NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS

[NYguy]

It's hard to get a clear grasp of exactly where this will rank among the city's tallest, but it will at least be the second or third tallest office building as far as we know. (We still don't know where Tishman's "spire" site stands).

Another comparison with the current tallest...

[hunser]

Wow that's a nice surprise, another 1,400 footer coming to New York. As other have said, the top needs some refinement. But I quite like the overall design.

[TechTalkGuy]

Certain buildings look plain (and some look downright boring).
New York Times Tower was blah, 432 Park Ave looks outstanding and now 1 Vanderbilt will be judged when it's all done.

I love the height and the architectural style.
We have another winner here as far as I'm concerned!

[NYguy]

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/86802

Kohn Pedersen Fox Sprouting Glass Superlatives Around New York City





June 23, 2014
Henry Melcher

Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF) is racking up an impressive collection of superlatives with a host of new glass towers in New York City. Of course there is Hudson Yards where a glossy KPF-designed building will become the tallest tower at the country’s largest private development site, but that is just the start of it.

In April, renderings appeared for the firm’s 60-story, cantilevering glass tower in Gramercy. The structure, which has a multi-story masonry facade, reaches 777 feet, making it the tallest residential building between Midtown and Downtown. Unsurprisingly, 41 East 22nd Street is going condo.

Moving right along to 101 Tribeca, another all-glass condo building. This tower, which houses 129 units, rises from a more narrow base and then curves its way up to a pinnacle at 950 feet. At that height, 101 becomes the tallest residential building in Lower Manhattan…for now.

As KPF’s 30 Hudson Yards rises to 1,227 feet and its more modest sibling, 10 Hudson Yards, climbs to a respectable 895, new renderings surfaced for 55 Hudson Yards. This tower, designed by KPF and Kevin Roche, is still glassy, but slightly less so thanks to a metallic grid that frames its 900 feet. According to the developer, Related, the 1.3-million-square-foot structure is inspired by early modernism and Soho commercial buildings.

And then there is One Vanderbilt in Midtown. This glass giant reaches a pinnacle at 1,450 feet making it the second tallest tower in New York. But why stop there? If One Vandy gets approved to go just one foot higher it gains yet another superlative—topping Chicago‘s Willis Tower. And that, folks, makes it the second tallest tower in the Western Hemisphere.

While not officially approved, the building has already become the glossy symbol of Midtown East Rezoning—a plan to upzone the area around Grand Central Terminal. That proposal died under Mayor Bloomberg, but has found new life under his successor. If the controversial rezoning ultimately does move forward, it likely won’t take effect until 2016. Fear not One Vanderbilt, the city is expected to give this 1.6-million-square-foot tower a special permit to kick things off ahead of schedule.

[Hudson11]

I would not be surprised if they squeeze out two more feet. If that's the case, NYC will once again have the country's tallest downtown and second tallest in midtown... by spires, but its still cool to think about.

[TechTalkGuy]

Gotta love this tower!

[Michael12374]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

Gotta love this tower!

bumping the thread again?

[chris08876]

New Details For One Vanderbilt, Midtown's New Supertall Tower

More details have emerged about the Kohn Pedersen Fox-designed, SL Green-developed One Vanderbilt. The 1,350-foot tower, which will rival in height the 1,379-foot-tall 432 Park Avenue and the 1,350-foot-tall 111 57th Street, will have what a KPF principal described to DNAinfo as an extra transparent facade—of the Fifth Avenue Apple cube variety—with diagonal stripes of double-glazed terra cotta. According to the KPF principal, the tower's materials aim to "unbury" views to a currently obstructed corner of neighboring Grand Central Terminal. The design came before Community Board 5 on July 1 to mixed reviews. One board member brushed off the haters noting that Grand Central Terminal and the Chrysler Building were "extraordinary and revolutionary" for their time, DNAinfo says.

Despite the tower's show-stopping size, SL Green is in talks with the City Planning Commission to increase the building's floor-area ratio from 216,000-square-feet to 300,000-square-feet. If City Planning concedes, SL Green will sweeten the pot by including subway access points, commuter rail access points, an interior public room and a public plaza on Vanderbilt Avenue says DNAinfo. Even if City Planning gives the nod, the proposal still has to pass through the city's uniform land form use review process. So while word on whether or not the developer will be permitted to build bigger is still far off, the building will definitely have a 6,000-square-foot ground floor public room that will include space for art on display, indoor greenery and a waiting area, and a third floor amenity space and terrace that can be used as a dining room or training room.

====================================
July 7, 2014
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...tall_tower.php

[gramsjdg]

What do they mean by floor area ratio?

If approved, maybe this could be pushed up to a ~1450 ft roof height and ~1600 with spire?

[chris08876]

^^^

I think in terms of the design. A new "FAR" could make it bulkier. As it tends to reduce in floor size as it goes up, I'm assuming that it will become bulkier floor wise from the base all the way to the top and taper off as it goes higher. It essentially would become fatter as a result and add a greater amount of floor space or square footage.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

What do they mean by floor area ratio?

If approved, maybe this could be pushed up to a ~1450 ft roof height and ~1600 with spire?

The increase in FAR is what will make the building possible because the entire area was downzoned back in the 60's I believe. It's the reason the midtown east rezoning is necessary.



http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2014...sfp=3160509449

67-Story Tower Will 'Unbury' Views of Grand Central, Architect Says


By Heather Holland
July 7, 2014

...The tower — which is expected to rise 1,300 feet, not including its 75-foot spire — will mostly be made of a low-iron super clear glass, similar to what was used for the Fifth Avenue Apple cube, Klemperer said.

It will be broken up by diagonal stripes in a champagne color, designed to recall the train station across the street.

“To reference the typical masonry walls seen in Grand Central Terminal, we’ll have diagonal shapes of terracotta that’s been double-glazed to have a fine lustrous look to the surface,” said Klemperer. “The warm orange, bronze materials make it a modern inheritor of the existing terminal.”

The facade will also feature a narrow strip of live plants running diagonally from the first to second floor, Klemperer said.

The design got mixed reviews when Klemperer presented it to Community Board 5’s landmarks committee on July 1, though the committee ultimately voted to approve the design.

Committee member Renee Cafaro said the building was too busy and distracted attention away from the rest of neighborhood.

“This is a textbook example of unharmonious,” Cafaro said. “To say that some terracotta stripes make it comparable to the contextual architecture of Grand Central Terminal is a slap in the face.

“I don’t see how it’s hearkening to anything around it. It’s just distracting.”

But the majority of members, including John B. Harris Jr., said the design of the building would improve the area.

“The city must remain relevant,” said Harris. “If you study the history of Grand Central Terminal or the Chrysler Building, they were extraordinary and revolutionary for their time. This is a significant improvement.

“The biggest question is, 'If not this, then what?'”

Other design features include an amenity space and a terrace on the third floor overlooking Grand Central that could be used for dining or a training room, Klemperer said.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

What do they mean by floor area ratio?

If approved, maybe this could be pushed up to a ~1450 ft roof height and ~1600 with spire?

Your guess is as good as mine. Floor area ratio (FAR) is not the term they were looking for here.

Are they referring to bonus floor area bumping up from 216,000 SF to 300,000 SF? Is that from the rezoning or coming from somewhere else? Otherwise I can't think of what they were talking about.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by gttx

Your guess is as good as mine. Floor area ratio (FAR) is not the term they were looking for here.

Are they referring to bonus floor area bumping up from 216,000 SF to 300,000 SF? Is that from the rezoning or coming from somewhere else? Otherwise I can't think of what they were talking about.

That wasn't stated correctly. Under Bloomberg's plan, the bonus FAR for this site equaled about 390,000 sf.

I do believe the current FAR to be around 18 (less than it was when most of these towers were built). Under the rezoning, the FAR would jump to 24-30. (It was to be 21.6 outside the core area). How they get to the 30 is what's in question. Under Bloomberg's plan, they were going to pay to get the FAR up that high, and pass a design review for the special permit to achieve 30.

[NYguy]

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...sfp=3160509449

‘Critical conversation’ on Midtown East to start soon


By Dana Rubinstein
Jul. 9, 2014

The Midtown East planning process is starting again.

On Wednesday, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and Councilman Dan Garodnick, who represents the area, unveiled the make-up of the East Midtown Steering Committee, a panel created at the behest of Mayor Bill de Blasio to help guide the city's second attempt at rezoning the business district anchored by Grand Central Terminal.

“The East Midtown Steering Committee, under the leadership of Borough President Brewer and Council Member Dan Garodnick, will bring together key stakeholders to advance a critical conversation on the future of East Midtown, ensuring that the multiple interests of this complex community are included in the formation of recommendations for zoning and other actions, including coordinating new development with appropriate infrastructure and city services,” said City Planning chair Carl Weisbrod, in a statement.

The committee will start holding meetings in September, and intends to deliver its final recommendations to City Planning by next spring. The rezoning will then have to go through the city's lengthy public review process which means that it might not be complete until early 2016.

...De Blasio divided the rezoning process into two parts. The first part, the expedited version, will center on Vanderbilt Avenue and allow SL Green to move forward with its skyscraper in exchange for transit improvements.

As far as the rest of the district is concerned, that will take a good while longer, as the panel announced today reviews what the release described as "a wide range of topics, including the need for updated commercial building stock in East Midtown, the appropriate density for the area, historic preservation, transit and other infrastructure priorities, and environmental concerns."

It will include a representative from Community Boards 5 and 6, the East Midtown Multi-Board Task Force, the Municipal Art Society, the Landmarks Conservancy and Historic Districts Council, the Regional Plan Association, the Real Estate Board of New York, and the Grand Central and East Midtown partnerships.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/07/...ittee-details/

Pols reveal Midtown East steering committee details
Panel will address "wide range of topics" related to rezoning business district





July 09, 2014

On Wednesday politicians gave the city’s developers a better idea about who will devise recommendations meant to pave the way for the rezoning of Midtown East.

Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and City Council Member Daniel Garodnick, who represents the area, revealed the organizations that will contribute members to the Midtown East Steering Committee. The committee will begin meeting in September to discuss a plan that would allow for greater building density to accommodate more office and commercial space, Capital New York reported. It would present final recommendations to the City Planning Department next spring.

The de Blasio administration has already put forward a plan to rezone a five-block area near Grand Central Terminal that would allow SL Green’s 1 Vanderbilt tower to move forward. The steering committee will put together recommendations on building density, historic preservation and transit and infrastructure improvements for a larger, roughly 70-block area the city wants to rezone. The full rezoning process could last through 2016.

[chris08876]

Grand Central owner faults plan for tower next door

The owners of Grand Central Terminal testified at a City Planning hearing Wednesday against SL Green's city-backed proposal to build a 1.6 million-square-foot office building next door to the world famous transit hub.

Paul Selver, a lawyer representing Midtown Trackage Ventures (a subsidiary of obscure investment firm Argent Ventures, which owns Grand Central), testified at a public scoping meeting Wednesday afternoon that 1 Vanderbilt, the 65-story office building SL Green plans to build on Vanderbilt Avenue between East 42nd and 43rd streets, is "fundamentally and fatally flawed." A copy of Mr. Selver's testimony was provided to Crain's.

The building represents the first phase of the massive midtown east rezoning project that the de Blasio administration recently revived after elected officials and community groups killed the previous proposal under Mayor Michael Bloomberg in late 2013.

The opposition is nothing new. Andrew Penson, head of Argent Ventures, opposed the Bloomberg rezoning on the basis that the administration was undervaluing air rights, and now appears to pushing to alter the new de Blasio proposal on the same grounds.

Mr. Penson believes the city is trying to rush 1 Vanderbilt through the planning process to appease real estate interests that are eager to snap up development rights for a new generation of bigger, smarter office towers that would be allowed after the rezoning is completed. In his testimony at the city planning hearing Wednesday, Mr. Penson's lawyer argued that the bonus that is being given to SL Green for 1 Vanderbilt would challenge Grand Central Terminal's ability to sell its own air rights under the rezoning.

"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."

He also cast suspicion over both SL Green's promise to fund transit improvements in the area and its reported deal with TD Bank to act as the building's anchor tenant, arguing that neither are binding arrangements.

"The bottom line is that this proposal makes no sense," Mr. Selver said.

In a statement to Crain's, SL Green defended the project and highlighted its diverse array of support.

"We are proud to have broad stakeholder support from important city advocacy groups like MAS, NYPIRG Straphangers, 32BJ, ABNY, the Grand Central Partnership and REBNY," said Robert Schiffer, managing director of SL Green. "We look forward to continuing an open, receptive dialogue as we create a world-class office tower with $200 million in transit and public realm improvements.”

A number of other groups testified at the City Planning hearing in favor of 1 Vanderbilt. They included the Real Estate Board of New York, NYPIRG, the Grand Central Partnership and the Municipal Arts Society, which had a hand in scuttling the Bloomberg plan. In its testimony Wednesday, an MAS representative praised "the gestures the designers have taken to acknowledge One Vanderbilt’s important position adjacent to Grand Central."

A spokeswoman for the Department of City Planning noted the bonus for SL Green would not preclude the ability of Mr. Penson to sell his air rights.

"This ability would not just be preserved, but expanded under the proposed framework," she argued.

=====================================
Andrew J. Hawkins
July 17, 2014
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...ower-next-door

[Crawford]

The complaining adjacent property owner in the above article owns all the air rights to Grand Central. So of course they are going to be against this tower, and the rezoning, because it devalues their air rights (because landowners aren't forced to go to them for development rights).

Anyways, we already knew this. They have been complaining about this since Day 1. Tough luck. You aren't going to be able to keep your monopoly.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The complaining adjacent property owner in the above article owns all the air rights to Grand Central. So of course they are going to be against this tower, and the rezoning, because it devalues their air rights (because landowners aren't forced to go to them for development rights).

Anyways, we already knew this. They have been complaining about this since Day 1. Tough luck. You aren't going to be able to keep your monopoly.

Yeah, he was complaining about it when Bloomberg was pushing it through. But its's just more noise, nothing else.

Mr. Penson believes the city is trying to rush 1 Vanderbilt through the planning process to appease real estate interests that are eager to snap up development rights for a new generation of bigger, smarter office towers that would be allowed after the rezoning is completed. In his testimony at the city planning hearing Wednesday, Mr. Penson's lawyer argued that the bonus that is being given to SL Green for 1 Vanderbilt would challenge Grand Central Terminal's ability to sell its own air rights under the rezoning.

That's ridiculous.

[Onn]

It's almost like Mr. Penson is speaking about a whole different era in the buying and selling of New York City's development rights. Does anyone honestly think the city and the developers are going to stop this entire process for HIS purposes.

[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!

[NYguy]

This saga reminds me of the Travelstead follies...


http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/06/ny...air-space.html

A Battle Looms Over Grand Central's Air Space

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
July 6, 1989


What may become one of the most critical land-use battles of the 1990's began yesterday when the New York City Planning Commission heard a proposal to transfer development rights from Grand Central Terminal to a site several blocks away, where they would be used to build one of the largest skyscrapers in Manhattan.

Sometimes angry and contentious, representatives of the developer and of the Penn Central Corporation, which owns the terminal and its air rights, said a ''constitutional problem of grave dimension'' might result if they were frustrated in their plans.

They also said that a rejection of their proposal might reopen the whole question of Grand Central's landmark status, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 1978 when Penn Central was rebuffed in its effort to build a 53-story tower directly over the terminal building.

A key point is that the transfer of development rights would have to take place along an unbroken chain of lots in common ownership between the railroad terminal at Park Avenue and 42d Street and the development site at 383 Madison Avenue, between 46th and 47th Streets. 'Can't Build Anywhere Else'

Penn Central asserts that the chain exists below the surface of the streets and sidewalks, where it owns a series of lots from the landmark to the skyscraper site.

But city planners are skeptical. ''In the view of staff, proof of the requisite chain has not been established or documented,'' said Debra Silberstein, supervising attorney in the City Planning Department. ''Consequently, we doubt if the application qualifies.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/15/bu...ir-rights.html

Plan to Ease The Transfer Of Air Rights

By David W. Dunlap
November 15, 1989


THE New York City Planning Department has proposed to expand the area in mid-Manhattan to which unused development rights from Grand Central Terminal could be transferred for future building projects.

The proposal comes at a time of considerable dispute involving a proposed 74-story tower at 383 Madison Avenue, whose developers sought to transfer air rights by contending that the necessary chain of ownership existed in the subsurface lots between the terminal and their site. The City Planning Commission turned them down in August, and they are now suing the city.

Instead of relying on ownership patterns, the planners' proposal for the Grand Central area would spread eligibility to receive air rights along the lines of the existing or potential pedestrian network, at street level and underground, connecting 21 buildings to the terminal.

''That goes a long way toward mitigating the effects of new development,'' said Robert E. Flahive, director of the department's Manhattan office.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/02/re...on-avenue.html

Grand Central's Air Rights; M.T.A. Assembles a Madison Avenue Receiving Site

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
September 2, 1990


Somewhere in the air over Grand Central Terminal - floating like an invisible, enormous, amorphous and very valuable mass - are somewhere between 1.6 million and 1.9 million square feet of unused development rights. Just where these rights can descend to earth has been a matter of the most critical civic controversy since the late 1960's.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority said last week that it has an interest in seeing to it that the development rights are utilized so that it can take over the terminal and begin a $400 million master plan for its renovation. The authority has already prepared a possible receiving site for a small chunk of those air rights by assembling the whole Madison Avenue blockfront between 44th and 45th Streets.

In a stronger market, the 22,595-square-foot parcel comprising Nos. 341, 345 and 347 Madison Avenue might be a most attractive development locale.

Since 1979, the M.T.A. has owned and had its headquarters in the former Equitable Trust Building at No. 347, a 20-story structure with 187,000 square feet of space. Now, it owns 345 Madison Avenue, a 15-story building with 81,250 square feet, which it bought for $23.7 million from an equity fund managed by Trammell Crow Realty Advisers of Dallas.

And it also owns 341 Madison, a 19-story building with 46,250 square feet, which it bought for $12.2 million from the Vector Real Estate Corporation of Manhattan. Five floors at No. 345 are to be used for offices of the authority that are now at 11 West 42d Street. Also, the Metro-North Commuter Railroad will move offices from the terminal into the newly acquired buildings.

''This is no net expansion,'' said Frederick S. Harris, director of real estate at the authority. ''It's not like the M.T.A. is growing. We're reshuffling. When all is said and done, the idea was to utilize our own space and to make sure that we weren't forced to renew these outside leases.''

''For the medium term,'' Mr. Harris said, ''we can hold these buildings. They are no real drain on our resources. And in the long term, we have put something together that would be very valuable as an assemblage.''

The MTA site is now one of those sites De Blasio is expediting before the full Midtown East rezoning kicks off.



http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Air+ri...ew.-a015246515

Air rights case headed for Supreme Ct. review.


After a tortuous legal process that began nearly 20 years ago, the contractual owner of over a million square feet of air rights from Grand Central terminal may yet get his day in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In fact, the case arose because the Beaux-Arts Terminal itself was designated a landmark by the City of New York. The decision to uphold the landmarking of the Terminal and not permit a 53-story tower to be built above it was affirmed by that very court in July of 1978, leading to the current legal battle.

In making its landmark designation, the city allowed transferable development rights (TDRs) that could be sold to adjacent landowners to help defray maintenance costs, but Penn Central contested the scheme as not being good enough, saying the landmark designation amounted to a "taking" of the property.

The Supreme Court decision in Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. City of New York upheld the city's landmarks law, with the majority insisting the landmarking and denial of permission to build a tower wasn't a taking because the city provided a way to transfer development rights and did not impede existing uses or prevent a reasonable return on investment. That ruling carried far reaching implications for municipalities and developers across the country.

The current TDR contract vendee, G. Ware Travelstead, said that in his dissent at that time, then Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist predicted the matter would find its way back to the Supreme Court in the future because cities have a way of foiling promises. Justice Rehnquist is now the Chief Justice and his dissent was joined by then Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. It was a portion of these TDRs - sometimes referred to as air rights - that Travelstead contracted to purchase in 1986 from Penn Central in order to transfer them to the nearby 383 Madison Avenue, which he wanted to raze and replace with a 74-story tower. New York's City Planning Commission ruled against the transfer on several grounds.

Travel stead appealed the City Planning ruling, which said the Terminal could not use the underground railroad tracks as its nexus to transfer 787,335 square feet of development rights. Planning argued that during the bankruptcy period of the railroad, when adjoining parcels including the Yale Club and the Roosevelt Hotel site were sold, while the Terminal had retained the subsurface rights, it wasn't sufficient to meet a requirement for a chain of tax lots under common ownership. That chain was broken.

"That's why we're in court," Travelstead said. "That's part of the $410 million lawsuit." At the time he contracted for the TDRs, the price was to be determined by an escalating contract beginning at $44 million and rising to "much more than that now," according to a Penn Central official. Travelstead declined to comment on the price. In the intervening years, since Travelstead began the appeals process through the court system, the City Planning Commission created a special district, effectively enlarging the number of buildings to 21 to which air rights could be transferred by a variety of special permits.

According to legal documents provided by Waters, the Travelstead building would have been a 33.1 FAR, 74-story, 1,029-foot high office building with 1.437 million square feet of space, and would replace the existing 13-story office building.