NEW YORK | 701 7th Ave (20 Times Square Edition) | 517 FT | 39 FLOORS

[RoldanTTLB]

It would be nice if the signage on buildings like this were moved over to something semitransparent that used a scrim of LEDs as the sign. Then you could see the building underneath at times. It would add some interesting depth. It's amazing how much older architecture is still left in TS, but just covered up by opaque signs. I wouldn't want to get rid of any of the signs, mind you, that's the best part. Just maybe their construction could change in some cases.

[nyc7]

Billboards are completely down...

[IMG][/IMG]

also looks like some demo has begun on the right side of the building

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by nyc7

Billboards are completely down...

[IMG][/IMG]

also looks like some demo has begun on the right side of the building

If people are going to tear down an old building of this type in Midtown (not the general row-house or 6-story stock found in more residential areas of Manhattan), I wish they would build something that looks decent or keep the old facade.

Originally Posted by NYguy

That being said, that wedge shape on top looks cool

[nyc7]

Agree, especially in that part of midtown buildings like that are hard to find.
Also, given that this is times square, i expected something better

[NYguy]

Oh please already, buildings like that aren't hard to find in the area. And there was no problem with the thing being mostly hidden and out of site, so you're losing nothing.

[nyc7]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Oh please already, buildings like that aren't hard to find in the area. And there was no problem with the thing being mostly hidden and out of site, so you're losing nothing.

yeah, i don't mind losing a building like that if it is being replaced with something nice. The proposed building, in my opinion, is an eyesore. I would much rather keep what was there than have to look at that thing, especially given its prominent location

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by nyc7

yeah, i don't mind losing a building like that if it is being replaced with something nice. The proposed building, in my opinion, is an eyesore. I would much rather keep what was there than have to look at that thing, especially given its prominent location

You're telling me you would rather keep that eyesore there, which isn't offering anything than have a new tower that will. That's ridiculous.

It's Times square. As much as some of you would rather cling to the past, if Times Square is known for anything, it's change. And change is something that cannot and will not be stopped. We live in an age of air conditioning, and smart phones, and tablets, and if anyone owns a typewriter, it's a collectible. But that's the way it is. New replaces the old.


Meanwhile, the development moves forward (second item)...

A venture between the Witkoff Group, Maefield Development, Infinity Urban Century–and New Valley, an investment unit of Vector Group–completed the $430 million acquisition of a development site at 701 Seventh Avenue in Times Square, where it plans to build a 340,000-square-foot, 36-story, multi-use complex. Times Square Gateway Center, located between Seventh Avenue and 47th Street, will feature retail space, a hotel tower and the nation’s largest single LED screen for Broadway’s iconic lights and advertising.

The joint venture between Maefield Development, Infinity Urban Century, the Witkoff Group and New Valley announced it will spend $170 million to develop the retail complex and another $200 million for the hotel tower.

The $800 million project is expected to be operational within two years and fully complete in three years. An existing eleven-story office building at 701 Seventh Avenue will be partially demolished to make way to the complex. It will feature 130,000 square feet of retail space facing Times Square, a 500-room hotel tower and a 24,000 square-foot LED sign wrapping around its façade at 100 feet of height.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by NYguy

if Times Square is known for anything, it's change.

I have always known it as the shithole of the universe. Glad to see this new project raising the bar

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by NYguy

You're telling me you would rather keep that eyesore

That's your opinion that it is an eyesore. We all know how you hate old, whether or not it looks good or not. You love new. We get that.

Buildings like that can always be cleaned and renovated. You'd be amazed how great it can look once it's spiffied up. These buildings have more character than all the glass boxes put together.

I am not against change per se but change should result in something that is overwhelming better in all facets than what was there before instead of just creating something larger. With this underwhelming box, I cannot say we are.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by antinimby

That's your opinion that it is an eyesore. We all know how you hate old, whether or not it looks good or not. You love new. We get that.

Buildings like that can always be cleaned and renovated. You'd be amazed how great it can look once it's spiffied up. These buildings have more character than all the glass boxes put together.

I am not against change per se but change should result in something that is overwhelming better in all facets than what was there before instead of just creating something larger. With this underwhelming box, I cannot say we are.

Completely agree.

[Perklol]

What's there looks decent but one can find many of those around 30 Park Place or Tribeca. It's not a big blow to the city. Besides it was covered with billboards that hid it from view.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by antinimby

We all know how you hate old, whether or not it looks good or not. You love new. We get that.

You don't know squat, so don't pretend you do.

Buildings like that can always be cleaned and renovated. You'd be amazed how great it can look once it's spiffied up. These buildings have more character than all the glass boxes put together.I.

Again, give me a break. It's a building in Times Square, most of you wouldn't look twice at, even if you were able to see it when it was hidden all of these years.

And for the record, just because something is old doesn't mean it would look great renovated. That's the kneejerk reaction a lot of you have to anything old being taken down, but I'm glad to be around to dispel those myths. Manhattan is covered in older buildings, most of which look a lot better than that piece of crap, and most of which will never be demolished.

So please, spare me any false sense of loss over a building most of you barely knew existed.

[NYC2ATX]

I'd like to make a few points here. I work directly across the square from this building and see it every day. The detailing is no doubt prewar and quite lovely but this is also something that, being New York, we enjoy an abundance of.

The building is falling apart. The pictures don't even get across how dilapidated it is. The windows that used to be behind the billboard are bricked up and the storefronts, formerly housing a Sbarro, a Tad's Steaks and a discount electronics store among others, have had all remnants of historic value removed and are themselves run down. The cost of a restoration that extensive may not be worth the expenditure.

Additionally, you must remember where the building is located. Prewar buildings in 21st-Century New York have an increasingly limited number of viable uses, really only residential and hospitality. No one in their right mind with the cash to drop on a Midtown apartment or condo is going to want to live on this corner, so that's out.

As far as a hotel conversion goes, restoration can actually interfere with the functions of a hotel located in this area. All newer hotels use their lower floors for common areas and conference space, which don't require windows, and therefore allow them to affix the LED signs the square is known for on that blank wall space, and that brings in cash from advertising. This is the most viable building use in Times Square, and most older buildings just can't accommodate that.

Also, I can tell you from experience at my job (in a restaurant attached to another hotel) that the outdoor restaurant/bar area at the top of the podium is going to be a gold mine. I cannot tell you how often I get guests coming in who ask where there's a rooftop bar in the area, and I have little to offer them. It's something missing from the Square that'd be a huge asset.

And before you worry that every historic building in the area is endangered, there are two restoration projects currently in progress, one on 46th and 7th, the I. Miller Building, and the hotel conversion on 42nd Street where the Gap is.

So let this happen. By all accounts it's an improvement.

[NYguy]

What I would like to see people do, instead of all the rhetoric, is go out and get photos of this building as it is. Prove why it's such an architectural "gem". Maybe Landmarks should be involved if its such a travesty.

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

The windows that used to be behind the billboard are bricked up and the storefronts, formerly housing a Sbarro, a Tad's Steaks and a discount electronics store among others, have had all remnants of historic value removed and are themselves run down. The cost of a restoration that extensive may not be worth the expenditure.

Yeah the street-level is definitely gone. I just love seeing old molding like that. How high off the sidewalk is the screen on the new one going to be? I'm curious for my own 'imagine if' purposes. It'd be cool if the old molding crowned the new billboard, with the rooftop bar on top of it. Won't happen though, obviously.

Originally Posted by NYguy

And for the record, just because something is old doesn't mean it would look great renovated. That's the kneejerk reaction a lot of you have to anything old being taken down, I'm glad to be around to dispel those myths.

In two short sentences you conflated and misrepresented our arguments and opinions, stated architectural taste as fact, and made a startlingly arrogant and delusional comment.


This is a website populated by skyscraper nerds. Many of us like to imagine things like 'what if they could keep the facade', 'what if they had gone with the original proposal', and so on. This isn't an invitation for you to ridicule our architectural taste or create a fallacy of false choice.

Originally Posted by NYguy

It's a building in Times Square, most of you wouldn't look twice at, even if you were able to see it when it was hidden all of these years.

One of the first things I did when I got my first decent camera was go to Times Square and take pictures, along with some sweeping videos. I made a point to count the old buildings visible from the little island in the middle, and I did in fact notice this building.

It is/was a short old building in the shadow of giants, with nice molding on top, and light fixtures popping out like insect antennae over a facade almost mummified with billboards. Despite what you tell us we do or should think in our own heads, some of us like it. When someone likes something that you don't like you seem to want to try to pretend they're some kind of nimby demanding that Wall St. be ripped up to build an urban farm.

[nyc7]

Originally Posted by NYguy

What I would like to see people do, instead of all the rhetoric, is go out and get photos of this building as it is. Prove why it's such an architectural "gem". Maybe Landmarks should be involved if its such a travesty.

your missing the point...I'm sure most of us, including myself, don't view the building as a classical architectural gem like the Flatiron.You're putting words in our mouth, no one said the building is a gem that needs to be landmarked. If a great,appealing, and creative design was proposed for the site, I wouldn't think twice about razing the building. But given what is proposed, i think it is a shame that a cool old building that adds a little character to an otherwise modern neighborhood is getting destroyed so a hideous unimaginative box can rise in its place.

[Submariner]

Times square, for better or worse, is one of the fastest evolving parts of Manhattan...the building to be torn down really doesn't fit in with the character (again, for better or worse) of Times Square. Let's face it, a glass tower with an enormous LED screen better jives with the area than an old, dark brick building. If you want new blending well with the old, take a stroll a few blocks over to Bryant Park and admire the BofA tower and the Chrysler building.

The fact is, there are hundreds if not thousands of old, beautiful buildings in the city that deserve to be maintained and preserved but this really isn't one of them. It's not as offensive as some of the truly dull brick garbage in the city, but it's not something special. Besides, it's been mostly covered up for years by billboards so why lament it's departure? The only thing that bugs me is that it's not taller to accommodate more rooms - it could probably achieve 95% occupancy nightly with 1000+. Zoning in this area needs to better reflect demand for space...perhaps in exchange for some architecture regulations (i.e. Gene Kauffman is forbidden from designing any new building - seriously, that should be in the bylaws.)

Times Square may be a tourist trap so the simple solution is not to go there. I prefer Central Park, or Battery city or SoHo or the dozens of other great parts of the city. For those who think Times Square is bad now, I invite you to look 25 or 30 years into it's past when it was a truly wretched s**thole. I'll take the new over the old any day. Now, if they could just gut the subway station there and give us something nice (or at least devoid of the piss smell) that would be great.

(By the way, does anyone have any information on the resurfacing project going on there?)

[sbarn]

I personally am sad to see this building go mainly because it is getting a terrible replacement. If an ornamental classic "old New York" building is going to get torn down, it should at least get a worthy replacement. I don't care where it is located in the City. The proposed building is a video screen with a glass box on top of it. This is Times Square, something more imaginable should be designed.

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

Despite what you tell us we do or should think in our own heads, some of us like it. When someone likes something that you don't like you seem to want to try to pretend they're some kind of nimby demanding that Wall St. be ripped up to build an urban farm.

Here in lies the problem with this forum recently. We should be able to have a reasonable debate on these points without being attacked and dismissed by the moderator.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by sbarn

The proposed building is a video screen with a glass box on top of it.

And with a retarded looking concrete wedge-shaped thingy for a hat.

[nyc7]

Originally Posted by antinimby

And with a retarded looking concrete wedge-shaped thingy for a hat.

true..the top is extremely akward and makes a bad tower look even worse