NEW YORK | 660 5th Ave Redevelopment | 483 FT | 39 FLOORS - Page 3

NYguy · #41 Posted **Mar 23, 2020, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visionist

If only Nordstrom had attached themselves to this site instead. Would be a better location for them anyway.

Barnett might have built his original crystalline design on the park in that case. A win-win. I think it had a hotel instead of a store.

Barnett does have a large site on Fifth Ave in development, just a few blocks from here. But the CPT location is the superior site for the condo tower he was developing. Also, keep in mind that Nordstrom was brought in later down the line for that project. It wasn’t conceived with a Nordstrom in mind.

Visionist · #42 Posted **Mar 24, 2020, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I have no idea what this means. CPT isn't on the park, the tower was designed around Nordstrom, there was no "original crystalline design" and a hotel wouldn't (and couldn't) have taken the retail base.

There were no renders but a load of diagrams showing all levels and a model was made as well. Barnett is seen fondling it in one famous picture.

It was 1550' without a spire.

JMKeynes · #43 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 1:10 PM**

I wonder if the desire to have office space compatible with the post-Covid world will prompt Brookfield to reassess the reasonableness of putting lipstick on a 1950s pig which was designed for another era.

NYguy · #44 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 1:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I wonder if the desire to have office space compatible with the post-Covid world will prompt Brookfield to reassess the reasonableness of putting lipstick on a 1950s pig
which was designed for another era.

Doubtful. If you look at it, they're gonna say they're building just for that. This is a site that should accommodate a much larger office building, but that's not gonna happen.

JMKeynes · #45 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 1:48 PM**

I doubt it too. I can’t bear the thought of one of the most prime sites in the world being mishandled so recklessly. For Brookfield, it’s apparently all about the shekels.

Busy Bee · #46 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 4:01 PM**

^Antisemitic dog whistle much??

Crawford · #47 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 4:07 PM**

They need to knock down this POS, and redevelop, as originally intended. Absurd use of ultra-prime land.

JMKeynes · #48 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Antisemitic dog whistle much??

Huh?

Busy Bee · #49 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 4:59 PM**

^Yeah, because "it’s... all about the shekels" is something people casually say. I'm sure you weren't insinuating anything. If you genuinely were not, take this as a warning that language like that could be easily misinterpreted - to say the least.

JMKeynes · #50 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Yeah, because "it’s... all about the shekels" is something people casually say. I'm sure you weren't insinuating anything. If you genuinely were not, take this as a warning that language like that could be easily misinterpreted - to say the least.

It shouldn't be. Shekels is part of the NYC lexicon.

chris08876 · #51 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

It shouldn't be. Shekels is part of the NYC lexicon.

Credit: Getty

JMKeynes · #52 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 6:29 PM**

Exactly.

It's meshugana to think otherwise.

JSsocal · #53 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 6:38 PM**

Just to clarify for people, the last redevelopment proposal didn't change the fact that this site is underzoned for what it could be. This could be a Hudson yards style office building. Remember cool skinny residential buildings can be built almost anywhere, but its rare to have a deep full block midtown site like this.

The Zaha proposal might have been a new building with high ceilings, but it was lipstick on a zoning pig.

NYguy · #54 Posted **Jun 9, 2020, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Just to clarify for people, the last redevelopment proposal didn't change the fact that this site is underzoned for what it could be. This could be a Hudson yards style office building. Remember cool skinny residential buildings can be built almost anywhere, but its rare to have a deep full block midtown site like this.

The Zaha proposal might have been a new building with high ceilings, but it was lipstick on a zoning pig.

That’s what I’m saying. They could at least add an extra 1 msf to the site, making it comparible to the new large towers going up in the Hudson Yards. But it sits outside the midtown east rezoning area. I have no doubt this building would be coming down otherwise. That 1,400 ft residential tower proposal was just a remassing of the existing space.