especially new buildings planned. Because with new buildings comes new people, and with that more of everything else. But the City has guidelines in place (zoning) to dictate what gets built and where (still a work in progress in some hoods). This is just one of those cases where the tower as proposed doesn't fit the zoning. Thus the special permits, and the dance with Amanda Burden. It's a slow and tedious process, but for the developers worth it. For us, not always so.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It's the same mentality that cause those people to keep saying it's as "big" as the Empire State Building, which is misleading when you consider it's only about a third of the size. At 1,050 ft, it would still be taller than other new towers, like the now under construction London Shard:




But considering the mass of skyscrapers that will surround the Tower Verre, it would seem less tall than it is. That extra 200 ft would have given it the extra boost to really stand out on the skyline, and we now have a potential situation where an even taller tower could go up just a few blocks north.

wat tower were u refering to thats getting built a few blocks away?

[NYonward]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

It's crazy to me that there are actually people in New York City (THE new york city) who would complain about a building's height.

It is sort of nuts isn't it. Tell that to Amanda Burden.

Anything being developed is open season for people with a gripe and/or too much time on their hands.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

wat tower were u refering to thats getting built a few blocks away?

That would be 157 West 57th, rumored to be 1,083ft tall.

[NYguy]

More from the Queen...
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/amanda-burden

Proprietress of the Skyline




By Eliot Brown
October 14, 2009

As the summer was winding down, Hines Interests, the Texas-based firm planning a 1,250-foot slender tower set to soar next to the Museum of Modern Art, visited the Department of City Planning’s Lower Manhattan offices, designs in hand, to seek the approval of Amanda Burden, the agency’s director. The tower, designed by acclaimed French architect Jean Nouvel, was lauded in the architectural community.

She wasn’t pleased.

“They hadn’t finished the design.” Ms. Burden said plainly in her office last week. “They were asking special permission to penetrate an iconic zone of the skyline, and they hadn’t finished the design. I was stunned.”

Recalling her meeting, she winced as she gestured at a photo of the skyscraper plans Hines presented to her.

“It was an A-frame with a mechanical box in it,” she said of the tower’s top. “And I’m championing this building, and I’m telling everybody this is just thrilling, it’s my favorite building, it’s exciting, and then this is what we saw.

“And I told them, ‘You want special permission to break the skyline. I applaud that. But with what?’”

So Ms. Burden, who is also chairwoman of the City Planning Commission, did what few saw coming: Acting at the commission meeting on Sept. 9, in a clean break, she cut the tower by 20 stories, restricting its height to 1,050 feet. The official reason, according to commission documents: “to minimize adverse effects on the character of the surrounding area” brought on by “highly visible mechanical equipment.”

...Not to say this is all welcomed. Developers and architects often howl—never publicly—of Ms. Burden’s invasive micromanaging, saying she is unfairly using zoning to dictate design, overstepping her role.

Judgment aside, it’s irrefutable that Ms. Burden’s approach has opened a new era of government involvement in the development world of New York City, as she has effectively appointed herself guardian of the skyline and an arbiter of good design. By firmly seeking to control what a building looks like, she has crossed into historically new territory, directing not only general building size and use, but also details of appearance, traditionally the guarded turf of developers and their architects.

...Developers, among other complaints, say this process of back-and-forth over design with Ms. Burden drags on for far too long, though few say she has made their buildings or public spaces worse because of it (she apparently has good taste—another source of her power and credibility).

SHOULD SHE GET A third term, Ms. Burden sees a further expansion of her purview. She has already begun to dabble in fresh areas—she now requires bike parking in certain new buildings, and has launched a zoning program that encourages new supermarkets in areas with few of them—but in the future, she said she wants much of her focus to be on sustainability and waterfront issues.

“Maybe I’d allow more floor area if you have a water retention tank or cogeneration facility on your site,” she said, using planners’ lingo for density. “Or—or maybe if you retrofitted your whole building and put mechanical equipment in,” she went on, “maybe you could get an extra floor.”

...TAKING A STEP BACK, Ms. Burden penchant for design management raises a larger question about government’s role in private development. To have the city be involved in such particulars as windowsills, building materials, plants and specific shapes of buildings is doubtless a historic shift for a city that has always valued independence in its private development.

“It’s the kind of thing that New York has never done,” said an executive at a major development firm. “Look, we have a privately created skyline. It has good and bad, but that is what has allowed this city to flourish,” the executive continued. “Since when does the government micromanage the skyline?”

In a way, the approach of Ms. Burden’s Planning Department is not all that dissimilar to something like the banning of trans fats in restaurants or of smoking everywhere—initiatives of the Bloomberg administration. While both have faced some criticism as nanny-state actions, the city believes government intervention is warranted as these products extract a great public cost with little or no benefit.

...The question for Ms. Burden going forward is whether she will maintain this balance, or whether there will be more MoMA towers, a project where many observers in the design and development world feel she overstepped. For that building, the irony is that the developers and Mr. Nouvel ultimately presented the tower a few weeks later to the City Council with what looked like a completed top, with the mechanical structures far less visible.

But, by this point, it would be unprecedented to see the height be reinstalled by the neighborhood-sensitive Council.

Ms. Burden, who declined to comment on the finished designs, seemed confident as ever in her decision. “At the time we saw it before us,” she said, “it was not acceptable.”

Full article here.

[hunser]

i'm sorry but i just can't read articles connected to amanda burden anymore, it's just frustating and gravely unhealthy. going to visit this thread every month or so. d*** you a. burden! b*** in hell!

[NYCLuver]

And where can I write to complain or voice my opinion on their decision, who would I contact exactly?

Just to write an e-mail... voicing my disappointment and utter loathing of one person making decisions based off of what? Personal opinion? That is ridiculous. She truly is a BURDEN.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by NYCLuver

And where can I write to complain or voice my opinion on their decision, who would I contact exactly?

Just to write an e-mail... voicing my disappointment and utter loathing of one person making decisions based off of what? Personal opinion? That is ridiculous. She truly is a BURDEN.

here:

Originally Posted by tommaso

I just called Councilmember Garodnick's office & voiced my support for the Moma tower!

If you want to send a letter to voice your support, it's:

250 Broadway Room 1841
New York, NY 10007

Originally Posted by tonyo

I just called Daniel Garodnick's office and left him a message telling him I support the Moma tower. They asked me where I live and I'm in his district. If you know anyone who does, or just feel like calling him and telling him how you feel, call the number below.



District Office
211 East 43rd Street, Suite 2004
New York, NY 10017
T: (212) 818-0580
F: (212) 818-0706
Map

Legislative Office
250 Broadway, Room 1841
New York, NY 10007
T: (212) 788-7393
F: (212) 442-1457
Map

[Zapatan]

How was that article all bad? It exposed burden for what she really was, it also states that it would be great for the tower to be restored to its original height.



I don't see why it is still impossible for it to end up 1250 feet, am I missing something? Someone please inform me.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

let you voice be heard call city officials and write letters!!!

[NYguy]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...OkruixIsT3pQ5N

Big stall over MoMA tower

By STEVE CUOZZO
October 20, 2009


IS Hines deliberately an gling to stall on its controversial, Jean Nouvel-designed tower next to the Museum of Modern Art, and blame the city for the delay?

Hines, one of the world's largest developers, and Nouvel have clammed up. So it isn't entirely unreasonable to speculate that they're in no rush to build the asymmetrically contoured condo/hotel/museum tower next door to MoMA on West 53rd Street -- which city Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden held to a mere 1,050 feet in height despite Hines' plea to make it 200 feet taller.

Hines is grumbling that a shorter tower might not be economically viable. The company went to the City Council last week pleading to get the height back but failed. The Council also threw in a monkey wrench by limiting the hotel portion of what's supposed to be an 850,000 square-foot tower to under 100,000 square feet, nearly one-third less than what Hines wanted.

But blaming the city is too easy. When Hines and Nouvel showed the plans last month, they had to know that Burden, who has a well-known interest in architecture, expected to see what the whole building would look like.

Instead, the model was conspicuously unfinished, showing the tallest of three triangular spires as an open framework with a cube-shaped box for mechanical elements.

Since so much of the debate has to do with the project's skyline impact, how could Hines have gone to the city without showing the crown? "Better to blame the city for an ugly, empty lot next door to the Museum of Modern Art than to say, 'We bought an empty lot and it will stay an empty lot,' " suggested one of our cynical sources who keeps an eye on stalls around town.

A Planning Department spokesperson declined to comment. Calls to Hines Managing Partner David Penick were not returned. Nouvel's Paris-based assistant, Charlotte Kruk, said, "Unfortunately Mr. Nouvel is out of the office today and it's impossible to answer your question."

But a source said Hines and Nouvel were fully aware the 60-day clock was ticking down on the time period when the Planning Department needed to consider the 1,250-foot proposal -- and now, time's up. "Maybe it's because everything in Paris closes up for the month of August," an insider said half-jokingly.

At the Council hearing, Penick told CultureGrrrl blogger Lee Rosenbaum the job might not start for a while even if it gets approved.

That sounds like an understatement. In a market without credit, could Hines build the thing even if were only six feet tall?

It could cost up to $1 billion to construct. Since Hines announced the scheme two years ago, construction financing has been nonexistent. Also, the market for ultra-luxury condo residences is flat at best and the local hotel market seriously over-saturated.

Real Capital Analytics research chief Dan Fasulo noted that the $125 million Hines paid MoMA for the land -- which doesn't include all the air rights it would still need "was made at the top of the market, and it would surely be structured differently today."

Even so, Fasulo said, "Hines is one of those companies that can put in more equity" than most -- up to 35 percent or more -- which might make it easier to find a lender.