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

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

Most of those non landmarks aren't that great looking. Would you rather New York be a city of the future or an art deco museum.

It's not either or. There are tons of shorter, ugly, squarish buildings from the 60s and 70s in midtown that would make better victims than these oldies.

I'm not saying we should keep every building that was built before 1940, but it would be nice if we tried to avoid tearing a lot of them down. Even though a lot of these buildings aren't treasures, their combined effect on the street wall throughout Manhattan is fantastic.

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'd be sad to see Midtown die because of some misguided preservation attempt. Let us not forget that even the older buildings weren't always there, and had preservation held sway even a hundred years ago, there would be no Midtown as we know it. This site in particular, next to one of the busiest transportation hubs, needs to be utilized to the fullest. It currently is not. New York is an actual functioning city, not a living postcard for us to look at and remember the good old days. So, the issue of keeping the core commercial district open for the needs of today's (as well as the future's) business must be addressed.

As I said above, it's not either or. Plenty of other cities go to much further lengths to preserve older buildings. We're talking about a handful of buildings, meanwhile there are tons of short ugly boxes in the area. I don't need a lecture on the cost of demolishing the bland boxes vs the older buildings, or why the older buildings are targeted more. I like that you can walk through most areas of midtown, and on nearly every block there's at least one pre-war building, and I'd like to keep as much of that as is reasonable.

We've had this argument before. The last time you posted a picture of Hells Kitchen on the border of Midtown (but not actually within the CBD) along with a smarmy comment. Preserving half of the buildings (or at least their facades) listed on that map will not turn Midtown in to a museum. You and I both know that.

[giantSwan]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

It's not either or. There are tons of shorter, ugly, squarish buildings from the 60s and 70s in midtown that would make better victims than these oldies.

I'm not saying we should keep every building that was built before 1940, but it would be nice if we tried to avoid tearing a lot of them down. Even though a lot of these buildings aren't treasures, their combined effect on the street wall throughout Manhattan is fantastic.



As I said above, it's not either or. Plenty of other cities go to much further lengths to preserve older buildings. We're talking about a handful of buildings, meanwhile there are tons of short ugly boxes in the area. I don't need a lecture on the cost of demolishing the bland boxes vs the older buildings, or why the older buildings are targeted more. I like that you can walk through most areas of midtown, and on nearly every block there's at least one pre-war building, and I'd like to keep as much of that as is reasonable.

We've had this argument before. The last time you posted a picture of Hells Kitchen on the border of Midtown (but not actually within the CBD) along with a smarmy comment. Preserving half of the buildings (or at least their facades) listed on that map will not turn Midtown in to a museum. You and I both know that.

This kind of balanced approach makes the most sense to me. Midtown needs to continue to innovate and push boundaries, but we absolutely do not want to destroy the greatest business district in the world either. Well put.

[sbarn]

Landmarking a few notable prewar buildings by no means would turn Midtown into a museum. Some iconic towers from the 20s and 30s should absolutely be preserved if a rezoning is approved. There are plenty of other non-descript buildings in Midtown that would make great redevelopment sites.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sbarn

Landmarking a few notable prewar buildings by no means would turn Midtown into a museum.

But the issue is that we've already landmarked a ton of prewar Midtown buildings, both notable and not-so-notable. There are already many parts of Manhattan that have been "museum-ified" by too much landmarking, and unless we upzone, the same thing will happen with this part of Midtown.

Most of the buildings mentioned by the Landmarks advocacy group aren't going to be demolished, anyways. Generally, buildings with maxed-out zoning won't be demolished.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

Most of those non landmarks aren't that great looking. Would you rather New York be a city of the future or an art deco museum.

Would people stop copy and pasting this comment? There's at least 3 dozen people that have posted it. We get it, it's become trite. Key thing is balance of preservation and growth.

Does NYC do landmark rating as opposed to traditional landmark designation?

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by NYguy

-
I noticed they didn't put the Helmsley Building on the map. I had to check to make sure it's a New York City Landmark, which thankfully it is.

[Eidolon]

http://professional.wsj.com/article/...&mg=reno64-wsj
Designer's Chance in Midtown

SL Green Realty Corp. has selected architecture firm Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates to design a giant office building the landlord hopes to build next to Grand Central Terminal, according to multiple executives informed of the decision.

The office project gives New York-based Kohn Pedersen the opportunity to design what would be one of the largest Midtown towers on the East Side in a generation. The firm, one of the largest architecture firms in the world, also is playing a major role in new development on the West Side, where it has designed two giant office towers along Tenth Avenue south ...

I can't wait to see what they come up with.

[NYC2ATX]

Worth noting: KPF is also behind everyone's favorite New-Yorky-skyscraper-that-isn't-in-New-York, the Ping An Tower going up in Shenzhen. I can only hope they will produce a potential true gem to retain this city's stellar skyscraper profile...and adequately face-off against 432 Park, of course.

[Sky88]

Well, I hope that the KPF's project will be like to these towers

[yankeesfan1000]

The combination of a great firm plus a developer who seems to be insistent on an iconic design... I have very high expectations.

[-Filipe-]

i hope its something like swfc or icc in i hope we can get something without a spire lol

[hunser]

Originally Posted by -Filipe-

i hope its something like swfc or icc in i hope we can get something without a spire lol

I wouldn't mind a spire if the design resembles towers like these:

Originally Posted by Sky88

Well, I hope that the KPF's project will be like to these towers

KPF already managed to put up a 2000 footer, so maybe we could be in for a surprise.

[-Filipe-]

Originally Posted by hunser

I wouldn't mind a spire if the design resembles towers like these:



KPF already managed to put up a 2000 footer, so maybe we could be in for a surprise.

im not really fond of the shenzen one lol id rather have something like swfc or icc, a spire would be fine lol

[Sky88]

Midtown holy houses preach air right flexibility




A plan to rezone Midtown East and fuel new development in the area even has the pious licking their lips. Three Midtown East houses of worship – St. Patrick’s Cathedral, St. Bartholomew’s Church and Central Synagogue — want to sell some 2 million square feet of air space above their landmarked buildings, a commodity that could be worth nearly $400 million, according to Crain’s.

The houses of worship are hoping that the city will grant them the same flexibility regarding air rights that it is granting itself under the rezoning plan. For one, the owners of the architectural gems argue that they are desperate for a capital injection.

“We have been given this responsibility to maintain historic structures, and yet as part of that we have not been allowed to realize the value of those structures, and that puts us in a difficult position,” Lawrence Graham, chief administrative officer of St. Bartholomew’s Church, on Park Avenue and East 51st Street, said. “We should be part of the process going forward.”

But so far the city has indicated a desire to remain the sole seller of air rights following the rezoning — it plans to reinvest proceeds from the air rights into a fund that will pay for neighborhood improvements.

However, if religious leaders are able to gain support from a city official willing to delay the rezoning — which is seen as a component of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s legacy — then the city may become more willing to pay an indulgence.

“They make a good argument, and it’s something that I am open to considering,” Dan Garodnick, a City Councilman whose district includes portions of the area to be rezoned, said. “Beyond that, I can’t say. It’s early.” [Crain's] –Christopher Cameron


http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/11/...t-flexibility/

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Eidolon

http://professional.wsj.com/article/...&mg=reno64-wsj
Designer's Chance in Midtown


I can't wait to see what they come up with.

Wow, I wasn't even expecting an architect this soon, since nothing can even be built for five years. A little more from that article...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj



By ELIOT BROWN
November 25, 2012

The office project gives New York-based Kohn Pedersen the opportunity to design what would be one of the largest Midtown towers on the East Side in a generation. The firm, one of the largest architecture firms in the world, also is playing a major role in new development on the West Side, where it has designed two giant office towers along Tenth Avenue south of 33rd Street for the Related Cos.

The SL Green project—on the block just west of Grand Central between 42nd and 43rd streets—is likely years away from a groundbreaking. Not only does it need numerous approvals, currently it's not clear that there's sufficient demand for the office space. But building in New York is a long-term exercise, and SL Green is moving ahead full steam with planning. The company is in discussions with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to obtain additional development rights by building pedestrian improvements including underground connectors to Grand Central, executives informed of the planning said. A spokesman for the MTA declined to comment.

In addition, the company has hired a bevy of consultants for the project, including Texas-based developer Hines; law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; and Vishaan Chakrabarti, a former city planning official and a partner at architecture firm SHoP Architects.

Under the city's rezoning proposal, to get the added density, the company would need to buy additional development rights from the city, with its payment going toward transportation improvements. It also would need to design a building deemed by the city to have an iconic design. While SL Green would clearly stand to benefit from the rezoning by being able to build a larger building, Marc Holliday, SL Green's chief executive, told analysts on a conference call in July it was unclear how the zoning plan would affect the company's timing for the tower. "Certainly we'll have the result of the zoning amendment before we take any material step forward" on the development project, Mr. Holliday said on the call.

BTW, my hunch was correct...

We know that Hines was brought in a few months ago to help with development of this tower, and haven't heard anything on choice of architects. But I've been thinking about this quote:

http://www.leadersmag.com/issues/201...n-Fox-KPF.html
KPF’s Global Impact
An Interview with A. Eugene Kohn, Chairman, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates

I can't think of any potentially significant new office towers in Midtown that don't already have architects or designs in place. And we know KPF is known for some of the big boys. It wouldn't shock me if they were chosen for this site.

[MarshallKnight]

I actually like KPF's CTF Guangzhou design the best (although the ICC is gorgeous). The setbacks, vertical striping and the slant of the roof are all nods to iconic New York architecture. And it's massive, but you wouldn't know it to look at the renders because the proportions are so good -- tall enough to feel elegant, bulky enough to feel substantial.

From KPF's website: http://www.kpf.com/project.asp?T=14&ID=258


Although I'd love to see a spire on this tower, something like the CTF Guangzhou would be a perfect fit, for my money. Or maybe a less-busy version of the Tianjin Rose Rock IFC.

From Branden Klayko's A/N Blog: http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/42049

[yankeesfan1000]

^^

I agree. I actually like that Guangzhou building better than Shanghai Tower, it's easily one of my favorite towers going up anywhere in the world. I'd very pleased with something like that.

[-Filipe-]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

^^

I agree. I actually like that Guangzhou building better than Shanghai Tower, it's easily one of my favorite towers going up anywhere in the world. I'd very pleased with something like that.

i agree 100% lol

[NYguy]

As long as we get something that tapers, which seems likely, I'll be pleased.

[JG573]

Looking at the overall proposal of this project I really hope they don't tear down these buildings. The midtown district is not going to die because we preserve buildings, that is a ridiculous claim. I love new skyscrapers but a city full of glass buildings is not beautiful and we need groups of buildings like these to keep new york city a beautiful city. The reason why so many cities cores around the country have died is because of these historic buildings being teared down and everything turns into big glass skyscrapers. Walking around New York city there PLENTY of ugly post war buildings that could be replaced for these types of skyscrapers. We don't need to tear apart are historic ones to make room for these.