NEW YORK | 31 W. 57th St | FT | FLOORS

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by M. Incandenza

Architects themselves seem to have the most trouble with this concept...

The thing is, the NIMBYs' greatest weapon is the poor quality of so much contemporary architecture. If so many developers weren't putting up "bland glass boxes" - if, though I know it is hard to imagine it, contemporary designs were actually better than many of the buildings they were replacing - then there wouldn't be such a sense of loss when these old buildings went.

Having said that, however, 57th street is kind of a curious example. 432 Park is awful, but I don't think One57 is a bland glass box, and the Steinway building looks fantastic. Much will be determined by how this site and Nordstrom turn out.

Buildings like Steinway speak to the rich history of New York with its form and materials. If pre-Wars were being replaced with more of these, I agree there would be less uproar among the NIMBYs.

Concrete boxes like 432 Park and even tall and glassy skyscrapers like One57 are a product of architectural indifference to the landscape, history, and people of the city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

We would all feel blessed if it was the 50s-70s era buildings being replaced instead of pre-War gems. I'm not satisfied with an attitude towards architecture of "it could be worse".

Many 50-70's era buildings are being replaced. Those that aren't are huge, same as the prewars.

And I see relatively few "pre-war gems" being replaced, anywhere, citywide.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Many 50-70's era buildings are being replaced. Those that aren't are huge, same as the prewars.

And I see relatively few "pre-war gems" being replaced, anywhere, citywide.

The term "gem" is subjective, however 432 Park, Nordstrom, and One57 all resulted in the destruction of smaller and more attractive pre-War buildings. It's not just skyscrapers that are replacing pre-Wars either. There are many contemporary mid-rise and smaller buildings going up around the city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

The term "gem" is subjective, however 432 Park, Nordstrom, and One57 all resulted in the destruction of smaller and more attractive pre-War buildings. It's not just skyscrapers that are replacing pre-Wars either. There are many contemporary mid-rise and smaller buildings going up around the city.

85% of the city is prewar, so if you want NYC to be anything other than a museum city like Venice, you will see lots of prewars destroyed.

I get that it's subjective, but I think it would be very hard to argue that One57 and Nordstrom replaced "gems". Mostly prewar taxpayer crap, IMO. 432, granted, is very debatable.

But let's wait and see the design for 31 W.57 before complaining. It isn't a question of what's lost (as the city, again, is overwhelmingly prewar), it's a question of what replaces what's lost and whether it's a worthy replacement.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

let's wait and see the design for 31 W.57 before complaining. It isn't a question of what's lost (as the city, again, is overwhelmingly prewar), it's a question of what replaces what's lost and whether it's a worthy replacement.

It's not even that. It's a question of whether the City is allowed to grow and evolve beyond it's current state, or if it's going to be a living museum of sorts, dedicated to remaining stuck in it's past.


http://nypost.com/2013/07/11/freezing-nyc-growth/

An astounding 27.7 percent of all Manhattan buildings fall under Landmarks Preservation Commission rules when so-called “historic districts” are included.....Moreover, says REBNY President Steven Spinola, the number of affected buildings below 110th Street is a much higher 36 percent.

In the West Village and on the Upper West Side, an astounding 70 percent of properties are either landmarks or part of historic districts, REBNY found. Both are among the world’s most desirable neighborhoods, but if it’s near-impossible to put up normal-size new apartment buildings there, it’s hard to blame developers from chasing the high-end market with 80-story towers at sites outside LPC’s purview.

There's only a limited number of these buildings that will go up, as well as a limited number of spaces they can go up.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYGuy

It's not even that. It's a question of whether the City is allowed to grow and evolve beyond it's current state, or if it's going to be a living museum of sorts, dedicated to remaining stuck in it's past.

Originally Posted by Crawford

85% of the city is prewar, so if you want NYC to be anything other than a museum city like Venice, you will see lots of prewars destroyed.

I get that it's subjective, but I think it would be very hard to argue that One57 and Nordstrom replaced "gems". Mostly prewar taxpayer crap, IMO. 432, granted, is very debatable.

But let's wait and see the design for 31 W.57 before complaining. It isn't a question of what's lost (as the city, again, is overwhelmingly prewar), it's a question of what replaces what's lost and whether it's a worthy replacement.

I'm not arguing for embalming the city or skyline. I don't support the crystallization of the city either for the sake of height. As you say at the end of your post, it's an argument for replacing what is lost with a worthy replacement.

I won't hold an opinion on these three doomed "gems" until we see a rendering of the new building. However, if beautiful beaux art and deco buildings are destroyed, I'd like to see a replacement of similar materials and some ornamentation. Anything less is architectural indifference to the city and its history, similar to the 50s-70s era.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

However, if beautiful beaux art and deco buildings are destroyed, I'd like to see a replacement of similar materials and some ornamentation. Anything less is architectural indifference to the city and its history, similar to the 50s-70s era.

An indirect message to 220 and 30 Park Place?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

I'm not arguing for embalming the city or skyline. I don't support the crystallization of the city either for the sake of height. As you say at the end of your post, it's an argument for replacing what is lost with a worthy replacement.

I won't hold an opinion on these three doomed "gems" until we see a rendering of the new building. However, if beautiful beaux art and deco buildings are destroyed, I'd like to see a replacement of similar materials and some ornamentation. Anything less is architectural indifference to the city and its history, similar to the 50s-70s era.

Well, that's just the point. You don't get to decide if a replacement is worthy judged on your taste. Either a development is allowed to move forward, or its isn't. Either the City is allowed to grow and change, or it isn't. It's that simple really. We don't get involved in whether or not this or that is better looking than this or that, because opinions are subjective. Times change, streets change. Entire neighborhoods change. 57th Street is now a place where very tall, very slender residential skyscrapers are sprouting up. That's what it is in 2014. If this were 1914, we would see very different building here. But unfortunately for some, we don't live in 1914.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well, that's just the point. You don't get to decide if a replacement is worthy judged on your taste. Either a development is allowed to move forward, or its isn't. Either the City is allowed to grow and change, or it isn't. It's that simple really. We don't get involved in whether or not this or that is better looking than this or that, because opinions are subjective. Times change, streets change. Entire neighborhoods change. 57th Street is now a place where very tall, very slender residential skyscrapers are sprouting up. That's what it is in 2014. If this were 1914, we would see very different building here. But unfortunately for some, we don't live in 1914.

I disagree. While I ultimately don't decide on the replacement building, I certainly decide if the replacement was a worthy replacement. I am not debating the subjective nature of "worthy," simply stating my requirements.

If your requirement for "worthy" is "architecture that represents the present" then you won't have any issues with new buildings ad nauseam.

Madison Square Garden was built at a time when train travel was dying and New York needed a new stadium. The residents of New York didn't get to decide on the replacement, but most residents and critics alike, both then and now, decided it wasn't a "worthy" replacement. That being said, it represented the architecture and circumstances of the time.

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

An indirect message to 220 and 30 Park Place?

We need to see new renderings of 220 before judging. It's a completely different building based on the massing diagram and rendering posted on site.

30 Park Place replaced a nice limestone structure devoid of details (with the exception of Credit). However, like its predecessor it uses limestone and has an ornamental crown. I am not a fan of the base, but the tower itself is a "worthy" replacement in my eyes.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

I disagree. While I ultimately don't decide on the replacement building, I certainly decide if the replacement was a worthy replacement. I am not debating the subjective nature of "worthy," simply stating my requirements.

Well, I'm sure you do, but as a society, we don't. What gets built is determined by zoning, that's why we have it. We don't get bogged down in individual taste, because not everyone will share the same feelings.

If your requirement for "worthy" is "architecture that represents the present" then you won't have any issues with new buildings ad nauseam.

I never said anything about what I deem "worthy". There's a whole lot of crap being built, in New York and everywhere else. What I am telling you is that the reason things are built at all is because the city is not stagnant. It is not a museum dedicated to things of the past. You may not like everything that gets built, as I don't. But you well better appreciate the fact that they can be built. Because the day when you can't build in New York is the day the city is dead.

Madison Square Garden was built at a time when train travel was dying and New York needed a new stadium. The residents of New York didn't get to decide on the replacement, but most residents and critics alike, both then and now, decided it wasn't a "worthy" replacement. That being said, it represented the architecture and circumstances of the time.

Doesn't have anything to do with anything, but you're basically saying if Madison Square Garden were a "masterpiece", you would have no problem with it being built. So you're basically saying what I'm saying - things can be replaced - only you feel that you should be the judge and jury over what is acceptable as a replacement. That's not how it works. That's not how New York evolved into the dynamic city that it is today. In an ideal world, we would love everything. But guess what...

[NYguy]

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/05/...tore-approved/

New chapter as demolition of Rizzoli Bookstore approved
West 57th Street store attracted last-minute preservation efforts

May 14, 2014
By Zachary Kussin

Call it a new chapter. Plans to fully demolish the Rizzoli Bookstore, which shuttered in April despite last-minute preservation efforts, and an adjacent building were filed and approved on Wednesday, according to Department of Buildings records.

The LeFrak family and Vornado Realty Trust, which own the six-story building that Rizzoli formerly anchored at 31 West 57th Street, had filed plans to demolish the property along with two adjacent ones, as previously reported. The pair plan to construct a high-rise condominium at the site, according to previous reports.

Today’s plans also included the demolition for building number 33.

Rizzoli’s fate caught the attention of Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who wrote the city Landmarks Preservation Commission in March, urging them to hold a public hearing considering the landmarking of the site’s interior and exterior. Such a move would have saved the building from demolition. Brewer’s office also filed a request to give the building landmark status. The LPC, however, denied the bid.

“It is important to note that if a building or interior is landmarked, the Commission does not regulate use,” a commission spokesperson told DNAinfo in April. “Therefore, a business — like a bookstore — can relocate at any time based on their specific lease agreements.”

A representative for Vornado had no immediate comment. LeFrak did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. A spokesperson for the Landmarks Preservation Commission could not did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rizzoli anchored the 109-year-old property for 29 years.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

I'm not arguing for embalming the city or skyline. I don't support the crystallization of the city either for the sake of height. As you say at the end of your post, it's an argument for replacing what is lost with a worthy replacement.

I won't hold an opinion on these three doomed "gems" until we see a rendering of the new building. However, if beautiful beaux art and deco buildings are destroyed, I'd like to see a replacement of similar materials and some ornamentation. Anything less is architectural indifference to the city and its history, similar to the 50s-70s era.

These three have zero architectural significance and they just barely have historical significance. Meaning they aren't really interesting except in that they are pretty old.

So it doesn't bother me replacing these especially since this site is pretty much guaranteed to have a building with great design and materials built on it because high priced condos sell in part due to great design. All of these supertalls on 57th are beautiful with maybe the exception of the Nordstrom tower which hasn't released a final design yet. 432 park is beautiful minimalism. 111 w 57th is going to be an instant classic with the terracotta and bronze. 220 cps is gonna be limestone jesus 2.0. The worst of the bunch IMO is the flashy One57 and it's still beautiful.

[NYguy]

http://daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.co...o-11-west.html

[ILNY]

[Michael12374]

Im all pro building..... but really? This building? It doesn't really matter to me if it has any great history behind it, it is still a very good looking classic building that should remain in NYC. Even the interior of the building looks amazing. This ones a tragedy. If they dont put something more the 1300 ft here im gonna be very dissapointed

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Michael12374

Even the interior of the building looks amazing. This ones a tragedy.

The interior of the building dated from the 1980's. It wasn't the original design.

[NYguy]

I want to see how well whatever is designed here works with the Solow...



June 1, 2014

[JayPro]

I've always loved 9 West (I refuse to call it Solow)'s east/west views; and it saddens me a bit to see the Jersey side losing that...unless they somehow go "Steinway/111-esque" and build ridiculously slender.
Whatever gets built on this parcel, though, it should certainly rise above the 689' that 9 West proudly boasts. And--as NYGuy observed--while the structure-to-be should strive to complement 9's simplistically beautiful modernism, it IMO will not be as easy to do. The present day scraper/supertall (st)architect's tendency to avoid restraint at all costs when the prevailing circumstances demand just that will just get in the way.

[rlw777]

Demolition Update from Curbed

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

I hope we can get some figures for this possible supertall soon

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Demolition Update from Curbed

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

How sad...