NEW YORK | 80 South Street | 1,436 FT | 113 FLOORS

[JSsocal]

The one thing that was always wrong with the south street seaport historic district is that it was landmarked pretty much after the fact, after a sizable amount of it was leveled during urban renewal. I have no stats to back this up but it probably has one of the highest percentages of new construction in a historic district.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Ah, thanks for the info. The fact that NIMBY's are using the LPC to claim that two surface parking lots, this one and the one on John and Front, deserve historic protection is a joke and a stain on the LPC, which looks more and more like a mechanism for NIMBY's to just block development where they don't want it.

That being said, I think this might be my favorite historic district in the city, and would love to see a new building with townhouses on Water St, and a tower section Pearl St.

Same here.

[NYguy]

The NIMBYs are going to be against anythiing new in the district, it doesn't matter if its 5 stories or 105 stories. They don't want new construction anywhere, let alone in a historic district. So they're not going to be happy either way. That being said, the best option for those rights would be to push them where the bulk of development already is or will be.

[NYguy]

Overview of this tight spot...



Kayte Dolmatch

[TechTalkGuy]

I never could understand the logic of blocking development.
Nimbyism, victims of 911, air rights.

Just build as tall as you want.

[Prezrezc]

^^
Re this:


NIMBYs: Yeah; I can see your point...But so can a cave shrimp.

Victim's families: Perhaps somewhat unfair to cite them as a group as a roadblock to development for a lot of reasons more appropriately debatable in another thread. But in this case, it's irrelevant.

Air rights: All that is part of NYC's arcane and oftentimes convoluted zoning regulations. NIMBYism obviously plays a major role in how things in this domain work out.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Prezrezc

^^
Re this:

Air rights: All that is part of NYC's arcane and oftentimes convoluted zoning regulations. NIMBYism obviously plays a major role in how things in this domain work out.

Air rights are all made up. Its a bs system. There is no such things in the physical world full of atoms and molecules called air rights. There is land, and there is the space above it (full of air; 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide and minute amounts of gaseous substances).

Quite frankly, I find it asinine that if somebody buys a property, the potential is limited or CAN BE hindered by others nearby (NIMBYS). Zoning is there for a reason, and its not the limiting reagent which is indefinite. It can always be amended for a particular parcel or property (existing, planned, vacant land and so on). The very notion of air-rights is tied to zoning. Its a quasi-way to control density and height, but in a city that needs the units, especially with residential, it does more harm than good.

These are the same aholes that complain about rents and prices. Granted 80 South is not a good example of a tower that is alleviating the crucial demand for rentals or units 500k-1.5 mil, but you sometimes find folks that complain about affordable housing. Its too big... its too many units... shadows... out of scale... and it goes on.

Meanwhile, the people are the ones that really suffer. All of these delays and the long process in general need to be shortened. Not just for residential, but for transit projects.

And thats another thing, they bitch about transit, YET... when solutions are put in place, they complain about the scale and then the bureaucratic tumor causes elongated delays, price heights, and no solutions. The city is its own worse enemy.

[januarsam77]

Nice..

[Hudson11]

Oceanwide needs to offload. I hope it happens soon, and someone else can develop it.

Genworth's Acquirer (China Oceanwide) Looks To Be Drowning In An Ocean Of Debt

A Planned 1,400 Foot New York City “Supertall” Looks To Have Super-Stalled

In 2015 Oceanwide paid $390 million to purchase two sites in New York’s South Street Seaport, with plans to construct a 1,400 foot “supertall” tower on the location.

The Real Deal reported that the company filed demolition plans for the sites in early 2017, but as of April 2018 no building plans had been filed with the city’s Department of Buildings. The publication referred to the situation as a “mystery”.

[Zapatan]

Eh, not really that surprising.

[Zapatan]

When you say offload I take it you mean sell it to someone else?

Then maybe use the money to finish the SF/LA projects.

It would have been nice to have a 1,400+ footer here. Odds are the next developer wouldn't be so ambitious.

[NYguy]

Not guaranteed that they will sell, or that they would even build in the "current" market, even as this is a mixed-use tower.

The publication referred to the situation as a “mystery”.

But one thing that is certain, this tower will get built, be it by Oceanwide or another developer. A sweet plot of land with that amount of development rights and zoning in place doesn't come often. I only ask that SHoP remain on.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not guaranteed that they will sell, or that they would even build in the "current" market, even as this is a mixed-use tower.

But one thing that is certain, this tower will get built, be it by Oceanwide or another developer. A sweet plot of land with that amount of development rights and zoning in place doesn't come often. I only ask that SHoP remain on.

True, I'll stay hopeful but assume this is on the back burner for a while

[Eidolon]

Oceanwide was always the weakest link when it came to getting this tower out of the ground, the site is the third best location for residential development on Manhattan with no active construction, only Park Lane and 360 10th Ave. are fundamentally stronger, the sluggish pace is all due to Oceanwide not engaging in realistic risk management. We should be glad to see them go and sell the site to someone like Related, who have a proven track record of getting results.

[NYguy]

While it would be nice to see this moving forward now, it's not as if we don't have enough on our plates to keep up with. This will come at a later time, and is something to look forward to. In the meantime, the 1200 ft 45 Broad Street is beginning it's climb a short step away. And the skyline is beginning to overflow with supertall skyscrapers. I at least would like to see a thrilling design here though, to work up that much more excitement.

[Busy Bee]

Whatever. I'm over this project. I never had a whole lot of confidence it was going to be built and have even less now. If they pull though, great, it should be an awesome tower. If it's not built, well we'll survive. I'd be happy with anything north of 750' here really. I think many secretly had concerns with how such a tall tower right on the river would throw off the skyline anyhow.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Whatever. I'm over this project. I never had a whole lot of confidence it was going to be built and have even less now. If they pull though, great, it should be an awesome tower. If it's not built, well we'll survive. I'd be happy with anything north of 750' here really. I think many secretly had concerns with how such a tall tower right on the river would throw off the skyline anyhow.

Not sure, I like to think that what NYguy mentioned is correct, that due to the zoning of this site any developer would take maximum advantage of it.

750' would be lame IMO, 1000+ would be nice. I don't think it would throw off the skyline at all, in fact I think it would compliment the WTC really well to have a 1,400+ foot building right there.

[Eidolon]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Whatever. I'm over this project. I never had a whole lot of confidence it was going to be built and have even less now. If they pull though, great, it should be an awesome tower. If it's not built, well we'll survive. I'd be happy with anything north of 750' here really. I think many secretly had concerns with how such a tall tower right on the river would throw off the skyline anyhow.

I think it would have been fine, the original WTC was much more massive than anything Oceanwide could have built here and it still looked nice before BPC was built.








A slender 1400 foot tower here would blend into the city without any trouble and when the second BPC gets built, this will be even more true.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Whatever. I'm over this project. I never had a whole lot of confidence it was going to be built and have even less now. If they pull though, great, it should be an awesome tower.
If it's not built, well we'll survive.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Not sure, I like to think that what NYguy mentioned is correct, that due to the zoning of this site any developer would take maximum advantage of it.

I don't get the pessimism. Not everything gets built at once. Everything is in place for this tower to be built, including zoning. The only thing off is timing, which means financing.
All of those development rights apply to this site, which is sandwiched between a historic district, and a new skyscraper (nearing completion now), directly
(and I do mean directly) to the south.

Oceanwide is not a major player in the city, but they purchased this prime site for development. If it were a local developer, say Extell for example, that held onto this site for years
(and it really hasn't even been that), then you might question what is happening, because developers in the city build or at least try to given the opportunity.


This graphic breaks down how it will all fit on site...

[Crawford]

This tower will obviously get built, the question is when.

They spent hundreds of millions in additional air rights, so obviously if they don't build, someone else will. No one builds less than what's entitled in Manhattan, and this is entitled for over 1400 ft.