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

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JayPro

I actually like it like this the more I study it.
It's a departure from what most skyscraper enthusiast would probably consider normal, as it seems to cause in some a disruption in visual continuity.
I mean...Who suggested that vertical setbacks has to follow a certain empirical rule...or for that matter even subjective logic?

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

To me, it looks better from some sides than others. The fact that it's asymmetrical is bound to be very bothersome to a lot of people. People like symmetry usually. Add to that that it's a somewhat brutal asymmetry and I can understand the complaints.

It's not so much the setbacks as it is the way they are abruptly added and cut off. Take that portion of the building, and stretch it out another 300 or 400 ft, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Otherwise, lose the setbacks, and let the building continue is natural tapering. Visually, that would be much more pleasing to the eye.

I know the Chrysler Building can't be beat, but it shouldn't be overshadowed by a clumsy and hastily thrown together looking building.

Originally Posted by pico44

I hate it so much. Probably to the point of being a little irrational about it. I'd rather they put a parking lot there than build this tower as currently designed. It's. Just. So. Ugly.

The project itself is one of my favorites in the city (I have many) because of what it means to the city, particularly the Grand Central area. It's a renewal of sorts for the area, and this project is the focal point of all that. It needs to be a design that expresses that, other than being tall. There are supertalls going up all over Manhattan, I don't think any (outside of the WTC) are quite as symbolic as this one. There are multiple towers going up in the Hudson Yards, residential supertalls are beginning to line 57th Street, even lower Manhattan is in on the game. But here in the heart of the heart of Midtown, there is renewal as well, and it should be something to be proud of, not just another BofA, or the likes.

[NYguy]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/24...ndcentral.html

Owner of Grand Central Vies With Developer Over Skyscraper on Adjacent Block


By CHARLES V BAGLI
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014

A little-known investor who owns Grand Central Terminal made a $400 million offer on Tuesday to buy an adjoining block where he plans to build a skyscraper so tall that it would loom over the Chrysler Building. It is the latest gambit by the investor, Andrew S. Penson, in the long running David-versus-Goliath feud with the owner of the block, SL Green Realty, one of the largest commercial landlords in New York City.

The dispute involves arcane zoning issues, the value of air rights in a city of skyscrapers, a potential lawsuit and, of course, money, lots of it. SL Green Realty is proposing to build a tower twice the size currently permitted on the block, bounded by 42nd and 43rd Streets and Vanderbilt and Madison Avenues, under a rezoning planned by Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Mr. Penson is offering to take over SL Green’s plans and build the 1,395-foot-tall tower himself. “We think it’s going to be a spectacular building,” he said, “possibly the best office tower in the city.” Mr. Penson acknowledged that it was unlikely that Marc Holliday, the chief executive of SL Green Realty, would accept his offer. Indeed, a spokesman for SL Green quickly dismissed Mr. Penson’s offer as a “publicity stunt from an individual with a long history of litigation....

[NYguy]

A few more quotes from that article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/ny...tral.html?_r=0


...SL Green’s rejection, Mr. Penson said, would only “highlight” — and this is his real motivation — a position that the public would be getting the short end of the deal if the city allowed SL Green to build such a tall tower in return for $210 million worth of work on Grand Central.

The height is worth a lot more money, Mr. Penson said. In office towers, like residential buildings, the higher floors offer better views and command higher rents. Given its height, an observation deck planned for SL Green’s tower could be very lucrative.

Whatever Mr. Penson’s civic convictions, he also has a pecuniary interest in the outcome. He prefers to sell SL Green the unused development rights, or air rights, from Grand Central, rather than let the city permit SL Green to build a taller tower in exchange for the Grand Central improvements. The air rights could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

...Mr. Penson’s feud with SL Green began last year, amid a proposal by the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to rezone the area around Grand Central for taller office towers. Under that proposal, which failed to gain approval, the city would have sold developers the rights to build taller towers than currently permitted and use the money to pay for improvement projects at the terminal. Or, a developer could buy unused development rights, or air rights, from the owners of Grand Central; St. Patrick’s Cathedral, on Fifth Avenue; or St. Bartholomew’s Church, on Park Avenue.

The city would have sold the air rights at $250 per square foot, far less than what Mr. Penson thought they were worth. But negotiations between SL Green and Mr. Penson, which are shrouded in confidentiality agreements, went badly.

...n 2006, Mr. Penson made a bet: He paid $80 million for Grand Central and 82 miles of track. The Metro-North Railroad pays him $2.24 million a year under a long-term lease. The potential profit in the deal was in the 1.3 million square feet of development rights that came with Grand Central.

The air rights he bought for roughly $61 per square foot, Mr. Penson said, were worth as much as $600 per square foot today.

Under SL Green’s current proposal to the city, Mr. Penson contends, the company would be allowed to build a tower twice as big as what is permitted today for less than $400 a square foot.

So this guy (Penson) basically says he wants to trade places with SL Green (he says they will do the same improvements to Grand Central - a property he owns btw) for $400 million. What he's really concerned about is the City undercutting his own price for air rights. But I don't see anything blocking developers from purchasing additional air rights, and gaining air rights from the city for transit improvements. It's basically the same thing Vornado did at the Hotel Pennsylvania with plans for 15 Penn Plaza.

Vornado got a 20% development bonus for transit improvements, something already on the books, and they transferred the air rights from the Manhattan Mall to the site.

[NYguy]

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/09/...ecture-review/

KPF’s design for One Vanderbilt not so grand: architecture review
Work marred by overly busy, almost chaotic, surface

September 26, 2014
By James Gardner

Regarding SL Green’s controversial plans to put a sky-scraper on the southwest corner of 43rd and Vanderbilt Avenue: I am surprised, for starters, that Landmarks Preservation Commission would ever allow the existing building to come down. It is a pleasant, if not great building dating from the 1920s. In fact, Landmarks has put the kaibosh on scores of better-designed structures than One Vanderbilt — and often to preserve less interesting old buildings than this.

My initial reaction to the plans for the 67-story One Vanderbilt was disappointment.

It’s just another deconstructed tower in Midtown. It’s main point of interest is that the building revives the general terms of Daniel Libeskind’s initial design for the Freedom Tower at One World Trade Center.

But then I learned that it was designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox, which gave me pause. It was not the name that impressed me so much as the general excellence of the firm’s work to date. What’s more, I have been wrong about them before, especially when I based my assessment of 505 Fifth Avenue on initial renderings. As with all of the firm’s work, that building is extremely well made and more elegant in design that I had anticipated.

Knowing that KPF is behind this latest project (which, at 1450 feet, aspires to be the second tallest in the city), I have no doubt that the quality of the workmanship will make it pleasant to inhabit and pleasant to walk past at street level.

Still, the general design feels too chaotic. This is not the creative chaos of the deconstructivist idiom, but rather the chaos brought by the numerous ideas that seem to elude the designer’s complete control. Beside the tangle of masses across the entire height of the building and the prosthetic accretions and subtractions that mark its busy surface, there is a listless use of curtain-walls, ribbon windows, mullions and infill to provide texture to that surface.

In short, KPF can do better.

Several things wrong with that review, but in the end, I agree completely. KPF can do better.

[Onn]

I totally disagree! I think this is a great design, people are way underbidding how well it's going to turn out. It's one of KPF's most original towers yet. One Vanderbilt is not even a square box, how many people are constantly complaining about square boxes? You really have to look at the positives here. The crown should turn out just fine too.

I'm very surprised people are aren't liking the design, New York's been waiting for this one.

[chris08876]

^^^

I would just take it as a form of constructive criticism on the design. Like many architectural reviews, there is a heavy bias. Similar to how some reviews talk negative about One57, or 432 Park, in the end, its all just an opinion with the element of constructive criticism. While no design is perfect, time will tell if this tower becomes an all star amongst the supertalls.

I still think its too early, and this might or could change design wise. Nordstrom tower went through a couple of design phases and tweaks, and I'm sure this one will too.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Onn

I totally disagree!

You don't agree that KPF can do better??? Have you seen any of their work???

[Onn]

Originally Posted by NYguy

You don't agree that KPF can do better??? Have you seen any of their work???

Yeah, the Hong Kong International Finance Center and Bank of America Tower are real zingers. (Great towers, love them both! This isn't any different.) Yeah okay Hudson Yards is cool, although the towers are still being constructed.

Now there might be some minor things that they could be improved on One Vanderbilt. The tower could be taller, the top could be cleaner, more lights. But the reality is most towers get built exactly as this one looks right now. There are always going to be people for and against a particular design. I get that the design looks a little unusual, but that's what makes it an interesting project. It's not just another square box like half a dozen other supertalls going up right now are. It's not a bad design, this one strikes the right balance between modernity and creativity. I see an amazing tower being built when they go ahead with construction.

I feel like this is another one of those designs people aren't going to believe in until they see it in person. Along the lines of One57, 432 Park, ect. I'm fine with that, the potential for One Vanderbilt is clear to me.

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by Onn

Yeah, the Hong Kong International Finance Center and Bank of America Tower are real zingers. (Great towers, love them both! This isn't any different.) Yeah okay Hudson Yards is cool, although the towers are still being constructed.

Now there might be some minor things that they could be improved on One Vanderbilt. The tower could be taller, the top could be cleaner, more lights. But the reality is most towers get built exactly as this one looks right now. There are always going to be people for and against a particular design. I get that the design looks a little unusual, but that's what makes it an interesting project. It's not just another square box like half a dozen other supertalls going up right now are. It's not a wacky designs, this one strikes the right balance between modernity and creativity. I see an amazing tower being built when they go ahead with construction

I feel like this is another one of those designs people aren't going to believe in until they see it in person. Along the lines of One57, 432 Park, ect. I'm fine with that, the potential for One Vanderbilt is clear to me.

You couldn't said that any better. I try to keep a very open mind but am not getting good vibes about the design of this project at all. While the BOA and IFC are amazing projects, this one doesn't click. It has an insulting, cheap, tacky, thought of at last minute style (minus the thought) that makes one think it belongs in the third or questionable part of the world. Gives a nod and a wink to the architecture one would have seen in Nazi Germany and red China today. You get the idea. Just my two cents, had to get it off my chest...

[King DenCity]

Onn you took the words right out of my mouth^
It will be a unique and memorable tower. I hope they DON'T drastically change the design.

[sparkling]

Skyscraper designs are like women-different guys like different types so arguing about them is mostly a waste of time. And this tower has "location, location, location" so even if its top is universally disliked by skyscraper fans, I doubt that SL Green and TD Bank (supposedly they are going to anchor the tower) care about it.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

You couldn't said that any better. I try to keep a very open mind but am not getting good vibes about the design of this project at all. While the BOA and IFC are amazing projects, this one doesn't click. It has an insulting, cheap, tacky, thought of at last minute style (minus the thought) that makes one think it belongs in the third or questionable part of the world. Gives a nod and a wink to the architecture one would have seen in Nazi Germany and red China today. You get the idea. Just my two cents, had to get it off my chest...

Originally Posted by King DenCity

Onn you took the words right out of my mouth^
It will be a unique and memorable tower. I hope they DON'T drastically change the design.

Glad I could help gentlemen!

See not everyone dislikes the design of the tower at all. People just need to give it a chance, the design oozes potential.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by chapinm1

you couldn't said that any better. I try to keep a very open mind but am not getting good vibes about the design of this project at all. While the boa and ifc are amazing projects, this one doesn't click. It has an insulting, cheap, tacky, thought of at last minute style (minus the thought) that makes one think it belongs in the third or questionable part of the world.

+1

[ChiTownCity]

Originally Posted by chapinm1

you couldn't said that any better. It has an insulting, cheap, tacky, thought of at last minute style (minus the thought) that makes one think it belongs in the third or questionable part of the world.

+2

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Onn

Yeah, the Hong Kong International Finance Center and Bank of America Tower are real zingers. (Great towers, love them both! This isn't any different.) Yeah okay Hudson Yards is cool, although the towers are still being constructed.

Since you mentioned the Hudson Yards, both towers have a similar programing at the top - public space and observation decks.

Yet, the design for 30 Hudson stands on its own. No one has to say, "gee, give it a chance". That's not something said about great designs or even good designs.

Let's just face it. The design at the top here is less than good.

[King DenCity]

^My opinion is my opinion. I personally think this design is better than 30 HY. So I disagree with you entirely.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/09/...ecture-review/

KPF’s design for One Vanderbilt not so grand: architecture review
Work marred by overly busy, almost chaotic, surface

September 26, 2014
By James Gardner





Several things wrong with that review, but in the end, I agree completely. KPF can do better.

I agree. There are several things wrong with the review. First, he sings the praises of 505 5th Ave which is a crappy glass box on a street killing glass base. Then criticizes the tower for adding texture to the facade, which is the building's only saving grace from being a complete boondoggle.

KPF could do better because A LOT of architects could do better. New York architecture need not be too difficult to appeal to the masses. Steel, stone, and step backs.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Since you mentioned the Hudson Yards, both towers have a similar programing at the top - public space and observation decks.

Yet, the design for 30 Hudson stands on its own. No one has to say, "gee, give it a chance". That's not something said about great designs or even good designs.

Let's just face it. The design at the top here is less than good.

For once, I agree with you NYguy. This tower looks like a rough draft, a mere massing model. I think people are going too easy on the developer when it comes to this tower. They could definitely do soooo much better.

[NYguy]

All issues of the awkward design aside, there is still unfinished business...



http://nypost.com/2014/09/30/somethi...ne-vanderbilt/

Something special in the air rights at One Vanderbilt





By Steve Cuozzo
September 30, 2014

Andrew Penson’s Argent Ventures, owner of Grand Central Terminal’s air rights, has “offered” to buy SL Green’s development site next door and build the proposed City Hall-backed One Vanderbilt office tower itself. But the pitch overlooked one crucial fact:

Namely, that Argent is not a developer at all. It’s apparently never built anything from the ground-up — much less a 65-story 1.6-million-square-foot office tower project that would include a myriad of transit and pedestrian amenities inside and nearby the congested terminal.

In fact, the “offer” looks like merely the latest front Penson has opened in its kitchen-sink campaign to force SL Green to buy air rights from him for many times more than Argent paid for them in 2006.

One Vanderbilt is an East Midtown game-changer that enjoys broad political support as well as the backing of the MTA and just about anyone fed up with the terminal’s dangerous crowding. It’s the centerpiece of the City Planning Department’s effort to rezone Vanderbilt Avenue to allow larger buildings than current zoning allows.

Like most of East Midtown, the avenue is hobbled by obsolete structures that average 70 years of age — a deterrent to large modern companies, which are increasingly choosing to set up new headquarters elsewhere in the city, and in some cases fleeing the area altogether.

The rezoning proposal must go through the city’s seven-month Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. Sources said the plan will be “certified” into the process within weeks.

The proposal would allow SL Green to build much larger than current rules allow without necessarily buying air rights.

Air rights transfers could still be used. But the proposal would also allow new projects more “dense” (i.e., bigger and taller) than are allowed under existing zoning, and even more dense — up to twice the size currently possible — in exchange for infrastructure upgrades to improve public circulation.

SL Green has pledged to pay for the $200 million-plus pedestrian/transit amenities package all by itself, including any overruns. Argent claims the public deserves more, although without the deal, the city and the MTA have no money at all for the promised upgrades.

Some “community” gadflies also ridiculously claim the job would cost SL Green less than $200 million, even though the MTA has substantiated the budget — which is likely only to rise, not fall.

If the Vanderbilt plan is blessed by the City Council, it will then go to Mayor de Blasio for final approval.

But Penson and his partners bought the terminal’s 1.3 million square feet of air rights eight years ago for $61 per square foot. They want to sell the rights to SL Green for up to $400 per square foot as a condition of the project going forward.

He’s threatened the city with a $1 billion lawsuit against “unconstitutional taking of property.” It’s a brave approach given that the city may change zoning rules, and routinely does so, without respect to whether such changes will enrich any particular private-sector air-rights owner.

The New York Times recently characterized Argent as “David” in its struggle with “Goliath” SL Green, although this David boasts of $2.5 billion in assets on its Web site.

No rational real estate professional should fault Penson for tenaciously battling for his company’s interests, although detractors describe his style as more obstructionist than constructive — as in a failed attempt to block the public offering for the Empire State Building, where he was an investor.

But while Penson’s Grand Central air-rights purchase anticipated great profits down the line, anticipation is not a guarantee — or even a promise. The city clearly does not view its role as acting as Penson’s agent or broker to get him a better deal.

In any event, nothing in the proposal forbids SL Green from negotiating with Penson to buy air rights from Penson if it wants to. Nor does it prevent Argent from selling the terminal’s air rights to other “receiving sites.”

If One Vanderbilt stalls, the city will lose the chance to arrest decades of East Midtown stagnation.

The tower would rise on the block bounded by Madison and Vanderbilt avenues and 42nd and 43rd streets. It might serve as the new corporate home for New Jersey-based TD Bank, although no deal has been confirmed.

Public amenities include a glass-wrapped lobby, which would serve as a new waiting room for the terminal. Also a public plaza on Vanderbilt Avenue — as well as a slew of new corridors, stairway widenings, restoration of long-closed underground links between the terminal and nearby office buildings, and creation of new ones.

Tower tenants could not move in until all the promised amenities were completed.

The transit-package commitment has earned the good will, if not yet outright approval, of key players in the political process — including Council member Dan Garodnick, who scuttled former Mayor Bloomberg’s earlier, aborted rezoning scheme for all of East Midtown, from 40th to 57th streets.

The Vanderbilt rezoning would be a prelude to eventually reviving that proposal with greater regard for the public’s needs.

But it all depends on getting One Vanderbilt out of the ground first.

[mrnyc]

i was just reading that. cuoz laid it out pretty well. looks like penson and argent are going to get screwed here. but bring out a tiny violin, even if a big chunk of midtown is rezoned eventually, they can still sell those grand central air rights elsewhere.