NEW YORK | 47 West Street | 154 FT / 47 M | 13 FLOORS

Lecom · #1 Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 9:59 PM**

Built in 1882 a few blocks south of the current WTC site on West Street, designed by William Graul. Demolished in 2008 to make way for the 700-foot 50 West Street by Herzog DeMueron

View from West Street

The sliver of space between the building and the garage

Battery Park City garage, directly to the south

Facade at the base facing the garage

The cornice on the east side...

...and the base

A gargoyle

The past gives way to the future rising behind

The mansard roof as seen from the garage

A good example that shows that not everything that's old is a masterpiece. This building is built in a refined style, yet the details are crude and it did not age well at all. This is to Beaux-Arts masterpieces is the same as shoddy office buildings are to the Seagram Building. Besides, the replacement is definitely worth the demolition.

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/u...66_west50c.jpg

Patrick · #2 Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 12:02 AM**

I prefer this over the new tower, I always noticed its little green roof in aerial shots of Lower Manhattan, it was certinantly no landmark by any means but did add a little tiny feature to the skyline. Ahh its gone oh well.

philvia · #3 Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 12:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick

I prefer this over the new tower, I always noticed its little green roof in aerial shots of Lower Manhattan, it was certinantly no landmark by any means but did add a little tiny feature to the skyline. Ahh its gone oh well.

there was a discussion in a thread once about how the roof isnt even copper.
and i agree with thread creator that the building had bad details.
i thought this was under destructo a long time ago tho

Lecom · #4 Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 1:50 AM**

They removed the last floor of the structure not too long ago.

yumiko ^.^ · #5 Posted **Apr 26, 2008, 5:23 AM**

Obviously this building does not have gorgeous details and actually looks brutal in various aspects, but it is something built in the same era with the Tower Building, the first steel-framed building in NYC (and in fact this one is even a bit older and carry more floors). It is no question a valuable icon of that good legendary old days.

I think it deserve to be redeemed.

CGII · #6 Posted **Apr 26, 2008, 12:56 PM**

You don't think it aged well? I actually quite like it when stubborn buildings like this grow old. But nonetheless, it has a fair replacement, and I can't say I'm terribly upset.

Lecom · #7 Posted **Apr 26, 2008, 10:23 PM**

Yep, I used to work in the neighborhood and its street presense was quite shoddy. Besides, the new tower creates a plaza in front of the garage, while the old passageway was downright claustrophobic.

LSyd · #8 Posted **Apr 27, 2008, 10:30 PM**

a 130 year old proto-skyscraper trashed for a 700 foot schlong? couldn't they have incorporated the facade and green roof into the schlong at least? bleh. cheapy of its time or not, bad trade.

-

Dac150 · #9 Posted **Apr 27, 2008, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSyd

a 130 year old proto-skyscraper trashed for a 700 foot schlong? couldn't they have incorporated the facade and green roof into the schlong at least? bleh. cheapy of its time or not, bad trade.

-

That building wasn't serving any major purpose to prevent it from coming down. Age cannot always justify keeping a building around, and if it were such a big issue, then it would've been named a landmark.

That's how it is in Manhattan. Unless a building has a landmark status, then it's fair game. And the age of a building never crosses the minds of the people who want to build on the land from which it stands. The only thing that matters to them is how much they can make off the new project. I for one think they'll make quite a lot with this tower.

LSyd · #10 Posted **Apr 27, 2008, 11:58 PM**

^ really? thanks for the lecture, you've made my day

on a side note, know of any architectural salvage done on it?

-

Dac150 · #11 Posted **Apr 28, 2008, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSyd

^ really? thanks for the lecture, you've made my day

on a side note, know of any architectural salvage done on it?

-

Yeah, I rant on a lot.

Do you mean as far as using any materials from the building for something else (or saving them)? That I wouldn't know.

The building really wasn't as big of a deal as you may think. Believe it or not, prior to this thread, I've never noticed it before. It just got sucked in the urban fabric of Downtown.

Zblackerby · #12 Posted **Apr 28, 2008, 3:21 AM**

Sad to hear its gone, I love that roof

mthq · #13 Posted **May 4, 2008, 11:50 PM**

After looking on Google Maps, I see that the Battery Park garage covers quite a bit of ground which I found surprising. That's the first time I've ever seen a surface parking garage (a garage with no building on top) in Manhattan. Weird.

I'm not suggesting the new tower be built on top of the garage instead, but I hope that site doesn't stay as is for long.

Cleveland Brown · #14 Posted **May 5, 2008, 12:37 AM**

That building had a lot of shody work done over the years. I'm glad it's being replaced.

Crawford · #15 Posted **May 5, 2008, 1:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mthq

After looking on Google Maps, I see that the Battery Park garage covers quite a bit of ground which I found surprising. That's the first time I've ever seen a surface parking garage (a garage with no building on top) in Manhattan. Weird.

I'm not suggesting the new tower be built on top of the garage instead, but I hope that site doesn't stay as is for long.

It's built like that because it is owned by the Port Authority and covers the entrance to the Brooklyn Battery tunnel.

Ownership is being transferred to the Battery Park City Authority, which plans to sell the five million square feet of air rights over the garage and tunnel entrance.

A major city park is also planned.

Rico Rommheim · #16 Posted **May 28, 2008, 6:13 AM**

1882? Then doesn't that make it the first skyscraper, as oppose to the Chicago Home Insurance building?

Lecom · #17 Posted **May 29, 2008, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zblackerby

Sad to hear its gone, I love that roof

I loved that roof too the first time I saw it, across the West Side Highway. Once I got close I saw the peeling green paint, crudely done details, and outright sagging roofline. I won't miss it.

This bend in the middle of the cornice is not a camera/optical illusion.

Tom Servo · #18 Posted **Jun 7, 2008, 7:30 PM**

this building was worthless. and the jahn tower is wonderful. good riddance.

Dac150 · #19 Posted **Jun 7, 2008, 7:43 PM**

I find it to be a very odd building, and to be honest, in the last pic it looks as if it can fall down on its own. The building has see better days, which is why its time has come.

NYC4Life · #20 Posted **Jul 11, 2008, 9:11 AM**

Whether we agree or disagree with this building's demolition (I totally agree with it) the fact is, it is gone. With so many towers rising in the area, there was no way this building would remain viable, as it hasn't been for years. Even though this was an early example of skyscraper construction, it was quickly outgrown by other towers in the century since. The New Nobu Tower will certainly add to Lower Manhattan's growth and construction boom, something that would have been impossible with 40 West still standing.