NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,581 FT | 92 FLOORS

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

This is an absolute Golden Age in Brooklyn which is totally transforming it.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

[NYguy]

Nothing really new here, just the boring stuff (but what will ultimately allow this tower to be built).

Some info and shots from todays pre-hearing at City Planning. The public hearing is Wednesday. Also, they're flirting with that 1,642.5 ft figure (which is why I had it at 1,643 ft at one point), but that's irrelevant at this point. It'll be at or very close to the 1,646 figure when all is said and done. Although, even that could change in time.




1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.



15.



16.



17.



18.




19.



20.



21.



22.



23.



24.



25.



26.



27.

[NYguy]

Just for fun, but when you went "high" in those early days, for the most part, you had to have a nice crown.



https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/manhattan-as-a-muse











LARGER for reading...
https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1/171921614.qVe4aZUG.IMG_4098.JPG

[Black Star]

NYC has no limit...at all. It continues to break all the rules in a good way

[NYguy]

Just some testimony from the public hearing in support of this tower...













Technically, this tower could be a lot larger than it is, considering they are merging the lots for zoning purposes. It's not an actual lot merger, so it doesn't count, but current zoning of an actual lot this size (almost 5 times the size of Vanderbilt, and 2 and a half times the size of 270 Park) would produce a humongous tower (6.7 million zsf, likely equal to 8 million gsf).

Still, even under current plans, they could build an extra 6 FAR on top of the 27 zoned by using the Transit Improvement, and Public Concourse special permits.









What the zoning allows







However, under their current plans, they will only utilize 4.27 of that 6 FAR. That comes out to 352,392 zsf of usable floor space unused. This is why the borough president and CB5 want language added that will restrict the usage to just the 4.27 FAR amount. It was pointed out at the hearing though, that if the developers indeed wanted to use the full amount, it would trigger a completely new approval process to do so. Not likely anyone would want to do that.


What they are using

[JMKeynes]

This tower is a gift from our Good Lord!

[NYguy]

Nothing really new in that last hearing. But good to know that we are nearing the final stages, and then we can just focus on the demolition.

[JMKeynes]

[Yackemflaber69]

Can't start soon enough what a treasure

[NYguy]

I was thinking earlier on how we’re moving on to the next phase of developments that will alter the skyline. This includes demo on many sites, the largest being the Hotel Pennsylvania, and the Commodore Hotel (Grand Hyatt).

Both buildings will enter demo next year, the close of a chapter which saw both of these hotels opening at the same time.

Originally Posted by NYguy

A visit to the New York Times time machine...

[Mimol742]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Who is the guy on the webcam?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Mimol742

Who is the guy on the webcam?

Someone from the CP Manhattan office.

[C.]

Community Board 5: “Cap the maximum permitted combined FAR for the Transit Improvement Special Permit and the Public Concourse Special Permit at 4.27 FAR (instead of 6.0, as proposed)

Me: Fuck off

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by C.

Community Board 5: “Cap the maximum permitted combined FAR for the Transit Improvement Special Permit and the Public Concourse Special Permit at 4.27 FAR (instead of 6.0, as proposed)

Me: Fuck off

Lol. Exactly. The proposal gives more than double the amount of open space required, but Brewer and the gang want to strip away from what the developers can build given already approved special permits.

It’s not even necessary, because as that guy from the borough office pointed out, a completely new approvals process would be triggered if the developers decided to build the full amount.

[citybooster]

Is the community board's verdict regarding restrictive conditions binding? I really believe, for the most part, these boards should not impose all that much. Save it for truly dubious projects, not ones that are absolutely necessary and both promote the private AND public good like this one in such a spectacular and even transformative manner.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by citybooster

Is the community board's verdict regarding restrictive conditions binding? I really believe, for the most part, these boards should not impose all that much. Save it for truly dubious projects, not ones that are absolutely necessary and both promote the private AND public good like this one in such a spectacular and even transformative manner.

I believe its advisory in that it means as much to the whole process as a vomit laced rag behind a Penn Station toilet does. Pretty much nothing. These folks are a bunch of nimrods. Its pretty much all negativity at these CB meetings. Rare... rare occasions where's its positive. The minute its anything over 200 ft or modern or if its replacing an existing POS, nothing but BS from them. They would rather keep the garbage that fix it or replace it.

We have a gem like Grand Hyatt and they want to do everything they can to throw a wrench in it. But its advisory or "recommendations" but typically hasn't done much (even with other projects).

Layla Law-Gisiko is another clown who hasn't gotten laid since the Reagan Administration. She's a typical NIMBY advocate. Save the sun light types who drink plant based gluten free no taste decaf garbage coffee. Those types...

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Layla Law-Gisiko is another clown who hasn't gotten laid since the Reagan Administration. She's a typical NIMBY advocate. Save the sun light types who drink plant based gluten free no taste decaf garbage coffee. Those types...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by citybooster

Is the community board's verdict regarding restrictive conditions binding? I really believe, for the most part, these boards should not impose all that much. Save it for truly dubious projects, not ones that are absolutely necessary and both promote the private AND public good like this one in such a spectacular and even transformative manner.

Community board votes are only advisory, meaning it's just to let people know what the "community" thinks of the proposal. As it is with the borough President's office. The only real power comes from the local Councilmember, and City Planning itself.

As far as the restrictive conditions on the added FAR bonus (4.27 instead of the 6 already approved), the developers aren't going to change things either way because it would trigger an entirely new, time consuming approvals process.

The thing to know about community boards, is that no one really joins because they want more development. So by its very nature, NIMBYism is built in. They aren't really looking with objective eyes, but to see how much they can change, shape, or cancel a development outright. They want to walk away from the table with something, even if it is a totally useless restrictive binding on that FAR.

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Community board votes are only advisory, meaning it's just to let people know what the "community" thinks of the proposal. As it is with the borough President's office. The only real power comes from the local Councilmember, and City Planning itself.

As far as the restrictive conditions on the added FAR bonus (4.27 instead of the 6 already approved), the developers aren't going to change things either way because it would trigger an entirely new, time consuming approvals process.

The thing to know about community boards, is that no one really joins because they want more development. So by its very nature, NIMBYism is built in. They aren't really looking with objective eyes, but to see how much they can change, shape, or cancel a development outright. They want to walk away from the table with something, even if it is a totally useless restrictive binding on that FAR.

I'm not against local input per se, sometimes it can be very helpful to have some collaboration between the community(at least those who aren't outright anti-development come hell or high water) and developers. But I do hate these boards that seem to be dedicated to sabotaging development even if it also is beneficial to the community.

What FAR then will the builders actually use, then? Not exactly up to speed on that kind of detail here.