NEW YORK | 53W53 (Tower Verre) | 1,050 FT / 320 M | 73 FLOORS - Page 17

JDRCRASH · #**321** Posted **Jan 24, 2008, 5:04 PM**

This seems like a tower that should belong in the New WTC complex.

NYguy · #**322** Posted **Jan 31, 2008, 7:04 AM**

Quote from an article in Architectural Record:
http://archrecord.construction.com/n...0130nouvel.asp

Hines reviewed proposals from a handful of architects before announcing that Nouvel won the commission in November. The developer has also worked with Nouvel on the 40 Mercer condominiums in SoHo and the C1 Tower in Paris.

“We found there were a number of excellent ideas, but that Jean’s general direction was the most compelling,” says David Penick, Hines’s managing partner for the project, which is tentatively named 53 W 53rd Street. “We also feel that there’s a good story about his design idea, which will support the approval process. That story is basically that the form of the building is inspired by the allowable zoning.”

So far the tower has met with mixed public reactions. While some observers, such as Nicolai Ouroussoff of The New York Times, welcome such a unique addition to the Manhattan skyline, others, including Bloomberg’s James S. Russell, suggest that the building is too big for its site—even if it conforms to zoning.

According to Penick, the tower “is consistent with the underlying zoning of the block. We’re not creating any new bonus or any new source of air rights. There are a number of low-scale buildings on the block, so this is what can result from that.” In any case, suggesting a tall building doesn’t belong in midtown Manhattan is a difficult argument. “The New York skyline is a pretty dynamic and exciting thing. It’s certainly a big building in the context of neighboring buildings—some are larger, some are smaller—but in the overall scheme of things, it seems appropriate.”

If all goes according to plan, Penick says, Hines will start construction in mid 2009 and finish by the end of 2012.

sammysonny1 · #**323** Posted **Feb 16, 2008, 9:14 PM**

stunning

CoolCzech · #**324** Posted **Feb 25, 2008, 7:03 PM**

artinfo.com

Tower Power
By Fred A. Bernstein
Published: February 22, 2008

NEW YORK—In his 30-year career, Paris architect Jean Nouvel has produced some superb buildings, including L’Institut du Monde Arabe and Fondation Cartier, both in the French capital. Now Nouvel, whose very name promises innovation, has been given a chance to alter the Manhattan skyline.
The Museum of Modern Art, criticized for the timidity of its 2004 makeover by Yoshio Taniguchi, is adding exhibition space in the bottom three floors of a new 75-story hotel/condominium designed by Nouvel and located nearby at 53 West 53rd Street. The jagged, crystalline tower will be about as high as the Chrysler Building, despite its much narrower, midblock site.

The developer is the Texas company Hines, which bought the lot from MoMA for $125 million last year and allowed the museum to approve its choice of architect.

In renderings, Nouvel’s building is dark and angular, with an irregular, exposed diagrid structure that “will bring the right kind of rhythm to the street,” says MoMA director Glenn Lowry. The New York Times described the design as a “sly commentary” on the predictability of Taniguchi’s MoMA addition, but the real inspiration seems to be another West 53rd Street institution: the American Folk Art Museum, with its dark, folded façade by New York architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien. Nouvel’s challenge will be to turn the startling forms in his renderings into a welcoming addition to the city.

http://www.artinfo.com/news/enlarged_image/26638/77469/

NYguy · #**325** Posted **Mar 12, 2008, 9:31 PM**

http://www.observer.com/2008/residen...yscraper-plans

Residents Rail Against Current MoMA Skyscraper Plans

by Eliot Brown
March 11, 2008

A planned 75-story residential skyscraper connected to the Museum of Modern Art seems headed for a fight with area residents, who claim the Jean Nouvel-designed tower would be dramatically out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed condo and hotel tower at 53 West 53rd Street, which would rise next door to and contain 50,000 square feet of added space for the museum, was hailed by New York Times’ architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff as “the most exhilarating addition to the skyline in a generation.”

Given a complex set of air-rights transfers, the developers of the tower, Hines, would need a set of public approvals, starting with the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, and ultimately the City Planning Commission and the City Council.

A Community Board 5 committee, which has an advisory role, unanimously voted against the development rights transfers last week, and the full board votes Thursday.

“The scale is just totally inappropriate in a low-rise area,” said RitaSue Siegel, vice president of a block association by the site.

lakegz · #**326** Posted **Mar 12, 2008, 9:41 PM**

54th street Manhattan low rise? Im flabbergasted.

Lecom · #**327** Posted **Mar 12, 2008, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

“The scale is just totally inappropriate in a low-rise area,” said RitaSue Siegel, vice president of a block association by the site.

Are they fucking serious

NYguy · #**328** Posted **Mar 12, 2008, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

Are they fucking serious

They should be ran out of town for making such a ridiculous statment.

Lowrise area? Really? I guess it was hard to come up with something, so they went to the usual NIMBY well, and this is all they could get.

But really...

__

I mean, come on.

nygirl1 · #**329** Posted **Mar 12, 2008, 9:48 PM**

I swear I love NY but the people with a say in construction sites are a bunch of f**ing morons. Their aggressive opposition to anything worthwhile being built in Manhattan is a shame. They need to be stopped some how but how the hell can we do that? This really sucks man, everything has got to be 700 feet and boxy and it sucks. I seriously want their heads on pikes. I won't be surprised when this thing gets canned and it really is a travesty.

NYguy · #**330** Posted **Mar 12, 2008, 9:53 PM**

Posted on curbed.com

Please Don't Screw Up the Jean Nouvel MoMA Tower

After French starchitect Jean Nouvel's design for a new 75-story mixed-use skyscraper next to the Museum of Modern Art first exploded onto the scene via a celebratory announcement penned by New York Times archicritic Nicolai Ouroussoff, silence reigned. It's almost as if a nuclear bomb went off at 53 West 53rd Street, and now, months later, the survivors are regrouping. And those survivors aren't necessarily happy about the attack.

The Observer's Eliot Brown reports that a Community Board 5 subcommittee unanimously voted against the air rights transfers last week, with a full board vote to come on Thursday. These votes are essentially meaningless, because it will be the Landmarks Preservation Commission, City Planning Commission and City Council that will ultimately make the call. But dudes, c'mon. "The scale is just totally inappropriate in a low-rise area," argued the vice president of the block association by the site. Um hello, it's Midtown! A world-class architect wants to drop an instant landmark onto 53rd Street, and people fight it. Yeesh, no wonder Dubai has supplanted New York as the skyscraper capital of the world.

Dac150 · #**331** Posted **Mar 12, 2008, 11:06 PM**

This'll add up to nothing, just like the fight for the Hotel Penn. I'm not worried about it. Financial Times, Museum Tower, and the 6th canyon are all right there. They have no argument in regards to height, just a lot of time on thier hands.

NYguy · #**332** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

This'll add up to nothing, just like the fight for the Hotel Penn. I'm not worried about it. Financial Times, Museum Tower, and the 6th canyon are all right there. They have no argument in regards to height, just a lot of time on thier hands.

I'm not worried about it either. But I have had more than my fill of the NIMBYism lately. They've already destroyed the Con Ed development, and are bithcing about the Hudson Yards as we speak, though nothing will come of that either.

Quote:

“The scale is just totally inappropriate in a low-rise area,” said RitaSue Siegel, vice president of a block association by the site.

It would be unfortunate if someone dangled this woman from the roof of the highest nearby tower, and let her see just how "low-rise" the area really is...

antinimby · #**333** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 6:22 AM**

How come a person that have such reservations against height and development get to become vice president of a block association right in the middle of Midtown?

NYguy · #**334** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 12:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

How come a person that have such reservations against height and development get to become vice president of a block association right in the middle of Midtown?

Maybe they're trying to squeeze some sort of concession from the developer, a community room or something. They've been watching as NIMBYs around town have managed to shake down various developers. But that plan would be ill-conceived here. They don't have an argument to stand on.

vaporvr6 · #**335** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 1:25 PM**

I have no patience for this. There are certain developments where I can understand why the NIMBYs would say that a high rise wouldnt fit in, or that the transportation infrastructure couldnt handle the increase in population. This is the heart of NYC. A location for a skyscraper if there ever was one.

By screaming bloody murder for every single development, NIMBYs are wearing out their influence. remember the boy who cried wolf? I have often wondered if some of these people (Midtown NIMBYs) are just constantly upset for having to live in the worlds skyscraper capital. Or maybe this is just a symptom of NYCs corruption.

tdawg · #**336** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 1:26 PM**

There's NOTHING low rise about Midtown. F' 'em! I will personally fight these nimbys if i have to, especially this Rita Sue Siegel.
http://www.ritasue.com/

antinimby · #**337** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 2:03 PM**

^ Attend the upcoming hearings and meetings and speak up. Write letters to Community Board 5, LPC, your City Council representative, City Planning. Write one letter and make copies and send it to all of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

But that plan would be ill-conceived here. They don't have an argument to stand on.

Don't be so sure. This project has to get past Landmarks, City Planning and the City Council. These groups/agencies take what the Community Boards have to say into consideration.

Landmarks have proven to be inept and will yield to NIMBY pressure. We see that.

City Planning is more pro-development but even they will yield just because they want to be viewed as listening to the "public." All the downzoning they are doing all across the city is started by Community Boards. They scaled down Solow's Con Ed.

The City Council. This could be the toughest of them all because they are very pro-community oriented.

I'm very angry that this is happening to this most wonderful of New York's project (I want to see this get built as is more than any other project combined, EVER!) but even I'm not feeling that optimistic right now.

tdawg · #**338** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 4:33 PM**

^^ thanks!

pico44 · #**339** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 4:56 PM**

i"m in, we gotta fight back. Anyone else I can email?

NYguy · #**340** Posted **Mar 13, 2008, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

Don't be so sure. This project has to get past Landmarks, City Planning and the City Council. These groups/agencies take what the Community Boards have to say into consideration.

I'm not concerned. Landmarks has shown they are capable of making a sound judgement when necessary. We know that the NIMBYs wanted to landmark and save the Hotel Pennsylvania, but the LPC correctly shot down that notion.

If the argument against this tower is that it doesn't belong because its in a low-rise area, even the city council won't go along with that farce. Beside, the Museum of Modern Art is not without its allies.

No, I'm not concerned at all. Annoyed, but not concerned.