NEW YORK | 53W53 (Tower Verre) | 1,050 FT / 320 M | 73 FLOORS

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Why would you say that? There is not height limit, which was the point of the article.

Sorry, I must have read it wrong. A 2 hour lecture can do a number on the brain. If that is the case though regarding the 'no heigh limit' then we are in good shape.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The author is all confused. He is stating the allowable base zoning for that small site.

You can reach the planned square footage by transferring large blocks of air rights (like from the rest of the MOMA site, which covers most of the very long block between 5th and 6th).

He's very confused. First, the tower will cast darkness...

Architect Jean Nouvel has designed an implausibly thin obelisk that would rise in crooked facets almost as high as the Empire State Building.

Thank New York zoning laws for this chic behemoth, which could cast some of Midtown's most prized and densely built blocks into darkness....... Its 1,200-foot (365-meter) height would cast MoMA's sculpture garden into almost perpetual shadow.

Then it won't

The zoning protects some daylight at the street frontages by requiring setbacks as the tower rises. In stacking some 120 condos in 53 floors atop the hotel, Nouvel bends and facets the surfaces to keep within the ever-narrowing, legally buildable envelope.

For me, the trouble with Nouvel's design is not so much its great height -- those skinny high floors won't block many views or much light -- but the thick, looming, lower floors. It's not even leavened by the wind-scoured plazas that gather a few puddles of welcome sun along Sixth Avenue.

His main problem is that zoning laws allow for the transfer of development rights. But if this building had no transfer of rights, then the lower space would still be there.

He then wraps it all up by giving the tower his greatest compliment, yet calling for a change in the zoning that would allow it to be built in the first place.

I'm drawn to Nouvel's imagery -- the Hines tower could make an extraordinary impression on the skyline. Still, it's time to stop the abuse of this zoning device in the latest race for the sky.

But I find this to be the most ridiculous quote:

this chic behemoth, which could cast some of Midtown's most prized and densely built blocks into darkness

The most densely built blocks are canyons of darkness.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Sorry, I must have read it wrong. A 2 hour lecture can do a number on the brain. If that is the case though regarding the 'no heigh limit' then we are in good shape.

We're in good shape. Even if we were'nt, the most vocal opponent to the tower would be the Museum of Modern Art. But as we know, its the museum that's behind this tower in the first place - in both development and as a tenant.

[NYguy]

Meant to post this earlier....
http://www.340madison.com/pdf/1330aoa_070606.pdf

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Please, if you're going to be that stupid, don't even bother to post.

I agree. That did sounded very uninformed. Rents in Lower Manhattan are only some of the highest in the country but there's no demand for office space whatsoever.

By the way, why don't some of you people, send that James Russell knucklehead an email to tell him what some of you have already said here? It should make him feel stupid and maybe he'll think twice next time before he "opens" his mouth.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Meant to post this earlier....
http://www.340madison.com/pdf/1330aoa_070606.pdf

You just killed my day with that. Before you know it, sadly all the buildings lining 6th Avenue will have that fate. But business is business and if that concept is what sells, then that's that plain and simple.

NYguy, do you not agree with me though that it is somehwhat disappointing to see this happen? How would you feel if say Time Life or the XYZ buildings came to meet that fate. I for one would not be a happy camper.

Does anyone else appreciate those facades like I do?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Please, if you're going to be that stupid, don't even bother to post.

Please, if your going to harass me for no reason, don't even bother to coming to this THREAD.
I expressed absolutely no offensive harm whatsoever.
In case you were wondering, the Media coverage of High-Rise Development is weak as of late.

People who use childish rhetoric like that to deliberately cause trouble tend to get Suspended or worse, Banned.

[STERNyc]

I don't mind this recladding at all, actually its an improvement as the existing building is so void of any style. It'll be along the lines of the recladding of Verizon downtown.

Recladdings I hate:
3 Columbus Circle
2 Columbus Circle
Verizon Building
One Astor Plaza
100 Park Avenue

That said this recladding probably wont happen as Macklowe owes his creditors $6.4 billion due the end of this month.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by Dac150

NYguy, do you not agree with me though that it is somehwhat disappointing to see this happen? How would you feel if say Time Life or the XYZ buildings came to meet that fate. I for one would not be a happy camper.

Does anyone else appreciate those facades like I do?

I second that. Unfortunately even less preservationists will jump to protect those facades, since it's much harder to make a case for keeping them than for historic pre-war buildings. On the plus side, however, facades such as the 6th Avenue ones are a good deal newer and are both looks- and function-wise (both are among ther top reasons for reclads) more efficient than the pre-war ones, giving us reasons to believe that those are likely to stick around for several decades to come.

Not too many hard feelings over this reclad, but it seems relatively unnecessary anyway.

And, as Stern said, this one isn't too likely to happen anytime soon anyway as its genius developer bought just about every expensive building in town and just now realizes that he can't really pay for all those purchases.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Please, if your going to harass me for no reason, don't even bother to coming to this THREAD.
I expressed absolutely no offensive harm whatsoever.
In case you were wondering, the Media coverage of High-Rise Development is weak as of late.
People who use childish rhetoric like that to deliberately cause trouble tend to get Suspended or worse, Banned.

I guess you should be excused because you're in another part of the country and you probably don't follow real estate here too much. Maybe next time you should phrase it as a question instead of a statement. By the way, I agree that NYGuy does lash out at people too quickly, like he's in defensive mode all the time.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Lecom

I second that. Unfortunately even less preservationists will jump to protect those facades, since it's much harder to make a case for keeping them than for historic pre-war buildings. On the plus side, however, facades such as the 6th Avenue ones are a good deal newer and are both looks- and function-wise (both are among ther top reasons for reclads) more efficient than the pre-war ones, giving us reasons to believe that those are likely to stick around for several decades to come.

Not too many hard feelings over this reclad, but it seems relatively unnecessary anyway.

And, as Stern said, this one isn't too likely to happen anytime soon anyway as its genius developer bought just about every expensive building in town and just now realizes that he can't really pay for all those purchases.

Well I'm glad that there is someone else who understands where I'm coming from. These buildings are not works of art (well in my eyes they are), but the diverse facades make up the urban fabric of Manhattan, and at the same time represent an era of architecture. Whether it's Time Life, 1 Liberty Plaza, The UBS building, etc.... the boxes of Manhattan are special to me, so whenever one is in threat of reclad, it's a feeling as if to an Art-deco fan someone recladding the Chanin Building.

For me it doesn't get any better then looking straight up between the 'X' building and Time Life (especially at night). And I'm glad to hear that I can enjoy that for decades to come (hopefully).

Speaking of what you said though, UBS's building on 6th was criticized by them for being unable to accomodate the room they need for trading floors. That's a formula for UBS eventually moving out + the owner realizing the reasons why they left = the fate Verizon faced. Scary thought.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by Dac150

For me it doesn't get any better then looking straight up between the 'X' building and Time Life (especially at night). And I'm glad to hear that I can enjoy that for decades to come (hopefully).

Change that to looking up between X and Y, or McGraw-Hill and Exxon, and you've got a winner.

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by NYguy

He's very confused. First, the tower will cast darkness...



Then it won't

I totally understand your frustration with that article. Architecture critics in general seem to have a real problem with logic and consistency. I still remember how the Times critic drooled all over Libebskind's WTC site plan when it first came out, only to do a stunning 180 degree turn around when the plan was actually selected. What had been "marvelous" suddenly became unacceptable. If I recall, the change of heart was so blatant and inexplicable that the critic in question was replaced with a cloud over his head.

The bottom line on this particular building is that its upper reaches are so slender, they will block no more sunlight than a slender spire. At any rate, since when is it the job of an architecture critic to fret over zoning codes? I think I see a cloud drifting by...

[Dac150]

He better not even think of recladding 1301 Avenue of the Americas. I just noticed it too is in his portfolio. Credit Lyonnis (1301 6th) is one of my favorite examples of box architecture.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Dac150

NYguy, do you not agree with me though that it is somehwhat disappointing to see this happen? How would you feel if say Time Life or the XYZ buildings came to meet that fate. I for one would not be a happy camper. Does anyone else appreciate those facades like I do?

Those XYZ buildings don't really have any character, they'd still be the same. The only thing that bothers me about 1330 is the potential widening of the base. For me it ruins the view of the main shaft. But times and things change. And its better than just sitting there getting older and outdated.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

People who use childish rhetoric like that to deliberately cause trouble tend to get Suspended or worse, Banned.

And yet, here you are, with not an iota of intelligence to add to the conversation. Do yourself a favor, and read. In fact, you'd be doing us all a favor.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by antinimby

By the way, I agree that NYGuy does lash out at people too quickly, like he's in defensive mode all the time.

I have a low tolerance, and can see bs coming a mile away...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

The bottom line on this particular building is that its upper reaches are so slender, they will block no more sunlight than a slender spire. At any rate, since when is it the job of an architecture critic to fret over zoning codes?

I think he's just acting as someone's mouthpiece with the article. There's hardly any outrage over the size and location of this tower. You'd almost get the impression that someone was trying to create some.

[CoolCzech]

Portfolio.com

Jan 9 2008 1:08PM EST

In Praise of New NYC Skyscrapers

Back in November, the NYT's Nicolai Ouroussoff gave a rave review to Jean Nouvel's proposed new midtown skyscraper, destined for a narrow lot next to the Museum of Modern Art. It "promises to be the most exhilarating addition to the skyline in a generation," he gushed, and certainly the renderings which have been made public do look spectacular.

Today, however, Bloomberg's James Russell is much more curmudgeonly.

Thank New York zoning laws for this chic behemoth, which could cast some of Midtown's most prized and densely built blocks into darkness. Someday such abuse may become illegal.

I have to admit that I fail to understand Russell's beef. He's worried about shadows on MoMA's sculpture garden? MoMA itself had veto power over the building, and the sculpture garden has never exactly been full of sunlight at the best of times, seeing as how it's blocked to the south by MoMA itself.

Russell also seems concerned about the tower's height, saying that "will define a whole new scale in the neighborhood," although he does concede that "those skinny high floors won't block many views or much light".

I'm with Ouroussoff on this one. New York is a city of skyscrapers, and if the zoning laws wanted to outlaw tall buildings like this one, they would simply put a height cap on the lot in question. The fact that they didn't means that a skyscraper is hardly an abuse of those laws - in fact, quite the opposite.

Similarly, the transfer of development rights which Russell seems so upset about - where landmark buildings sell their air rights to a developer who can make good use of them - is a long-established part of New York construction economics: it's not some obscure loophole which the developer of this building is abusing.

In any case, the air rights aren't the problem. Russell's main issue is with the building's "thick, looming, lower floors" - a description at odds not only with the renderings but also with common sense, given the narrowness of the lot. And those floors could easily have been built without any transfer of development rights.

I'm very glad that developers are still thinking tall in New York - a city which still very much defines itself by its iconic skyline. And if developers are thinking tall and beautiful, as in this case, so much the better.

[Lecom]

A voice of reason in a skyscraper-related editorial? Am I misreading something?