NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS - Page 38

wilfredo267 · #**741** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 7:01 PM**

More good news from curbed.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0..._landmarks.php

Onn · #**742** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 9:20 PM**

Mostly good news! Let's hope this one goes under construction soon! Come on Landmarks Commission! (I think the terracotta in the façade is going to look great!)

baseball1992 · #**743** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 9:57 PM**

How much demo needs to be done for this site?

nomad11 · #**744** Posted **Jul 22, 2014, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseball1992

How much demo needs to be done for this site?

As far as I know, the entire site is still occupied by two pre-war buildings of around 20 floors

ILNY · #**745** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 12:26 AM**

^ Correct, it will be years before they will vacate and demo this building.

TonyNYC · #**746** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 4:45 PM**

If it's any indication, Management is already clearing out it's tenants. My CPA is in 51 E 42nd and his lease expires at the end of July...he's out! I'm sure they have set up their leasing over the last few years with this whole project in mind.

We'll see soon enough..

gttx · #**747** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner

"By giving the city the power to control the cost of additional floor area on potential receiving sites, this bonus allows the city to take away all or substantially all of the value of the Terminal’s development rights and thus to benefit adjacent properties at the expense of the Terminal," Mr. Selver testified. "It is a program of questionable legality under both New York’s Zoning Enabling Legislation and the evolving standards for the constitutional use of the Police Power."

The Illuminati! The Lizard Gods! Help me Gale Brewer...the KGB and CIA are trying to ruin me!

Snarky responses aside, this argument is actually pretty interesting.

The ability to sell air rights mitigates the "takings" issue potentially associated with landmark preservation. But if the city can unilaterally offer additional air rights to adjacent developers - at whatever price they choose - it could constitute a de facto taking from the Grand Central owners, whose air rights can no longer be sold. They would, in essence, be left holding the bag of a landmark building with no way to capitalize on the site's development rights.

I would not be so dismissive of this argument. It could, at the very least, hold up the entire proceeding in court for quite a while.

Crawford · #**748** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx

But if the city can unilaterally offer additional air rights to adjacent developers - at whatever price they choose - it could constitute a de facto taking from the Grand Central owners, whose air rights can no longer be sold.

Why would it be a "taking" and why could Grand Central's air rights not be sold?

The city has the legal right to "unilaterally offer additional air rights" already, everywhere in the city. A municipality can change its zoning whenever it chooses to.

You think developers can succesfully sue when an area is downzoned? Of course not. The law recognizes that municipalities have the right to control their built form, and there is no permanent, unalienable right to maintain zoning as-is.

gttx · #**749** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would it be a "taking" and why could Grand Central's air rights not be sold?

They might not be sold because the city could undercut the existing TDR market - ie, offer developers square footage for far below what it would have cost them to buy up air rights in the conventional way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

The city has the legal right to "unilaterally offer additional air rights" already, everywhere in the city. A municipality can change its zoning whenever it chooses to.

As-of-right zoning changes and selling air rights are two very different things from a zoning law perspective. Also, New York can't change its zoning "whenever it chooses to." There are processes in place to guide those changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

You think developers can succesfully sue when an area is downzoned? Of course not. The law recognizes that municipalities have the right to control their built form, and there is no permanent, unalienable right to maintain zoning as-is.

Of course they can. If you can prove that a down zoning constitutes a taking, the city could be on the hook for compensation. You could also prove that the change is done in bad faith - ie, the city is trying to line its own coffers via undercutting of the TDR market - rather than serving a real public interest. When you own a piece of land, you own the rights to develop that land at a certain use and density, which in theory (and in real terms) constitutes economic value. That value is not fungible at the whims of every municipality.

I'm not saying I agree with the Grand Central folks in this case. But that doesn't mean the argument isn't interesting and potentially problematic for the city.

Crawford · #**750** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx

They might not be sold because the city could undercut the existing TDR market - ie, offer developers square footage for far below what it would have cost them to buy up air rights in the conventional way.

I don't understand why the rights would then not be sold. They might be reduced in value, but that's fine, and totally routine. There is no right to permanent value of air rights. They might only have an argument if the city banned air rights transfers or something of that nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx

As-of-right zoning changes and selling air rights are two very different things from a zoning law perspective.

How are they any different as it related to takings? They are both part of the city's zoning code, and both can change at any time, benefitting or harming different parties, without constituting a taking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx

Also, New York can't change its zoning "whenever it chooses to." There are processes in place to guide those changes.

I never claimed there weren't processes. But the fact is that NYC can change zoning whenever it chooses to. I never claimed NYC can break laws; obviously it has to follow a process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx

Of course they can. If you can prove that a down zoning constitutes a taking, the city could be on the hook for compensation.

LOL, no. This doesn't happen. There is plenty of case law on takings, and it is very, very strict. You basically would have to prove that there is no possible way you could utilize your land under any circumstances.

If people could do this, then 99% of the landowners in the city would have successfully sued the city, since almost every landowner could point to something the city has done to significantly reduce their land value.

Imagine if you owned a parking lot, zoned for a 50 floor building, and the city downzoned it to almost nothing (has happened plenty of times in the city's history). The landlord has to deal with it; there's no right to protecting your investment; there's only a right to prevent the govt. from taking your property (either literally or figuratively). You would only be successful if the city was preventing you from making any type of productive use of your land.

gttx · #**751** Posted **Jul 24, 2014, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

LOL, no. This doesn't happen. There is plenty of case law on takings, and it is very, very strict. You basically would have to prove that there is no possible way you could utilize your land under any circumstances.

Fair point. Proving an actual taking is very difficult - but I thought this could at least be an interesting case because of the interplay of landmark status, air rights, etc. I suppose I was just looking at the issue from the perspective of the Grand Central owners....and wondering how much they could gum up the works of this rezoning. But you obviously have a better handle on the issue than I do, so I guess it isn't so important.

That said, I of course support upzoning this entire area. Adding density around Grand Central is a no-brainer for the city.

NYguy · #**752** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 5:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomad11

As far as I know, the entire site is still occupied by two pre-war buildings of around 20 floors

There are 4 or 5 buildings on site. Leases are set to expire, SL Green has been planning this tower for a while. Look for actual construction in 2 - 3 years, as occupancy is expected around 2019-2020 or so.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0..._landmarks.php

pico44 · #**753** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 3:42 PM**

The longer it takes to start construction, the better. At some point, KPF and developers have to come to their senses about the awful design currently in place. Similar to the disgustingly bad original renderings for Hudson Yards, also inflicted upon us by KPF, there just has to be a "gotcha" moment coming. I have to believe that. What a cruel joke this is.

JayPro · #**754** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 3:45 PM**

I suspect that anything near a final official render won't come to pass till the rezoning actually becomes official, especial since this potential supertall for all intents looks to be the nexus point for the new MidTown East.

Michael12374 · #**755** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

The longer it takes to start construction, the better. At some point, KPF and developers have to come to their senses about the awful design currently in place. Similar to the disgustingly bad original renderings for Hudson Yards, also inflicted upon us by KPF, there just has to be a "gotcha" moment coming. I have to believe that. What a cruel joke this is.

If you have seen the new renderings, its really not that bad. I actually really like the whole design minus the top.

NYguy · #**756** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

I suspect that anything near a final official render won't come to pass till the rezoning actually becomes official, especial since this potential supertall for all intents looks to be the nexus point for the new MidTown East.

Even the early renderings of the current HY railyards towers by KPF weren't the best. The design is currently being finalized, though the details are presented in the renderings. I can't wait to see what the public observatory space will entail. It's that feature I'm looking forward to the most.

Submariner · #**757** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael12374

If you have seen the new renderings, its really not that bad. I actually really like the whole design minus the top.

Yes. I hope someone updates the current diagram presented for 1 Vanderbilt. The new proportions and the color of the facade are much nicer.

pico44 · #**758** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael12374

If you have seen the new renderings, its really not that bad. I actually really like the whole design minus the top.

It looks like the Sears Tower with Down Syndrome.

pico44 · #**759** Posted **Jul 28, 2014, 11:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Look at how awful the base is. The base is slanted down and stunted at the exact spot it should be open and grand. Instead of meeting the gorgeous rail terminal with a modernist roar, the building puts its tail between its legs. This is just terrible architecture.

JayPro · #**760** Posted **Jul 29, 2014, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

It looks like the Sears Tower with Down Syndrome.

Really, now?

As a disabled person, I could perhaps allow myself to get butt-hurt six ways to Armageddon about this; but not here.

It's not about me.

I respectfully suggest that there be undertaken much greater consideration as to how far people with the condition cited above have really come to enjoy lives that actually now pass the half-century mark in years. This can be extended to include all disabled folk, if you wish, too.

It's been too much of a fight for them to be made sport of as thoughtlessly and viciously as they have in this culture.

Let's move on. No offense taken.