HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    One Vanderbilt in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1181  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2015, 9:10 PM
alex1217 alex1217 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 29
1404? Could it be that they are talking about roof height? I hope so, 1 Vanderbilt could use a hundred foot increase, not decrease.
     
     
  #1182  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2015, 4:03 AM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,493
Initial filings probably would be just roof height.
     
     
  #1183  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2015, 6:34 AM
Pete8680's Avatar
Pete8680 Pete8680 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 221
Question As of Right or Aquired Rights?

What is the deal with air rights? Can the spire go up 2 the FAA 2,000 ft limit?
__________________
Just build it!
     
     
  #1184  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2015, 7:44 AM
Foosh's Avatar
Foosh Foosh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19
I've really grown to love this building and it's form, it'll look good in the skyline.
     
     
  #1185  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2015, 7:17 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete8680 View Post
What is the deal with air rights? Can the spire go up 2 the FAA 2,000 ft limit?
I think the 1,414 roof, 1,514 spire height is pretty much a done deal.

Not that those figures are much to complain about...
     
     
  #1186  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2015, 4:38 PM
drumz0rz drumz0rz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILNY View Post
All tenants of 5 buildings to be demolished has left except for TD Bank which according to JR will move out before July 25th.










I will miss this white building. I wish they could preserve the facade.




Are there any plans to save any of that facade? I'd love to have one of those intricately carved blocks.
     
     
  #1187  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2015, 2:44 PM
sparkling's Avatar
sparkling sparkling is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 765
Demolition underway


credit: Brad Hargreaves
https://twitter.com/bhargreaves
     
     
  #1188  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2015, 3:49 PM
Hypothalamus's Avatar
Hypothalamus Hypothalamus is offline
Homo sapiens sapiens
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 3rd planet from the Sun
Posts: 1,666
^^ That was quick! It was seven stories not too long ago: https://www.google.com/maps/place/48...780013!6m1!1e1
__________________
“If I have done the public any service, it is due to my patient thought.” ― Isaac Newton

~ My Stamford, CT Thread ~~ My Danbury, CT Thread ~
     
     
  #1189  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2015, 5:16 PM
CityGuy87 CityGuy87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypothalamus View Post
^^ That was quick! It was seven stories not too long ago: https://www.google.com/maps/place/48...780013!6m1!1e1
By next year, this site will be well in to construction mode (I hope)
     
     
  #1190  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 4:54 PM
sparkling's Avatar
sparkling sparkling is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 765
Owner of Grand Central Sues Developer and City for $1.1 Billion Over Air Rights

CHARLES V. BAGLI
SEPT. 28, 2015

Quote:
When he bought Grand Central Terminal nine years ago, Andrew S. Penson figured that the unused development rights, or air rights, over the country’s busiest train station were worth a fortune.

The soft-spoken real estate investor, however, failed to come to terms with a developer next door who needed them, or to sell even one square foot of more than a million square feet of those rights.

On Monday, Mr. Penson filed a $1.1 billion lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan that argued that the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, the City Council and the developer, SL Green Realty Corporation, had deprived him of his property rights when the city gave SL Green permission to build a 1,501-foot tall office tower, without having to buy any air rights from him.

Continue Reading
     
     
  #1191  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 8:18 PM
Yackemflaber69's Avatar
Yackemflaber69 Yackemflaber69 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 632
Does this mean its gonna get delayed?
     
     
  #1192  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 8:20 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
ψ Sailor of the Mind ψ
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 37,921
If the courts make the ruling in favor of the developer, and dismiss it or they come to a compromise, it shouldn't impact the time table for this tower. Couple of lawsuits in the past over this. This looks like a weak argument from the owner, and SL and the city has every right to make this occur. Top corporate lawyers will make mince meat over this in favor of the city and SL.
     
     
  #1193  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2015, 10:58 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,341
Unsurprising. There was too much money at stake.

Any lawyers around who could shed some light onto this issue?
     
     
  #1194  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 1:34 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,978
well we knew this was coming. i am sure the army of barristers are well prepared to put their wigs on and head into battle.
     
     
  #1195  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 3:37 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 9,825
too bad they cant tear down the hyatt, or the ugly 1960s box at 45th and lex, instead of this.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
     
     
  #1196  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 3:48 AM
CityGuy87 CityGuy87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
too bad they cant tear down the hyatt, or the ugly 1960s box at 45th and lex, instead of this.
I may be in the minority but I hope they never tear down the Hyatt because the Chrysler Building deserves a bit of breathing space. It's already starting to get lost in the Midtown skyline and if a new tower was to be built on the Hyatt site, it would have to be a design that's truly worthy of standing directly next to an iconic landmark, ex: 30 Park Place complements the Woolworth Building extremely well.

Besides, there will be plenty of other development sites in Midtown East whenever the full rezoning takes effect and considering that the Hyatt continues to be successful for Trump, I highly doubt that it's going anywhere.
     
     
  #1197  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 9:29 PM
De Minimis NY De Minimis NY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hell's Kitchen, NY
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post

Any lawyers around who could shed some light onto this issue?
I'm not really qualified to opine as to matters of zoning or Constitutional law, but my gut reaction is that this is an entirely frivolous law suit that isn't going anywhere.

The takings clause of the 5th Amendment is generally construed fairly conservatively, i.e., something actually has to be taken from you for it to apply. Penson is arguing that the grant of air rights to SL Green is effectively a "taking" because it reduces the value of Grand Central's air rights. In order to prevail, Penson would have to demonstrate that:

(1) the rezoning, which is funding over $200mm in public infrastructure improvements, does not serve any public purpose (good luck with that), and

(2) the government action has effectively "taken" property from him, which is going to be pretty hard to argue with a straight face given that he could still sell the air rights for a 500% profit (he bought them at $60 psf and they are estimated to trade at over $300 psf under the rezoning).

If this argument were to hold up, then every upzoning would trigger a "taking" in that it would reduce the value of unused air rights by current property owners in the surrounding areas. This would effectively destroy the model of funding public infrastructure with the sale of development rights and make it nearly impossible for the city to accomplish any upzoning anywhere. Thus, despite the fact that this already seems like a bullshit claim as a purely legal matter, the public policy implications of the precedent make it that much less likely a court would side with Penson.

This guy is just crying about having timed his bet wrong, I wouldn't take it very seriously.
     
     
  #1198  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 11:54 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 9,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGuy87 View Post
I may be in the minority but I hope they never tear down the Hyatt because the Chrysler Building deserves a bit of breathing space. It's already starting to get lost in the Midtown skyline and if a new tower was to be built on the Hyatt site, it would have to be a design that's truly worthy of standing directly next to an iconic landmark, ex: 30 Park Place complements the Woolworth Building extremely well.

Besides, there will be plenty of other development sites in Midtown East whenever the full rezoning takes effect and considering that the Hyatt continues to be successful for Trump, I highly doubt that it's going anywhere.
probably true: but this deserves to go...

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7533...8i6656!6m1!1e1
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
     
     
  #1199  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2015, 4:08 AM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,493
^We do have a thread for that building, in fact.

237 Park Ave
     
     
  #1200  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2015, 4:36 PM
phoenixboi08's Avatar
phoenixboi08 phoenixboi08 is offline
Transport Planner
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Minimis NY View Post
I'm not really qualified to opine as to matters of zoning or Constitutional law, but my gut reaction is that this is an entirely frivolous law suit that isn't going anywhere.

The takings clause of the 5th Amendment is generally construed fairly conservatively, i.e., something actually has to be taken from you for it to apply. Penson is arguing that the grant of air rights to SL Green is effectively a "taking" because it reduces the value of Grand Central's air rights. In order to prevail, Penson would have to demonstrate that:

(1) the rezoning, which is funding over $200mm in public infrastructure improvements, does not serve any public purpose (good luck with that), and

(2) the government action has effectively "taken" property from him, which is going to be pretty hard to argue with a straight face given that he could still sell the air rights for a 500% profit (he bought them at $60 psf and they are estimated to trade at over $300 psf under the rezoning).

If this argument were to hold up, then every upzoning would trigger a "taking" in that it would reduce the value of unused air rights by current property owners in the surrounding areas. This would effectively destroy the model of funding public infrastructure with the sale of development rights and make it nearly impossible for the city to accomplish any upzoning anywhere. Thus, despite the fact that this already seems like a bullshit claim as a purely legal matter, the public policy implications of the precedent make it that much less likely a court would side with Penson.

This guy is just crying about having timed his bet wrong, I wouldn't take it very seriously.
Well, it will be argued as being a "per se" takings. What the courts will have to determine is whether or not this rezoning removes all use of the land...in this case, the use is a transfer from the landmark to an adjacent site. From what I understand, the entire purpose of air rights was to allow owners to profit from land value since the current landmarks law doesn't not allow them to extract that value, on-site.

From a strict reading of the law, this guy probably doesn't have any standing, since the air rights simply guarantees that development can be transferred from the landmark site elsewhere, but doesn't guarantee/protect the value of that right.

Theoretically, a depreciation of the air rights does not remove all economically viable use of that [transferable property].

I don't predict an injunction from the court...but you never now.
__________________
"I'm not an armchair urbanist; not yet a licensed planner"
MCRP '16
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.