NEW YORK | 15 Penn Plaza (Hotel Penn) | 1,050 FT / 315 M | 52 FLOORS

[J. Will]

What an asshole. When the ESB was built, it was greatly out-of-place in the modest, midrise, lower-Midtown skyline. But now it should be allowed to stand alone?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

[Friends of the New York Skyline, a coalition that includes the Municipal Art Society and the Historic Districts Council. So take a look, and then take sides.

What is this group, and why am I not a part of it. Oh wait, probably because they're a bunch of morons...

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Why be half-assed about it. They should have put up the whole, extended thing...






http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/8516

[YSL]

OK, 15 Penn Plaza looks so ugly in those renderings sent out by the NIMBYs.

We need more detailed renderings. If that's what it looks like, I don't want it built.

And I've been strongly pro-15 Penn Plaza.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by YSL

We need more detailed renderings. If that's what it looks like, I don't want it built.

If you've seen the actual renderings of 15 Penn Plaza, you already know that's not what it looks like. The opposition obviously will try to paint the tower in a nonflattering light. I've studied the skyline for far too long (daily in fact) to be fooled by such blatant use of renderings.

They overplayed their hand with this one:




As opposed to say, something like this one...

[RobertWalpole]

Obviously, these are not official renderings. The render does not taper like Vornado's render does. Nonetheless, it gives perspective on the skyline.

[NYC-Graffhead91]

it looks different from the official renderings.... like... where is the line in the middle etc.?

of course they try to make it look as ugly as possible...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

it gives perspective on the skyline.

Yes, one that doesn't exists, and at best would be an extreme view. It's not justified. One of the problems I have with the way the zoning now plays out is that while there may be multiple towers as tall or taller than the ESB on the west side, there won't be anything on the east side. The ESB will continue to be the dominant tower.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by NYguy

If you've seen the actual renderings of 15 Penn Plaza, you already know that's not what it looks like. The opposition obviously will try to paint the tower in a nonflattering light. I've studied the skyline for far too long (daily in fact) to be fooled by such blatant use of renderings.

They overplayed their hand with this one:




As opposed to say, something like this one...

OK, that changed my mind. That photo is gorgeous.

Does it really block the Empire State Building from that classic NYC post card shot/angle as the NIMBYs suggest? The New Jersey side..

And I'm surprised better rendering haven't been released of this tower.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Yes, one that doesn't exists, and at best would be an extreme view. It's not justified. One of the problems I have with the way the zoning now plays out is that while there may be multiple towers as tall or taller than the ESB on the west side, there won't be anything on the east side. The ESB will continue to be the dominant tower.

one day i believe innovation will find its way back to the east side.

[NYC4Life]

Using a cemetery as a backdrop is in bad taste to an already false looking perspective, gives the NIMBYs even less credibility to their already outrageous arguments.

[Boss-ton]

If they build it they gotta put something on the other side so the esb will keep that central perspective it has from all angles.

[NYguy]

^ It does't have a "central" perspective from the most classic of angles - east or west from the river - because its further south than most of the midtown skyscrapers.

Originally Posted by YSL

Does it really block the Empire State Building from that classic NYC post card shot/angle as the NIMBYs suggest? The New Jersey side...

Anything can block the view of the Empire State Building if viewed from the right angle. It's a ridiculous notion to begin with. As if the ESB is visible from only one exact location, on one exact block in New Jersey.


http://beta.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/aug/19/proposed-tower-sidles-empire-state-building/

Owners of Empire State Building Oppose Proposed Tower Nearby


The skyline with 15 Penn Plaza, as envisioned by opponents. (Photo courtsesy of Friends of NYC Skyline)

Thursday August 19, 2010
By Matthew Schuerman

The owners of the Empire State Building are objecting to a proposed 69-story skyscraper that would be built two blocks away. The new building, called 15 Penn Plaza, would go where the Hotel Pennsylvania is currently located, at 32nd Street and 7th Avenue, and would rise to about 1200 feet -- or just 25 feet lower than the top floor of the Empire State Building.

And the owners of the Empire State Building are putting up a fight. "New York will have a giant black eye on the world stage for allowing such poor city planning to take the vision of New York and marring it in a billion people's minds around the world," said Anthony Malkin, the president of Malkin Holdings, LLC, part owner of the iconic building. "Would you put this building next to the Eiffel Tower? Would you put this building next to London's Big Ben tower? Would you put an oil derrick next to the Statue of Liberty?"

Malkin and others are stepping up opposition to the proposal in advance of a City Council hearing on Monday. The City Planning Commission, which is controlled by the mayor, approved the proposal last month.

A spokesman for Vornado Realty Trust, which is proposing the new tower, declined to comment.

____________________________________________



http://www.globest.com/news/1729_1729/newyork/301817-1.html

Midtown Tower Plan Draws High-Profile Ire

August 18, 2010
By Paul Bubny

Days before it’s due to be considered by a key City Council subcommittee, Vornado Realty Trust’s plan to build a 67-story office tower on the current site of the Hotel Pennsylvania is drawing protest from one of its future neighbors. That would be Empire State Building Co. LLC, which is none too pleased about the proposed tower’s proximity to the landmarked Fifth Avenue property.

In a letter dated Wednesday to Council Member Mark Weprin, chair of the Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises, the principals of Empire State Building Co. and Malkin Holdings assert that the proposed height and mass of Vornado’s 15 Penn Plaza, located about 1,000 feet southwest of ESB, “will permanently damage the beauty and distinction of the city’s skyline, our city’s and country’s public face to the world.”

The letter, under the signature of chairman Peter Malkin and president Anthony Malkin, continues, “This is not about banning tall buildings in the city, but about observing and preserving the very historic uniqueness and beauty of the city’s skyline by not allowing a massive building made possible only through waivers and bonuses in such close proximity to a landmarked building to defile and destroy ESB and our skyline.”

Vornado’s plans call for either a single-tenant, 1,190-foot-tall tower of 2.8 million square feet—slightly smaller than ESB’s gross buildable area—or a multi-tenant tower that would contain about 155,000 fewer square feet but would add 26 feet to its height. Absent rezoning approvals, the REIT could choose to develop a smaller as-of-right tower on the site, according to the Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted last month. No start date has been set, and Vornado has said the project would be developed an an unspecified future date.

Although Manhattan’s Community Board 5 voted 36-1 against 15 Penn Plaza in April, the City Planning Commission later gave the project its blessing. So did Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, albeit with some conditions.

The Regional Plan Association also weighed in with its approval for 15 Penn Plaza. “In RPA’s view, 15 Penn Plaza will bring us a step closer to building a new transit-oriented, economically efficient and, by virtue of its future dependence on mass transit, environmentally sustainable district,” the association said in prepared testimony before CB5.

“The same City Planning Commission which has forwarded this monstrosity to the City Council for approval agreed that the skyline must be considered when it rejected the proposed 1,250-foot MoMA tower on East 53rd Street,” the Malkins wrote in their letter to Weprin.

In the case of the East 53rd tower, which would be developed by the Museum of Modern Art and Houston-based Hines, the commission required that the property’s height be reduced from 1,250 feet to 1,025. The full City Council approved the smaller-scale MoMA project this past October.

In their letter, the Malkins request that “the negative impacts of 15 Penn Plaza” be considered, that the project be reduced in height “so as not to adversely impact the skyline” and that Vornado prepare a full Draft Environmental Impact Statement for any proposed changes in the project, “especially those that would increase the height or bulk of 15 Penn Plaza or would have potential impacts on traffic.” Through a spokesman, Vornado declined to comment.

[malec]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I like this actually. This is how it should be.

[StoOgE]

I'm not a New Yorker, but my opinion is this.. 100 years ago people could have said the ESB was going to take attention away from the Singer Building... ESB will always be a special building and will always be huge, but it seems a bit silly to say that because an iconic building is there that nothing else can be built.

Was Chrysler hurt by the ESB or any of the towers that have risen near it?

[Ordo_]

Originally Posted by malec

I like this actually. This is how it should be.

I agree. I dont see how it is "unflattering."

[JayPro]

Someone please set me aright here; but I heard boo from these same bellyachers when renders for Girasole and Manhattan West were first publicized.

So the argument seems to be that 15 Penn will block views of ESB from certain locations? So will these others...but again, I've heard feck-all from the peanut gallery about any of that.

Hypocrites.

[JSsocal]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I'm not a New Yorker, but my opinion is this.. 100 years ago people could have said the ESB was going to take attention away from the Singer Building... ESB will always be a special building and will always be huge, but it seems a bit silly to say that because an iconic building is there that nothing else can be built.

Was Chrysler hurt by the ESB or any of the towers that have risen near it?

Your argument would make sense if the buildings weren't so far apart. All these buildings, singer, chrysler, are very far from eachother. And also these buildings at their time were totally new. Just like NYT tower is today. I love the building, but the fact is that the PA tower just across the street will block its most flattering view from the west, but no one cares because it is a new building.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Your argument would make sense if the buildings weren't so far apart.

They aren't far apart at all, in skyline terms. So the argument makes perfect sense. But it is a ridiculous argument to have in the first place. From about 99% of the skyline views, this building will not block any view of the Empire State. But even if it did, so what. It's New York, where the skyline is ever growing and expanding. The BofA tower blocks views of the great Chrysler from some views. It can be argued that the Chrysler Building is an iconic presence on the NY skyline as well. But it doesn't matter, because as I've said (repeatedly), these buildings would only be block from a rare angle. Anyone who knows the skyline knows this. The 15 Penn Plaza tower would be basically two blocks west of the ESB. Would it be a rival to the ESB? Certainly so, as it should (this isn't 1931). But this nonsense about blocking views is just that - nonsense. These people better start worring about other things, because this is just the first of many skyscrapers that will rise to the river.


http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100819/REAL_ESTATE/100819777

Talks on Moynihan Station air rights begin
State, city re-enter negotiations with Vornado Realty Trust and The Related Cos.; after approval of Phase 1 contracts, attention turns to funding the $1 billion second phase.

By Jeremy Smerd
August 19, 2010

The state and the city have re-entered negotiations with Vornado Realty Trust and The Related Cos. over the sale of 1 million square feet of air rights associated with the new Moynihan Station, said Tim Gilchrist, the new president of the Moynihan Station Development Corp. in a recent interview with Crain's.

The developers entered into a memorandum of understanding with the state in 2006 to develop the Farley Post Office into a new train station and to use the air rights to build an adjacent mixed-use development topped by a 67-story tower. But the plan, including $110 million from the sale of the air rights, was never approved by the Public Authorities Control Board.

Instead, the recession forced the state to split the development into two phases. Eventually, federal stimulus funding provided the final $83 million needed to build the $267 million first phase, which entails linking the Farley building to expanded Penn Station platforms to give passengers another exit.

The initial construction contracts were approved Monday, and now attention is turning to funding the $1 billion second phase.

That's where the sale of air rights comes in. The Farley building—which occupies the square block between West 31st and West 33rd streets and Eighth and Ninth avenues—comes with 2.5 million square feet of transferable air rights. While Related and Vornado have dibs on the first 1 million, the remaining 1.5 million square feet are up for grabs.

If an air-rights agreement with the two developers is reached, the 1 million-square-foot “Penn West” could begin rising before construction on the station's first phase is completed in the next three to four years.

“We have a way to move forward, we just have to negotiate the pieces,” Mr. Gilchrist said. “I'd love to get money to build [the station].”

Time is ticking: The agreement that gives Related and Vornado exclusive development rights expires in 2012.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I'm not a New Yorker, but my opinion is this.. 100 years ago people could have said the ESB was going to take attention away from the Singer Building... ESB will always be a special building and will always be huge, but it seems a bit silly to say that because an iconic building is there that nothing else can be built.

Was Chrysler hurt by the ESB or any of the towers that have risen near it?

Even as the ESB was getting built people probably thought even taller buildings were right around the corner. Architects in the 20's and 30's would probably think we were crazy for not having several dozen 100+ story buildings in our cities.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

why dont we just move the ESB and put it on Governors island that would solve everything!