NEW YORK | 50 West 66 Street | 775 FT | 70 FLOORS

[Design-mind]

Snøhetta is really making inroads in NYC. Causing controversy and designing works of art.

[chris08876]

Credit: Cityrealty

[NYguy]

Will look great here...


TDG-77

[JMKeynes]

In this location, this tower will be very successful.

[NYguy]

This reminds me of something I wanted to talk about at another time, New York's war on skyscrapers...



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/n...e=sectionfront

Tower Planned for Upper West Side May Be Too Tall and Too Late

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
DEC. 8, 2017

In a city seemingly exhausted by a long-running construction boom, the number of pitched battles over new developments appears to be growing.

Community groups and elected officials are challenging a planned 668-foot condominium skyscraper at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, as well as a trio of towers in the Two Bridges neighborhood in Lower Manhattan. Opponents have also brought to a halt a planned 800-foot tower near Sutton Place on the East Side.

Now, the developer Gary Barnett, who built the first super-tall tower along what has become known as billionaire’s row on 57th Street and has a second under construction, is pushing forward with yet another ultra high-end skyscraper that is already drawing opposition.

The tower is set to rise 775 feet, or 69 stories, on a side street on the Upper West Side. The limestone and bronze tower designed by the architecture firm Snohetta with chamfered corners and a butterfly-shaped crown is slated to include 127 condominiums with views of Central Park. There would be an outdoor terrace on the 16th floor with a garden and swimming pool.

Helen Rosenthal, the City Council member who represents the area, said the proposed tower was “out of context for the neighborhood, and part of the creep of Midtown West into the heart of the Upper West Side.”

“We thought our zoning laws protect the area from very tall buildings,” she said. “This is truly Sisyphean.”

Not only is Mr. Barnett, the principal at Extell Development, facing off against the neighborhood, he is swimming against a tide of developers who believe the superluxury market has gone cold.

...“I guess I didn’t get the memo,” Mr. Barnett said.

He said that he is convinced that New York will remain a haven for wealthy New Yorkers and foreign investors, who pay a premium for height.

Despite its reputation as a skyscraper city, New York has had a mixed view of tall buildings. In 1915, many New Yorkers recoiled from the sheer size of the 545-foot tall Equitable Building downtown, fueling passage of the city’s first zoning plan regulating height and setbacks.

Even the development-friendly administration of Edward I. Koch in the 1980s blocked attempts by Donald J. Trump and G. Ware Travelstead to build the world’s tallest tower.

And in 2007, the even more developer-friendly Bloomberg administration shaved 200 feet off the height of Jean Nouvel’s proposed 1,250-foot tower near the Museum of Modern Art in Midtown before approving it.

Ms. Rosenthal, the City Council member, and Gale Brewer, the Manhattan borough president, are questioning whether Upper West Side zoning allows Mr. Barnett to build so high without going through the city’s approval process.

But Mr. Barnett, a former diamond trader-turned-New York real estate mogul, is confident. He hired a zoning lawyer, David Karnovsky, the former general counsel to the city’s Department of City Planning.

“It’s a beautiful site,” Mr. Barnett said. “It’s a true residential location.”

To build an even taller tower, Mr. Barnett also bought a substantial chunk of unused development rights — 132,054 square feet — for $55 million, from ABC, the owner of a building on the west side of the Guild property.

He initially filed plans with the Buildings Department for a 25-story building, even as he continued to acquire other property. Critics contend that Mr. Barnett used a “bait-and-switch” tactic to lull the neighborhood into complacency. Although he knew that the Upper West Side would be characteristically combative, Mr. Barnett said, he filed a plan for what he could build at the time.

Councilwoman Rosenthal contends that the zoning does not permit a 775-foot-tall building.

But Mr. Barnett and his zoning lawyer argue that it allows for a slim tower of unlimited height as long as 60 percent of the building’s bulk is in a podium no higher than 150 feet tall.

“A 700-footer doesn’t even rank anymore” as a super-tall tower, Mr. Barnett joked.

If the opposition doesn’t stall the project, the building will be ready for occupancy in another three years when, presumably, the market is hot again.

[NOPA]

Oh the plight of UWS residents. Boo fucking hoo. This NIMBY shit really pisses me off.

I love this design. The terrace is die for. Snohetta doesn't disappoint on this one.

[dropdeaded209]

haha well we stopped them in their tracks with that absurd AT&T proposal. Hands off my Johnson!

[Prezrezc]

The perceived "right" of a tax-paying NIMBY of the obstructionist species to live in this city, as far as I'm concerned, ends when their attempts to prevent a thriving metropolis to grow around them begin in earnest.

This tower is as-of-right, is it not?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Prezrezc

This tower is as-of-right, is it not?

This is in a a C4-7 zone with regards to the zoning. Allows for a FAR of 10.0 with commercial and equivalent with residential. Also it allows for mixed used (commercial/residential).

Its as-of-right, so long as it complies with applicable zoning laws and parameters. Most of the city is as of right btw.

Extell is perfectly legal with respect to its assemblage, and tower properties. They are following the system, and the NIMBY's do not have a case.

Its zoning is in a commercial district btw, hence the "C" in C4-7. Generally as x> increases in C4-X, you will see higher density and greater FAR.

[NYguy]

Yeah, it's legal, which is why these groups are now resorting to neighborhood "spot" rezonings in attempts to stop new buildings. They don't want anything to be built as-of-right because they want the right to obstruct.

[chris08876]

Delete - photo not working

[chris08876]

Under Construction


Credit: JC_Heights

[Dac150]

Wow … already? I thought this one was facing some local opposition. Glad to see we're underway.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Wow … already? I thought this one was facing some local opposition. Glad to see we're underway.

The tower is as of right. Locals can't stop it.

Locals can sue, I guess, but they would just succeed in costing the developer legal fees and potential delays.

[chris08876]

Pretty much what would happen, delays at worse. There is legal claim or another way of phrasing it, virtue of entitlement with as-of-right. So long as it abides by the current zoning parameters and specifications for that parcel, its good to go.

Any sort of stoppage of this tower from reaching its magnitude will not happen. No chance of zoning changes, as this is too late in the process. The NIMBY recluses are just blowing smoke. This will rise, as will other towers in their cross hairs. If they wanted this down-sized, they should of done something about it years ago.

But anyways, to a healthy, and fruitful construction period.

[JMKeynes]

From Extell’s website:

https://extell.com/portfolio/50-west-66th-street

[mrnyc]

^ for a small render, that is a very nice looking teaser.

[NYguy]

http://www.westsidespirit.com/local-...pertall-towers

UWS takes aim at supertall towers

BY MICHAEL GAROFALO
MAR 12, 2018

Amid neighborhood concerns that two looming high-rise development projects in the West 60s could signal the imminent creep of Midtown skyscrapers into the Upper West Side, Community Board 7 took steps last week to address the spread of so-called supertall towers.

The community board voted at its March 6 meeting in favor of a resolution calling on the city to close perceived loopholes with respect to building heights in the city’s zoning code.

The resolution cites several tactics for increasing building heights that developers have utilized with increasing frequency in recent years as technological advances have reduced the costs of supertall construction and the city’s booming luxury housing market has incentivized developers to build higher.

One such tactic addressed in the resolution is the practice of building higher-than-standard ceilings on each floor to raise a tower’s overall height.

The resolution also mentions mechanical spaces and voids, which appear perhaps most famously in 432 Park Avenue, the Midtown condo development that features empty two-story gaps at regular intervals up the nearly 1,400-foot-tall tower. Because mechanical voids do not count toward a building’s floor area, which helps determine allowable height, critics say the spaces can be strategically used by developers solely for the purpose of raising the height and value of buildings’ upper floors.

The administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio signaled it would move to reform the use of voids at a January 2018 town hall meeting hosted by the mayor on the Upper East Side. “We agree that the notion that there are empty spaces for the sole purpose of making the building taller for the views at the top is not what was intended, and so we are already working under the mayor’s direction with the Department of Buildings to see how we can make sure that the intent of the rules is followed,” said Marisa Lago, chair of the City Planning Commission.

The community board’s move takes place against the backdrop of two luxury condo towers currently under development at 200 Amsterdam Avenue and 50 West 66th Street that critics have argued do not align with the scale or context of the surrounding neighborhood. Slated to rise 668 and 775 feet, respectively, each tower would eclipse the height of any existing building on the Upper West Side.

Both projects have been the target of criticism from elected officials and local land use groups, and 200 Amsterdam is the subject of a pending zoning appeal arguing that the site’s building permit should be revoked.

The city’s Board of Standards and Appeals will hold a public hearing on the 200 Amsterdam appeal on March 27.

[Busy Bee]

I sure wish these people could pool all their concern and outrage and focus it on a real zoning problem which is the scourge of hideous setbacks because of overly stringent sky-plane guidelines instead of considering appropriate streetwall form on a case by case basis.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I sure wish these people could pool all their concern and outrage and focus it on a real zoning problem which is the scourge of hideous setbacks because of overly stringent sky-plane guidelines instead of considering appropriate streetwall form on a case by case basis.

These NIMBYs are the reason for these "hideous setbacks". They don't give a damn about building design except for the mantra of "keep buildings as short as possible."