NEW YORK | 10 West 57th Street | 672 FT | 52 FLOORS

[chris08876]

@ Mods,

Change from: NEW YORK | 16 W. 57th St | FT | 54 FLOORS

To:


NEW YORK | 10 West 57th Street | 672 FT | 52 FLOORS


= = = = = = = =

From the DOB:

Premises: 10 WEST 57 STREET MANHATTAN Job No: 121188179
BIN: 1081138 Block: 1272 Lot: 47

Pre-Filed: 04/17/2018 Building Type: Other

[...]

13 Building Characteristics

Primary structural system: Masonry Concrete (CIP) Concrete (Precast) Wood
Steel (Structural) Steel (Cold-Formed) Steel (Encased in Concrete)

Proposed
Structural Occupancy Category: II - OTHER THAN I, III OR IV
Seismic Design Category: CATEGORY B
2014/2008 Code Designations?
Occupancy Classification: R-2 - RESIDENTIAL: APARTMENT HOUSES Yes No
Construction Classification: II-B: UNPROTECTED - NON-COMBUSTIBLE Yes No
Multiple Dwelling Classification: HAEA
Building Height (ft.): 672
Building Stories: 52
Dwelling Units: 80

====================
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

[Crawford]

This is pretty disappointing height for Billionaires Row. I really hope Solow can assemble additional air rights.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is pretty disappointing height for Billionaires Row. I really hope Solow can assemble additional air rights.

This is a prefiling that will cover many beautiful, old buildings stretching across to 16 W 57th Street, which Soloviev owns.

[antinimby]

^ It will be kick in the nads (like you used to say as londonlawyer over at WNY) if all these handsome prewars are razed for a glass box (what Solow usually builds).

[NYguy]

Looks like SOM is still on this.

[NYguy]

https://therealdeal.com/2018/06/18/a...t-57th-street/

Appellate court overturns ruling favoring tenant at Solow’s 10 West 57th Street
Metropolitan Fine Arts & Antiques plans to appeal decision


By Will Parker
June 18, 2018

heldon Solow wants to build a 54-story hotel and condominium on West 57th Street, but can’t do it until the last retail tenant on the south side of the block gets out of his way.

That tenant, Metropolitan Fine Arts & Antiques, has not been wont to do so and enlisted attorney David Rozenholc — known for securing large buyouts for holdout tenants — to help them fight Solow. The billionaire moved to evict the shop on the basis that it used the premises to conduct an illegal enterprise — the Manhattan District Attorney discovered the shop had dealt $4.5 million in illegal ivory during a 2015 sting.

A lower court initially ruled that this action alone was not sufficient to evict a tenant, but a five-judge panel at the appellate division shot down that decision down last week. “Appellant’s showing that [Metropolitan] engaged in the unlawful business of offering ivory for sale on its premises, and did so over a period of months, is plainly sufficient,” the judges wrote in their decision brief.

Although Metropolitan is the main obstacle in the famously litigious Solow’s path to putting yet another luxury tower on West 57th Street, another tenant he forced out, wants $800,000 in compensation for its lease getting terminated four years early. It sued Solow in January and obtained an injunction allowing it to temporarily hold on to its lease. Solow is appealing.

[chris08876]

‘Billionaires’ Row’ residents sue city to block homeless shelter

Residents of Manhattan’s “Billionaires’ Row” filed a lawsuit against the city on Monday in an attempt to stop a homeless shelter opening in their Midtown neighborhood.

The West 58th Street Coalition claimed, in its Manhattan Supreme Court lawsuit, that the proposed shelter at the old Park Savoy Hotel is not up modern safety standards and would pose a danger to both its homeless residents and neighbors.

“That is why emergency relief is urgently needed now to prevent this shelter from opening imminently,” according to the complaint.

The project at 158 W. 58th St. was announced in February, and the city has ignored fire, crime, construction and asbestos issues, the neighborhood activists claimed.

“Not only is the building unsafe, but crime and loitering” caused by the project will lead to “irreparable injuries that have been found to warrant emergency injunctive relief to block the opening of a homeless shelter,” the lawsuit said.

A rep for the New York City Law Department said he hadn’t seen lawsuit Monday night and couldn’t immediately comment.

========================
https://nypost.com/2018/07/02/billio...eless-shelter/

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by antinimby

^ It will be kick in the nads (like you used to say as londonlawyer over at WNY) if all these handsome prewars are razed for a glass box (what Solow usually builds).

Honestly I was dumb to even care about those towers before. When I seriously examined them, I realized it's just not worth worrying about. These are very average examples of old buildings and no loss.

[NYguy]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/05/deals-...ding-projects/

By Steve Cuozzo
November 5, 2018

Sheldon Solow finally booted Metropolitan Antiques from 10 W. 57th St. The schlocky store, which plead guilty to illegally selling $4.5 million in elephant ivory, was the last holdout tenant to stand in Solow’s way to build a 52-story hotel, condos and retail Tower.

The conviction gave Solow the right to evict the store. Metropolitan fought back in court but the shop quietly vanished in the past week.

Solow’s new building will go up across the street from his iconic office tower 9 West and from an apartment Tower he’s putting up at 7 W. 57th.

[JMKeynes]

It's a shame to see these beautiful buildings go. Let's hope that the replacement is nice at least and not a bland SOM box.

[Busy Bee]

One would think with the quality of those facades there would be an effort to dismantle them and possible reassemble on some other development elsewhere in the city.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

It's a shame to see these beautiful buildings go. Let's hope that the replacement is nice at least and not a bland SOM box.

Gonna miss these two? Walk around, there's plenty in that well.

I don't expect the SOM design to be something that will blow you out of the water. But that's not to say that those older buildings need to stand for all time because you like to look at them.

I"m convinced that some of you think anything old is worth preserving, just because.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I"m convinced that some of you think anything old is worth preserving, just because.

Don't be so condescending and rude.

[chris08876]

I hope there's a height boost. This area is prime for a super tall. Seems underwhelming if its less than 900 ft.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Don't be so condescending and rude.

Nah, it's the truth. They say it should be preserved, but provide no reasoning behind that logic. I'm not for just tearing down any old building just for the sake of tearing it down. Neither am I for insisting the city can't continue to grow and evolve because something was built in place earlier. If that were the case, we would have many of the buildings we adore today, including the Empire State Building. And before anyone asks, no, not all new building need to be Empire States.

New York is a "built" city, but by no means is that to say it's "done". It continues to thrive and evolve. It's a tight city of highrises and skyscrapers. And it isn't covered in open lots waiting for development. You build where you can.

[JSsocal]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Nah, it's the truth. They say it should be preserved, but provide no reasoning behind that logic. I'm not for just tearing down any old building just for the sake of tearing it down. Neither am I for insisting the city can't continue to grow and evolve because something was built in place earlier. If that were the case, we would have many of the buildings we adore today, including the Empire State Building. And before anyone asks, no, not all new building need to be Empire States.

New York is a "built" city, but by no means is that to say it's "done". It continues to thrive and evolve. It's a tight city of highrises and skyscrapers. And it isn't covered in open lots waiting for development. You build where you can.

Let's not talk in absolutes about something that's so subjective. Because it's not the truth. If this building is landmarked they'll build somewhere else in NY, recent news should tell you we don't need to worry about companies leaving - clearly. People act like if we don't let developers build their buildings right where they want them they'll pack their bags and develop in NJ or CT or Dallas. That's not the case.

We should be building outside our established business districts, because as desirable as NY is so much of it in the boroughs are underdeveloped and ugly, let's not waste the good stuff.

Left to capitalist devices NYC would just eat itself until every last sf of air rights in Manhattan were used up - eventually. Making money for developers and making a better NY are 2 different things.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Let's not talk in absolutes about something that's so subjective. Because it's not the truth. If this building is landmarked they'll build somewhere else in NY, recent news should tell you we don't need to worry about companies leaving - clearly. People act like if we don't let developers build their buildings right where they want them they'll pack their bags and develop in NJ or CT or Dallas. That's not the case.

We should be building outside our established business districts, because as desirable as NY is so much of it in the boroughs are underdeveloped and ugly, let's not waste the good stuff.

Left to capitalist devices NYC would just eat itself until every last sf of air rights in Manhattan were used up - eventually. Making money for developers and making a better NY are 2 different things.

A lot of companies have held off on constructing new class-A office space precisely because of restrictive zoning and high costs of construction (a product of labor, city regulations, etc).

If you strained your mind enough, you could make a landmark case for half of the buildings in Manhattan, but what is the point? I mean, issues of taste aside (some buildings really are just garbage, no matter how badly you want to think they're aesthetically significant), do you really think most people will lament the loss of a mediocre low rise in midtown? What artistic value does it have? What historical or cultural significance does it offer? Even if it has some, who cares? Even museums rotate out their collections from time to time, except you can't rotate out buildings. You can only demolish them.

Like NY Guy said, NYC would be without many of it's most cherished structures if landmarking were so liberally applied. Manhattan would also be home to a tremendous amount of mediocre buildings, as the landmarks commission doesn't issue protective status solely based on the quality of the design, but also historical significance and to buildings that are a good representation of their style (even if their style is "dog turd"). So rather than have modern, efficient buildings with more space, better emergency efficiency, amenities for residents, etc, we have $4000 a month rotting shit hole apartments in the West Village and the majority of office space in the most important CBD in the world dating back to the Eisenhower administration (at least in part due to landmarked buildings being immune from development).

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Let's not talk in absolutes about something that's so subjective. Because it's not the truth. If this building is landmarked they'll build somewhere else in NY, recent news should tell you we don't need to worry about companies leaving - clearly. People act like if we don't let developers build their buildings right where they want them they'll pack their bags and develop in NJ or CT or Dallas. That's not the case.

We should be building outside our established business districts, because as desirable as NY is so much of it in the boroughs are underdeveloped and ugly, let's not waste the good stuff.

If I had time, I'd get a violin to go with that. New York has been trying to expand its business districts for decades, with limited success. But the reason Manhattan is so concentrated is because it is the most logical place for these concentrations. Sure, the outer boroughs can host limited business districts. But Manhattan is the center of the entire tri-state area. And we're not going to go downtown and bulldoze the entire lower Manhattan lowrise neighborhoods like Tribeca, the Village, etc. You're not going to see a wave of Hudson Yards type towers spreading across Harlem. You put the big buildings where they can go, and if something has to come down because it's outlived it's usefulness, then so be it. Real estate in the city, and particularly this stretch of Manhattan, has become to valuable to allow buildings to just sit because it brings back a sense of the "old" for some people. This city is never "done". There are new things to be seen, new experiences to be had.

As I keep saying, the city is not a museum - but it has plenty of those who want to go back and look at something. Things change in a vibrant city like New York. And not just the buildings. Street furniture changes. Buses change. Taxis change. The very clothing that people wear changes. That's life. There are a lot of landmarks across the city, almost entire neighborhoods in some cases, and for good reason. Those will stand through time, but don't tell me that insignificant buildings (of which the City has many need to stand just because they're old. People sometimes become so attached to the things of the past that they can hardly appreciate the experience of the here and now, where things are evolving.

The building that goes up here by SOM coulde be a piece of crap. But it will be a 21st century piece of crap if it is. It will be what Solow thought was the best use for his piece of real estate in the city in the here and now. And that's allowed. It' how and why everything got built in the first place.

[NYguy]

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-e...possible-tower

Solow files to demolish Billionaires Row buildings in prep for possible tower

JOE ANUTA
February 13, 2019

Sheldon Solow's development company is aiming to raze a pair of buildings along Billionaire's Row in what appears to be preparations for a new tower.

Last week, Solow Management filed permits to tear down both an eight-story building at 20 West 57th St. and a 10-story building at 10-14 West 57th St. In April of last year, the firm applied to demolish a building that sits between the pair now in his cross hairs, along with an adjacent property to the east that abuts the Crown Building. In addition, the firm has already razed a property to the south. Together, the through-block site would be able to accommodate a sizable new project.

It is unclear exactly what the octogenarian and his son, Stefan Soloviev, have in mind, although in May the developer filed plans for a 52-story hotel and residential tower with ground-floor retail. Documents submitted to the city indicate that architect Skidmore Owings & Merrill was working on the project. However, the Department of buildings said that the plans never received the green light, and that only one of Solow's demolition permits for the four buildings has been approved to date.

[JMKeynes]

That stinks. Those buildings are beautiful.