NEW YORK | 980 Madison Av. | HEIGHT | 30 FLOORS | 2006 | NEVER BUILT [Archive]

STERNyc

Oct 10, 2006, 3:10 AM

Originally posted at WNY by member TonyO.

NY Times
October 10, 2006
Architecture

Injecting a Bold Shot of the New on the Upper East Side

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/10/arts/10fost_CA1.450.jpg
A computer rendering of the roughly 30-story tower designed by Norman Foster for 980 Madison Avenue, between 76th and 77th Streets.

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
I expect Norman Foster’s design for a new residential tower at 980 Madison Avenue to infuriate people. Rising out of the old Parke-Bernet Gallery building, a spare 1950 office building between 76th and 77th Streets, its interlocking elliptical forms throw down a challenge to a neighborhood known for an aversion to bold contemporary architecture.

The tower’s height, roughly 30 stories, hardly helps its cause; as with other luxury high rises reshaping the Manhattan skyline, its scale is clearly driven by economic considerations. Defenders will point out that the Carlyle Hotel across the street is slightly taller, but the reality is that the Carlyle’s setbacks make it virtually invisible when viewed from the street. Lord Foster’s tower would have a far stronger visual presence, soaring above the apartment buildings flanking it to the north and south.

With a little trimming, though, this could be the most handsome building to rise along Madison Avenue since the Whitney Museum of American Art was completed 40 years ago.

The project approaches the existing building with gentleness, respecting its integrity without resorting to historical mimicry. And its glistening forms reaffirm the city’s faith in progress, suggesting that Lord Foster has a better grip on what makes New York tick than architects who have worked in the city all their lives.

Designed by Walker & Poor, 980 Madison’s austere limestone facades and urban roof garden were meant to replicate the stylish look of Rockefeller Center, completed a decade earlier. But the building signals the end of an era, not a beginning. Its low, subdued profile is the antithesis of Rockefeller Center’s soaring monumentality, giving it a curious sense of incompleteness. And within two years Manhattan would move on to embrace International Style Modernism with the completion of Lever House.

The building suffered through a major renovation in 1960, when the roof garden was stripped away and replaced with a fifth floor whose horizontal windows clashed with the formal rhythm of the windows below. Yet even after the addition it retains a straightforward elegance, serving as a bridge between Beaux Arts monumentality and classical Modernism.

Lord Foster was enlisted as someone who has handled sensitive historic sites, even if the results have been somewhat mixed. In his recent addition to the Hearst Building on Eighth Avenue he plunged a faceted 46-story office tower through the original 1920’s structure with stunning force, and the collision between the two is mesmerizing. But an earlier design for the courtyard of the British Museum simply smoothed over the differences between old and new, an approach that benefited neither.

Here, Lord Foster approaches the 1950 building with care, as if leery of riling old ghosts. The unfortunate fifth-story addition from the 1960’s would be demolished to make way for a spectacular roof garden framed by lush grass. And the tower is set at the building’s northern edge, closer to 77th Street, giving it a connection to the block between Madison and Fifth Avenues and preserving some of the current views from the Carlyle Hotel.

Most ingenious is the delicate way Lord Foster links the old and new structures. A slender exposed elevator core rises from the old building, connecting the 77th Street lobby to the glass tower. The tower’s petal-shaped floors begin 30 feet above the old structure’s roof level, so that the two buildings barely seem to touch.

The tower’s underbelly forms an entrance canopy at one end of the garden. From the street it would seem as though the tower were floating above the old stone base, its elliptical shaft stretching up to the clouds.

As with all of Lord Foster’s recent buildings, the forms are generated by environmental as well as aesthetic considerations. The tower’s interlocking ellipses and uneven heights visually reduce its scale, giving it a more slender profile as it rises. The elegantly curved forms were designed to limit wind resistance; the fluted glass cladding will collect solar energy.

But the tower’s outsize height is a problem. Manhattan was shaped by the hubris of developers struggling against the constraints of the street grid, and its beauty is a result of wild juxtapositions of scales, styles and architectural periods. But I’m not sure a luxury high rise should be allowed the same freedom as a major civic building.

Unlike Renzo Piano’s planned addition to the Whitney Museum of American Art two blocks south, the Foster tower will serve the interests of a wealthy elite, not the public at large. We’re not talking about, say, a project that addresses the city’s desperate need for middle-class housing.

And the argument that the tower’s height is in keeping with the Carlyle’s is misleading. One of Madison Avenue’s most comforting features is the way its scale shifts as you walk north from the corporate towers of Midtown and approach its residential neighborhoods. You read the street differently as the pace and intensity slow.

The tower need not conform to the height levels of its neighbors, but it should at least establish a visual dialogue with the 16-story residential tower immediately to the north across 77th Street. The challenge will be to scale back the height without sacrificing the elegance of the tower’s slender proportions.

These decisions will play out in haggling between the developer, Aby Rosen, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission, not in a design studio. (The building lies within the landmarked Upper East Side Historic District; the commission plans a public hearing on the project on Oct. 24.)

Lord Foster is not a social critic; his job, as he sees it, is to create an eloquent expression of his client’s values. What he has designed is a perfect monument for the emerging city of the enlightened megarich: environmentally aware, sensitive to history, confident of its place in the new world order, resistant to sacrifice.

Still, you cannot help but marvel at the project’s sophistication as a work of architecture.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/10/arts/10fost_CA0.650.jpg
A computer rendering, looking uptown, of Norman Foster’s elliptical tower rising on the west side of Madison Avenue.

Gregorius

Oct 10, 2006, 3:22 AM

Wow, I like it. I've always been under the impression that Manhattan could use a few less boxes, except I'm slightly worried about how it will fit into the neighborhood. I like knowing what the street presence looks like because that can make or break a building. Especially a building that is this small in Manhattan, its all it really has going for it.

Gregorius

Oct 10, 2006, 3:26 AM

Oh, nevermind. I should probably learn how to read before I go off on tangents.

Jersey Mentality

Oct 10, 2006, 3:28 AM

I think it will complement the Bloomberg Building, arent they both in the general vicinity. I know Bloomburg Building is on Lexington but isnt it just a few block from the site?

Thefigman

Oct 10, 2006, 11:36 AM

What a terrific looking building!

I wouldn't mind having this in my neighborhood.

NYguy

Oct 10, 2006, 11:46 AM

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/10/arts/10fost_CA1.450.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/10/arts/10fost_CA0.650.jpg
A computer rendering, looking uptown, of Norman Foster’s elliptical tower rising on the west side of Madison Avenue.

Very nice. I like it better than his planned 709 ft tower further down Madison.

BINARY SYSTEM

Oct 13, 2006, 2:23 AM

StatenIslander237

Oct 15, 2006, 1:58 AM

OOOOOOOHHHH HOW EXCITING!!!! It's always nice to see a new highrise in a not-to-highrise-infested area. That and the Norman Foster-ness of it (yes i know he designed it, thanks) make it look almost London-ish, quite a different direction for the upper east side. :eek: :eeekk:

Joey D

Oct 15, 2006, 2:32 AM

Very nice.

dmc

Oct 15, 2006, 3:13 AM

Another beauty from Foster. Congrats NYC!! Be lucky you got this design and not the one just announced by Foster for Calgary - pop over and see their new thread to feel smug.

I also love the Foster design for the WTC site, and of course the new Hearst building.

NYguy

Oct 17, 2006, 11:39 AM

Nothing surprising here...

(NY Times)

Plan for an Upper East Side Tower Meets With Disapproval

By ROBIN POGREBIN
October 17, 2006

A community board committee voted to reject a 30-story apartment tower designed by Norman Foster last night after Upper East Side residents expressed outrage over the project planned for 980 Madison Avenue, opposite the Carlyle Hotel.

“A glass dagger plunged into the heart of the Upper East Side,” said Dan Goldberg, a resident of East 76th Street. “Midtown is filled with lots of prima donna-ish buildings, so maybe it makes less of a difference there, but up here, our prevailing skyline is more consistent, and Foster’s aggressively futuristic vision of 980 Madison would kill that consistency.”

“What makes Paris beautiful?” asked Don Gringer, a Park Avenue resident. “Low-rise buildings, limestone, ornaments — all similar and somewhat matching but working together. Help us keep our Madison Avenue as beautiful and in character.”

These residents spoke during the public comment portion of a meeting by Community Board Eight’s Landmarks Committee at the Hunter College School of Social Work on East 79th Street. The committee voted 6-to-3 to disapprove the project in its entirety, a decision that now goes before the full board tomorrow.

The board’s decision, though only advisory, represents the first public position on the tower since the Foster proposal was made public last week.

The community board’s position will be taken into account by agencies, including the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission and the Department of City Planning, that will ultimately decide on the plan.

The Foster project is only the latest preservation battle for a neighborhood that just finished fighting an addition to the Whitney Museum, two blocks south, designed by Renzo Piano. Indeed, although the project has completed its public approval process , some residents are still combating the Whitney expansion with a lawsuit.

The Foster high-rise would be an addition to the old Parke-Bernet Gallery building, a 1950 office tower between 76th and 77th Streets that was at one time home to Sotheby’s auction house.

During the public session, Ward Blum of East 77th Street called the building an “uninvited intruder.”

Oliver Evans, a Fifth Avenue resident, likened the tower’s proposed construction to “plunging 30 sheer glass floors of Times Square Tower right into the middle of Madison Avenue” and accused the developer of doing it merely for his own “large profit expectations.”

The developer, Aby Rosen, appealed to the public last night, citing his other recent projects that combined restoration and construction, including Lever House and the Gramercy Park Hotel. “We seek your support and your understanding,” Mr. Rosen said. “I know it’s a very daring project.”

The British architect, Lord Foster, has made something of a specialty out of handling historic sites. This summer, he completed the Hearst Building on Eighth Avenue, adding a glass 46-story office tower on top of the original 1920’s building.

In presenting the project to the landmarks committee last night, Brandon Haw, a senior partner at Foster & Partners, said, “Yesterday’s developments are today’s landmarks,” mentioning the Guggenheim and Whitney Museums as examples.

“We believe it’s possible to add to this building,” he added. “The two will harmonize together to create a better whole.”

Not all of last night’s public comments were negative. Barry Schneider, president of the East Sixties Neighborhood Association, said he would hope that neighborhood residents were “ready for an architectural tour du force.”

Bill Jordan, of East 72nd Street, said of the building: “I would welcome the public amenities it would provide.”

The new tower would include 24,000 square feet of contemporary exhibition space as well as a rooftop sculpture garden.

Although the Carlyle is taller than the proposed Foster building, the hotel’s setbacks make it almost imperceptible from the street.

The Parke-Bernet Gallery building was altered in the 1960’s — 50 windows were added to the original 35, for example. The Foster design calls for replacing the original cornice line, windows and storefronts.

In his review of the design in The New York Times last week, Nicolai Ouroussoff predicted that the building would “infuriate people,” even as he praised it as perhaps “the most handsome building to rise along Madison Avenue since the Whitney Museum of American Art was completed 40 years ago.”

And yesterday there were signs that the debate over the Foster tower would stir broader opposition. “We find it to be entirely inappropriate,” said Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, in an interview. “Talking about the architectural excellence is really beside the point.”

NYguy

Oct 17, 2006, 11:51 AM

NY Sun

Landmark Question Awaits Tower Proposed for Madison Avenue

By DAVID LOMBINO
October 17, 2006

Developer Aby Rosen considers himself a preservationist.The active art collector and top donor to the Municipal Art Society bought and restored two landmarked office buildings on Park Avenue, the Seagram Building and the Lever House, for which he won a preservation award.

But his latest project is causing an outcry from Upper East Siders who say the design for a 22-story elliptical, glass apartment building on top of the limestone Parke-Bernet Gallery building on Madison Avenue mocks the neighborhood's character and the definition of a historic district.

Mr. Rosen, the president of RFR Holding LLC, said the proposed tower, across the street from the Carlyle Hotel between 76th and 77th streets, would be a welcome breath of fresh air in the neighborhood.

"The Upper East Side needs new progressive architecture," Mr. Rosen said. "Historically, the people who lived there were a driving creative force behind New York City. Unfortunately, now the Upper East Side has lost a little bit of its progressive luster to downtown."

The project's award-winning architect, he noted, Lord Norman Foster, was recently praised by critics for his design of the new Hearst Tower on Eighth Avenue, a 47-story addition to an existing, landmarked base.

Last night, a member of Lord Foster's firm presented designs in front of a crowded community board meeting. Several neighbors spoke out against the tower. One local resident, Daniel Goldberg, said the proposal was "like a glass dagger plunged into the heart of the Upper East Side."

The co-chairman of the Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, Teri Slater, said the project belongs elsewhere.

"We nearly fainted when we saw the renderings,"Ms. Slater said."The reason people want a historic district is they want to be preserve a context. If you propose something totally out of context, it defeats the purpose of having a historic district."

"Our area is vital enough. We love it the way it is, and we will fight to protect it," Ms. Slater said.

Designated in 1981, the Upper East Side Historic District stretches from 59th Street to 78th Street, roughly between Fifth and Lexington Avenues. It contains hundreds of mansions, townhouses, and apartment buildings erected by the city's wealthiest citizens at the beginning of the 20th Century. As part of that district, Mr. Rosen's project must be approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which has scheduled a public hearing for October 24th. Another Community Board meeting is scheduled for tomorrow.

The president of the Municipal Art Society, Kent Barwick, was the commissioner of Landmarks when the historic district was designated.

"We weren't trying to freeze an area in time. We wanted there to be opportunities for good, new architecture but still protect the qualities that make it special," Mr. Barwick said.

He would not comment on Mr. Rosen's application until he previews it with other city civic organizations on Thursday.

The executive director of the Historic District Council, Simeon Bankoff, said the building's style, materials, and scale is "astonishingly at odds" with the area's character. He said that the Landmarks commission should not be swayed by Lord Foster's fame.

"It is not about the quality of the architecture. This is more about what it means to have a historic district," Mr. Bankoff said.

The director of the historic preservation program at Columbia University, Paul Byard, said Lord Foster's design was "moderately interesting," "well composed," and "certainly could be promising," but he predicted conflict. He said the Upper East Side is a notoriously difficult place for more contemporary designs.

"There will be blood on the floor," Mr. Byard said.

Upper East Side preservationists most recently fought the Whitney Museum of American Art for about two and a half years over a proposed addition just a block and a half from Mr. Rosen's proposed tower.A modified design received final approval earlier this year by the city's Board of Standards and Appeals, and a lawsuit soon followed.

Mr. Byard said that the Landmarks Commission is increasingly faced with pressure from some preservationist groups to only approve designs identical to a neighborhood's existing character. That leaves the commission with only legal oversight, rather than architectural oversight, he said.

"By insisting on a rule of sameness, you are taking away the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Commission, which is to deem appropriateness," Mr. Byard said.

Mr. Rosen, the developer, said he bought the Parke-Bernet Gallery more than two years ago, for roughly $120 million, with the intention of adding a rooftop tower on top. The gallery was built in 1950 and renovated in about 1960, when the building's public garden was replaced with a fifth story of offices.

Mr. Rosen said the total cost of adding the tower would be about $180 million.The public garden would be restored and the tower would be built 120,000 square feet smaller than what would be allowed under the existing zoning, he said. The tower would contain about 18 full-floor units and duplexes spread spaciously on 22 floors.

"They are going to be very pricey, but they will be beautiful and rare,"Mr. Rosen said. "We are creating a new landmark between the Whitney and the Guggenheim."

Because the proposed development would exceed the allowable bulk allowed under zoning regulations, a special permit must be approved by the city's Planning Commission and the City Council.

The local City Council member, Daniel Garodnick, said he is concerned about the proposal and will monitor plans.

GFSNYC

Oct 17, 2006, 11:59 AM

I really don't get opposition to this building. It is as if they're protesting for the sake of protesting, no validity in their arguement. Comparing Madison Ave to Paris is seriously weak - I'm sure Parisians would scoff at the statement. Besides, a cookie-cutter condo tower would go much further to destroy the dignaty of Madison Ave then would a dramatically designed tower.

Go Foster!

Wheelingman04

Oct 17, 2006, 6:54 PM

^ It is ashame so many people are against this building. I think it is gorgeous!!

Lee_Haber8

Oct 17, 2006, 8:55 PM

^ I hate NIMBYs. This building will be preserving and improving the existing storefront and adding amenities to the neighbourhood. Yes it may go against the grain of the neighbourhood, but it is ok to have a few exceptions as that adds some variety. I'm all for a critical examination of any project, but a blanket no to any development is unacceptable. What NIMBYs don't get is that: 1)The city is not a museum and 2)Having no development contributes to sprawl

Thskyscraper

Oct 17, 2006, 9:05 PM

Wow, NIMBYs know how to kill a moment. This is such a great looking building, it would really stand out. Ugh, I hope these NIMBYs don't kill it.

“What makes Paris beautiful?” asked Don Gringer, a Park Avenue resident. “Low-rise buildings, limestone, ornaments — all similar and somewhat matching but working together. Help us keep our Madison Avenue as beautiful and in character.”

So now they want to be like Paris... These people need to read NYguy's signature.

NYguy

Oct 17, 2006, 10:27 PM

“What makes Paris beautiful?” asked Don Gringer, a Park Avenue resident. “Low-rise buildings, limestone, ornaments — all similar and somewhat matching but working together. Help us keep our Madison Avenue as beautiful and in character.”

So now they want to be like Paris... These people need to read NYguy's signature.

True! And if they want it to be like Paris, they should move to Paris.

CGII

Oct 18, 2006, 12:42 AM

I can't tell from the renderings, but it looks like it could be one of two things:

A:One mostly cylindrical tower with a few offshoots and an awkward crown that really wouldn't work with the neighbourhood, or

B:Three Lipstick Building-esque ellipses conjoined, with an even crown, which would be amazing. The more I look at those renderings, the more it looks like this.

Lecom

Oct 18, 2006, 3:50 AM

Wooster

Oct 18, 2006, 4:58 AM

so the neighborhood wants fake historical buildings to be built?

I dislike historicism.

Thskyscraper

Oct 18, 2006, 12:32 PM

Amazing project, I'm all for it. While I'm in favor of keeping West Side's pre-war vibe, UES area can definitely use something bold like this. If anything, Ariel East and West should have been built on this side of Central Park too.
Yeah, but then I would't have any high-rises to follow in my neighborhood:D . Actually 808 Columbus (29 stories) is in the excavation process so soon there's going to be another one.

Raraavis

Oct 18, 2006, 3:07 PM

"What makes Paris beautiful?” asked Don Gringer, a Park Avenue resident. “Low-rise buildings, limestone, ornaments — all similar and somewhat matching but working together."

What makes Paris beautiful is the contrast between the "Low-rise buildings, limestone, ornaments" and the giant steel sculpture that towers over the city. The exception makes the rule. They should be happy this is better than 85% of the new towers proposed.

NYguy

Oct 18, 2006, 10:34 PM

NY Sun

Between Hong Kong and Paris

New York Sun Editorial
October 18, 2006

Two events this week — the sale of Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town and a series of community board hearings about Aby Rosen's proposal to build a new tower on the Upper East Side — cast into sharp relief the way New Yorkers are faced with decisions about what their metropolis will look like in the future. By our lights the question boils down to how to chart a course between Hong Kong and Paris. The French capital has preserved its history to the detriment of its future, while Hong Kong has looked so far forward that it has suffered in the cultural sense. We have the sense that neither extreme is right for New York.

The announced sale of Peter Cooper and Stuyvesant Town to Tishman Speyer for a record-setting $5.4 billion caps nearly two months of intense bidding and politicking. Even as the private-sector auction was underway, Senator Schumer and other politicians were, demagogically, taking up the cause of allegedly aggrieved tenants who represented they were worried the sale would mark an end of an era of middle class affordability in Manhattan. Such was never a credible fear. The large number of apartment units in the developments that are still rent stabilized — about 70% by most counts — will be stabilized even after the ink on the sale is dry, though there may well be litigation over all this for years.

The main fear being voiced is that a new owner would expand on efforts by the seller, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, to ensure that only tenants who are legally entitled to stabilization benefit from the artificially reduced rents. For example, Met Life had installed a new electronic card-key access system in an effort to crack down on illegal subletting. As we remarked in an editorial while the process was unfolding, the precise extent to which the development is a middle-class haven has been overstated. Peter Cooper and Stuyvesant Town are not the middle class areas they were four decades ago, because many people who were members of the middle class 40 years ago have moved up in the world.

Yet some New Yorkers were happy to wave the flag of an antiquated vision of the development in an effort to stop a private sale from going forward. Mr. Schumer even proposed forcing New Yorkers to pay tax money into a quixotic tenant-buyout proposal. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn also opposed the sale by Met Life. Ultimately those efforts went nowhere. So in this sense at least, the newly announced sale is more than just a sign that the New York real estate dynamo is booming. It's a sign that the future has a place in the city. True, rent stabilization will continue there for the foreseeable future, but, absent surprises in the courts, nostalgia and fear of the future aren't being allowed to combine to thwart the deal.

A proposed real estate development on the Upper East Side will bring the issue even more clearly into focus. Mr. Rosen proposes building an apartment tower designed by Lord Foster atop the Parke-Bernet gallery building on Madison Avenue. He is already running into opposition from neighbors and historic preservationists who decry his plans for a site in the Upper East Side historic district that stretches from 59th Street to 78th Street. Opponents argue that preserving neighborhoods, as opposed to just individual buildings, protects historical context, though if the preservationists really believed that, they would have bought the rights to build.

In any event, to what extent is landmarking to hold sway? Surely part of New York's overall historical context is its willingness to welcome innovative new growth, its capacity for transformation.

While no one wants New York to become like Hong Kong, a city so rabidly modern that it has too often sublimated its history, the solution isn't to transform Manhattan into Paris instead, a city so self-satisfied with the glories of its past that it has relegated itself to a miserable future and all growth to the suburbs. We carry no particular brief for Mr. Rosen or his tower. But by the same token, Mr. Rosen's opponents might want to reserve judgment. Change itself is as much a part of New York's identity as any particular neighborhood.

Thskyscraper

Oct 18, 2006, 10:51 PM

I like that article. But really, how much history must we perserve? I mean sometimes NIMBYs are hopping mad over a gutted brownhouse. It's not like their demolishing whats currently there anyway.

NYguy

Oct 19, 2006, 11:35 AM

^ They just feel that change will bring an end to their lives as they know it....

NY Times

Manhattan: Board Rejects East Side Skyscraper

By ROBIN POGREBIN
October 19, 2006

The Upper East Side community board voted last night against a proposed 30-story skyscraper at 980 Madison Avenue. The tower, designed by Norman Foster, would be an addition to the Parke-Bernet Gallery building between 76th and 77th Streets.

The vote of 20-13 (with two abstaining) was closer than expected, in part because members of the art world came out in force to support the developer, Aby Rosen, a major collector of contemporary art. “I think we have an important chance here to add to our legacy as New Yorkers with this very, very special building,” said Jeff Koons, the artist, who lives on the Upper East Side.

Although the board’s role is only advisory, its vote will be considered by city agencies in the decision-making process.

skylife

Oct 19, 2006, 3:13 PM

“What makes Paris beautiful?” asked Don Gringer, a Park Avenue resident. “Low-rise buildings, limestone, ornaments — all similar and somewhat matching but working together. Help us keep our Madison Avenue as beautiful and in character.”

Um, and what makes Manhattan beautiful?

Why on earth would anybody live in Manhattan if they are aesthetically opposed to skyscrapers? It's good that there are some neighborhoods that aren't dominated by skyscrapers, but it's not like there aren't tall buildings on the UES.

Jularc

Oct 19, 2006, 8:07 PM

Board 8 votes against Foster tower on Madison Avenue

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1161282652_mad980q.jpg

19-OCT-06

Community Board 8 last night voted 20 to 13 with 2 abstentions to recommend that the Landmarks Preservation Commission not grant a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed residential addition to 980 Madison Avenue opposite the Art Deco-style Carlyle Hotel, the most prominent skyline landmark above 61st Street on the Upper East Side west of Third Avenue.

The board’s vote is advisory and the commission’s hearing on the project is scheduled for October 24.

The proposed addition has been designed by Lord Norman Foster for Aby J. Rosen, the owner of the Seagram Building and Lever House, who presented his plans to the board last night.

The existing building at 980 Madison Avenue is a five-story, limestone-clad structure that extends from 76th to 77th Streets and is known now as the Carlyle Galleries Building and its tenants include the Gagosian Gallery and the East Side office of Prudential Douglas Elliman, the real estate firm.

It was built in 1950 and designed by Walker & Poor and is notable for a large, protruding sculpture over the entrance by Wheeler Williams. The building, which is in the Upper East Side Historic District, was expanded with the addition of one floor in 1987.

In an October 28, 2001 article in The New York Times, Christopher Gray noted that the 40-story Carlyle Hotel on 76th Street and adjoining 14-story apartment building on 77th Street comprised “the signature project of Moses Ginsberg.” Mr. Ginsberg subsequently lost the Madison Avenue blockfront in the early days of the Depression and it was acquired by Robert Dowling who, Mr. Gray wrote, “put up the old Parke-Bernet building across the street...to protect the Carlyle’s west light.”

980 Madison Avenue was acquired in 2004 for about $120 million from the Peter Sharp Foundation by RFR Holdings Inc., of which Mr. Rosen is a principal.

The proposed plan for 980 Madison Avenue would remove the top floor, which was added in 1987, and erect a reflective glass tower at the northern end. The tower would have 22 floors and 18 condominium apartments and its plan is two interlocked ellipses for most of its height.

Mr. Rosen’s plans call for the creation of a 10,000-square-foot, publicly accessible, rooftop sculpture garden and about 25,000-square feet of gallery space on the third and fourth floors for art exhibitions.

Several leading figures in the art world spoke in favor of the proposal.

Jeff Koons, the artist, said it was “a very special building.” A statement by Larry Salander of the Salander-O’Reilly Gallery termed it a “godsend” and statements were read expressing enthusiasm for it from Larry Gagosian, the art dealer, and William Ruprecht, the president of Sotheby’s. 3 Marc Glimcher of Pace Wildenstein also spoke in favor of it.

Jane Parshall, a board member, described the project as “overbearing” and not “contextual,” and another board member, Elizabeth Ashley, said that its height of 355 feet is far above the 210 feet limit of the Madison Avenue Special Preservation District.

One board member called the proprosal “a tour de force” and another described the tower as “feathers in a cap.”

Lord Foster is also designing a mixed-use tower for Mr. Rosen at 610 Lexington Avenue immediately behind the Seagram Building, which Mr. Rosen owns. Lord Foster designed the recently completed Hearst Building on the southwest corner of 57th Street and Eighth Avenue and is known for his high-tech designs.

Lord Foster’s design for Tower 2 at Ground Zero for Silverstein Properties was recently unveiled.

The planned new tower would not only obstruct many views to the northwest from the Carlyle Hotel from Central Park, but also many views to the south from the Mark Hotel, directly across 77th Street from 980 Madison Avenue. The Alexico Group, a residential developer, recently acquired the Mark Hotel.

Copyright © 1994-2006 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

NYguy

Oct 19, 2006, 9:06 PM

Why on earth would anybody live in Manhattan if they are aesthetically opposed to skyscrapers?

That's the million dollar question....

LostInTheZone

Oct 19, 2006, 9:49 PM

LostInTheZone

Oct 19, 2006, 9:57 PM

Lord Foster is also designing a mixed-use tower for Mr. Rosen at 610 Lexington Avenue immediately behind the Seagram Building,

Does that mean the tacky PoMo one behind the lowrise part will be replaced? That would be great, especially if Foster did it.

Crawford

Oct 19, 2006, 9:59 PM

^the area in question, UES between 5th and Park, does not have a lot of skyscrapers. That's why the Hotel Carlyle, which would get lost in midtown, stands out so much. Particularly between Madison and 5th, it's all townhouse mansions with smaller apartment buildings, mostly on 5th and Park. Madison Avenue here is made up of small buildings with small stores and boutiques. East of Park is another story. And anyone that doesn't get the difference, between those two areas, doesn't understand New York. "Manhattan" isn't some monolithic entity.

Still, I would like this tower a lot, if it wasn't so close to the Hotel Carlyle.

No offense, but you really don't know this area. This description is completely inaccurate. I think you are referring to Madison in the east 60's. Even in this stretch, there are lots of prewar and postwar mid-rises. You make the area sound as if it's Park Slope.

The east 70's and east 80's have tons of modern towers along Madison and are much higher density than blocks to the south.

There is a 70's-era 45-floor building directly on Madison a few blocks away. There are no fewer than thee 80's-era towers directly on Madison. There are also tons of postwar buildings, many of them extremely large and bulky.

Crawford

Oct 19, 2006, 10:04 PM

Does that mean the tacky PoMo one behind the lowrise part will be replaced? That would be great, especially if Foster did it.

No, it's the adjacent site.

NYguy

Oct 25, 2006, 11:52 AM

NY Times

Manhattan: Hearing on Skyscraper Addition

By ROBIN POGREBIN
October 25, 2006

The Landmarks Preservation Commission heard praise and criticism at a public hearing yesterday as the British architect Norman Foster presented his design for a 30-story addition to the Parke-Bernet Gallery building, on Madison Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets.

At yesterday’s hearing, held in Manhattan Surrogate’s Court to accommodate an overflow crowd, several people from the world of art and architecture said they would welcome that change, while many who live in the neighborhood vehemently opposed it. A letter by Lawrence Salander of Salander-O’Reilly Galleries read aloud at the hearing said the building would be “a godsend for the neighborhood.” But Teri Slater, the co-chairwoman of the Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, said it would block views and be visible for miles.

NYguy

Oct 25, 2006, 12:04 PM

NY Sun

Norman Lauds East Side's ‘Tradition of Radicalism'

By DAVID LOMBINO
October 25, 2006

Upper East Side residents who have been arguing over a proposed 22-story apartment building on Madison Avenue in a historic district brought their fight downtown yesterday for a four hour public hearing before the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

A renowned British architect, Sir Norman Foster, presented his designs yesterday in front of more than 200 people at the Surrogate's Courthouse near City Hall.

Several chauffeured cars and SUVs idled out front as about 65 people testified for and against developer Aby Rosen's proposal to build a 22-story elliptical, glass apartment building as a rooftop addition to the existing five-story limestone Parke-Bernet Gallery building on Madison Avenue between 76th and 77th streets.

Mr. Foster said the project meshed with the Upper East Side's "tradition of radicalism," citing the designs of the Guggenheim and Whitney museums. "The tradition of change is the essence of the Upper East Side," Mr. Foster testified.

A longtime resident of the Carlyle Apartment Houses, William Kahn, compared Mr. Foster's design to an invasion, similar to when the British invaded New York during the Revolutionary War. "We all remember the outcome of that," Mr. Kahn said. "This is not evolution. This is revolution."

Mr. Foster's designs include Hong Kong's airport, the new German Parliament in Berlin's Reichstag, an addition to the British Museum, the "Gherkin" building in London and the new Hearst Tower on Eighth Avenue in Midtown.

The project received strong support yesterday from several prominent members of the neighborhood's cultural set. Arts patron and billionaire financier Ronald Perelman, art dealer Larry Gagosian, architect Richard Meier, and the former curator of the Whitney Museum, Richard Marshall, were among those that submitted testimony in favor of the project.

"It is thoughtful, considered and beautiful," Mr. Marshall said. "It would greatly enrich the cultural aura of the community."

Artist Jeff Koons, an area resident, supported the design and complained of neighborhood "segregation" based on style.

"If you like modernism, don't live on the Upper East Side," Mr. Koons said.

Several local gallery owners said the project would restore the neighborhood's cultural reputation and increase foot traffic from art lovers who now frequent Chelsea, SoHo, and DUMBO. The developer has said he would create a two-story gallery in the area's base, and create a public sculpture garden on the roof of the existing Parke-Bernet Gallery.

Mr. Rosen, the president of RFR Holding LLC, bought the Parke-Bernet Gallery more than two years ago, for roughly $120 million, with the intention of adding a rooftop apartment tower. The tower would contain about 18 full-floor units and duplexes spread spaciously on 22 floors.

Messrs. Rosen and Foster sat in the front row for the length of yesterday's hearing, as dozens of neighbors and preservationists blasted their design as a mockery of the area's character. One woman in the audience studied the details of the architect's renderings with a pair of binoculars.

The Community Board that represents the neighborhood rejected the proposal in an advisory vote last week by a margin of 20 to 13.

Preservation groups from across the city were united yesterday in opposing the proposal. Several focused on the issue of precedent. If the commission approved the project, they said it would invite inappropriate development on top of similar sites in landmarked districts across the city. Several preservationists said that approval would weaken the definition of a historic district and weaken the Landmarks Commission.

A co-chairwoman of the Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, Elizabeth Ashby, opposed the plan and the architect's contention that the glass addition is in harmony with the existing limestone base.

"Vertical, glass, and circular. Masonry, rectangular, and horizontal. There is no relationship whatsoever," Ms. Ashby said.

The local City Council member, Daniel Garodnick, who would have an important role in approving the project if the design passes through the Landmarks Commission, submitted testimony opposing the plan. "A 350-foot glass tower cannot work here," Mr. Gardonick said in a letter read by a staff member.

A lawyer representing the Carlyle Hotel, which sits across the street from the proposed site, Ross Moskowitz, said the hotel opposes the plan and called it "a brand new building disguised as a rooftop addition."

After the hearing, Mr. Rosen was scheduled to head uptown to address the Municipal Art Society at its annual benefit. He and his wife, Samantha Rosen, are chairing of the event. Mr. Rosen has received accolades for his restoration of two landmarked Park Avenue office buildings, the Lever House and the Seagrams Building.

A representative of the Municipal Art Society submitted testimony that opposed the developer's addition.

"There is no plan B," Mr. Rosen said after the hearing. "Our goal is to build this building."

The Landmarks Commission agreed last night to keep the public record open for another two weeks. The applicants will have a chance to respond at a later date, and then the commission could make a decision as early as next month.

Thskyscraper

Oct 25, 2006, 12:41 PM

A longtime resident of the Carlyle Apartment Houses, William Kahn, compared Mr. Foster's design to an invasion, similar to when the British invaded New York during the Revolutionary War. "We all remember the outcome of that," Mr. Kahn said. "This is not evolution. This is revolution."
:jester: :haha: THAT'S CLASSIC!!! THE HIGH-RISE ARE COMING! THE HIGH-RISE ARE COMING! Wow, NIMBYS say the weirdest things...

NYguy

Nov 14, 2006, 1:57 PM

^
They are truly our opposite number, our arch-enemies. Just look at the different reactions to new skyscrapers.

There's us: :banana:

And them: :hell:

NYguy

Nov 14, 2006, 2:00 PM

And now, even Central Park must be saved from this "monster"....:rolleyes:

Daily News (editorial)

Stop the tower, save the park

There are places where Central Park is so enveloping that the sights and sounds of the city disappear and New Yorkers experience greenery and sky. These pastoral views are priceless treasures, invaluable to millions. And many of them will be lost unless City Hall steps in. As it must.

The very sky over Central Park, the dome you see as you look east from almost anywhere in the 60s and the 70s, is threatened with being despoiled by construction of a stratospheric, futuristic condominium tower. This skyscraper would house just 18 multimillionaires. Their views would be magnificent, while everyone below would lose out. It is hard to conceive of a worse bargain for the public.

The elliptical tower is the brainchild of Aby Rosen, a developer who prides himself on owning architecturally significant buildings. He plans to erect it over the five-story Parke-Bernet building, which runs the full block on Madison Ave. from 76th to 77th St., with half of it soaring to 355 feet and the other side to 288. The concept has generated opposition on the upper East Side, where many persuasively feel that the glass tower is too imposing and jarring for the surrounding, lower-rise upper East Side Historic District.

The local community board voted thumbs down on Rosen's scheme, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission has taken up the matter. The panel should walk in the park to get a full grasp of how detrimental the project would be for the city at large. Everyone who goes to the park for solitude in nature would suffer.

Sit on the broad greensward of the Sheep Meadow and look east. You see only trees, the sky and the distinctive green and gold spire of the 76-year-old Carlyle Hotel. Now imagine gleaming glass close over the tree line. Or visit Bethesda Terrace, the Bow Bridge, Conservatory Water, the Great Lawn, Turtle Pond, Strawberry Fields or the Ramble, and imagine looking up at George Jetson's apartment.

Rosen, who would sell his 18 condos for tens of millions each, seems to genuinely and passionately believe in the architectural merit of his plan. Indeed, the New York Times critic gave it a glowing review. But until now, no one has focused on the damage that would be inflicted on Central Park. The leading advocacy group New Yorkers for Parks is outraged that the tower's impact on the city's premier park has been ignored. Executive Director Christian DiPalermo made it clear the group will oppose the plan.

He's right. Stop the tower. Save the park.

Busy Bee

Nov 14, 2006, 3:53 PM

People have lost their minds. This is not rational thought. This is community activism gone awry.

Jularc

Nov 14, 2006, 6:04 PM

color=blue]until now, no one has focused on the damage that would be inflicted on Central Park. The leading advocacy group New Yorkers for Parks is outraged that the tower's impact on the city's premier park has been ignored. Executive Director Christian DiPalermo made it clear the group will oppose the plan. [/color][/b][/u]

He's right. Stop the tower. Save the park.

This is just ridiculous! These NIMBY's now have justifications for just about anything these days. :koko:

NYguy

Nov 15, 2006, 12:18 AM

This is just ridiculous! These NIMBY's now have justifications for just about anything these days. :koko:

I can see future headlines now: The tower that ate Central Park....:rolleyes:

Central Park is framed by highrises. If you're in Central Park, and are shocked to see a highrise, then you're an idiot.

NYguy

Nov 15, 2006, 12:24 AM

Here we go:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/56730481/original.jpg

Jularc

Nov 15, 2006, 12:38 AM

^ What an awesome shot! Wow I feel in Heaven! :slob:

NYguy

Nov 15, 2006, 12:53 AM

^ What an awesome shot! Wow I feel in Heaven! :slob:

Manhattan is as close as you can get for skyscraper lovers....

Stratosphere

Nov 15, 2006, 4:24 AM

http://imagesource.art.com:80/images/-/Lee-Foster/Leaning-Tower-of-Pisa-Torre-PendentePisa-Tuscany-Italy-Photographic-Print-C10256117.jpeg

LOOKS FAMILIAR........................?:babyeat: STOP BITEN!
Looks more similar to the Lipstick Building in New York than the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

http://www.archpaper.com/images/feature_03_05/pjohnson10.jpg

Jularc

Dec 6, 2006, 7:05 PM

TOWER PLAN'S NEW PAIN IN GLASS

By BILL SANDERSON
December 6, 2006

Opponents of a 31-story glass tower proposed in the Upper East Side Historic District submitted a petition with 2,500 names on it to the city Landmarks Commission yesterday as officials promised to give the developer a public grilling next year.

No date has been set for the public meeting at which commissioners will ask more questions of developer Aby Rosen about the apartment tower he wants to build atop the Parke-Bernet Galleries at 980 Madison Ave., on the corner of East 76th Street.

Rosen has lined up many of his rich and famous pals behind his project, including billionaire Ron Perelman and vogue editor Anna Wintour. Opponent William Kahn says he, too, has plenty of the neighborhood's rich and famous on his side.

"Within an area of 10 blocks, there are many people of great prominence and importance taking my position," he said.

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.

skylife

Dec 6, 2006, 10:18 PM

NYguy

Dec 7, 2006, 12:00 AM

I think London is a good role model for New York.

:haha:

WonderlandPark

Dec 7, 2006, 12:28 AM

I like this article. I think London is a good role model for New York.
That sentence should be the other way around.

NYguy

Dec 7, 2006, 2:18 PM

That sentence should be the other way around.

I think it is already. London, like most other cities, is going for that tall-skyscraper-in-the-skyline look that New York made so famous. It's actually amazing when you think about it, not just the number of cities where tall towers are going up, but how long it took the rest of the crowd to catch up. New York was doing it nearly a century ago.

skylife

Dec 7, 2006, 5:56 PM

:haha:

What's so funny? London has been able to keep its historical and architectural integrity and heritage while being modern and dynamic.

New York can't learn anything from how London has adapted? Ha ha, Hilarious.

:rolleyes:

StatenIslander237

Dec 8, 2006, 1:54 AM

What makes Paris beautiful? Pfff! What makes the London skyline beautiful?
I think it's the dramatic modern towers peeking out from a sea of old world structures.
And the UES isn't exactly Paris, it has plenty of highrises already.

Those NIMBYs are getting on my last nerve!

NYguy

Dec 8, 2006, 1:43 PM

skylife

Dec 8, 2006, 3:50 PM

What's so funny? Your response, for one. And to answer your other question? NO. Have a nice day.

You're being a total jerk for absolutely no reason. Weirdo.

Jularc

Dec 9, 2006, 7:35 AM

Parke-Bernet Galleries: A Blocky Base for Proposed Towers

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/08/realestate/10scapes450.3.jpg
Earlier this year, Aby Rosen announced plans to restore the
Parke-Bernet building to its 1949 appearance, as long as he
could add a pair of interlocking oval glass apartment towers,
designed by Norman Foster. The taller would rise to 30 stories.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/10/realestate/10scapes600.1.jpg
NOW AND THEN The Parke-Bernet building in 1954.

By CHRISTOPHER GRAY
December 10, 2006

THE pair of curved glass towers proposed for the top of the 1949 Parke-Bernet Galleries building at 980 Madison Avenue have a lot of people talking. But somehow, despite the buzz, scant attention has been paid to the trim little modernist gallery itself. Built low by Robert W. Dowling to protect the light to the 40-story Carlyle Hotel, directly across the avenue, what was once the epicenter of the New York art world is something that most people just pass right by today.

The story of this peculiar building on Madison at 76th Street — 200 feet long but only six stories high — starts with the Carlyle, whose romantic tower crashed through the Madison Avenue skyline in 1931 like a movie cowboy thrown through a stage-glass saloon window.

Even before the hotel was complete, the Depression had descended on the Upper East Side, indirectly preserving the remaining low-rise buildings like the odd little houses just opposite that would, 17 years later, be razed to make way for the gallery.

By then, Mr. Dowling owned the Carlyle and planned a complementary structure for the site across Madison. He did not envision another Jazz Age tower, but rather a button-down modernist commercial building — long, lean, low and devoted to the sale of art. He arranged with Parke-Bernet Galleries, barely a decade old but already the dominant art auction house in New York, to be sole tenant of the custom-designed building.

His architects, A. Stewart Walker and Alfred Easton Poor, arranged retail stores, storage vaults, conservation rooms, photography studios, a big auction sales room and six large exhibition galleries — two of them double-height — behind an impassively spare facade of limestone blocks nearly six feet on a side.

The top two of the six floors were set back, making the building look even shorter from the surrounding sidewalks, and the design allowed the west light to reach the Carlyle.

The windowless third floor, the site of the galleries, gave the building a certain antiquity, accentuated by the 14-foot-long aluminum sculpture over the doorway by Wheeler Williams: a woman holding a torch floats over a reclining young man. The imagery, according to The New York Times in 1949, is mean to symbolize “Venus awakening Manhattan to the importance of art from overseas.”

Something about Venus also awakened the City of New York: her chest protrudes 18 inches into what is considered public space. That infraction was permitted only with a rental of $25 a year. (That sum has now grown to $3,251 a year, according to Ted Timbers, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Transportation.)

In 1950, The Journal of the American Institute of Architects reported the remarks of William Adams Delano at the building’s opening the year before. Mr. Delano, a designer of town houses and private clubs, said that on his way uptown, his taxi driver had called Parke-Bernet’s new gallery “the best damn building in New York.”

Lewis Mumford admired Walker & Poor’s deft, apparently effortless handling of the blocky form. “The slightest error in taste, the faintest blemish in workmanship, would seem like a rattle of static in the midst of a Mozart quartet,” Mumford wrote in The New Yorker in 1950.

Parke-Bernet was the Grand Central Terminal of the art world, where dealers, collectors, curators, appraisers and just plain voyeurs took in the great auction-dramas of the mid-20th century. It was natural to drop in between a visit to the library of the Frick Collection and an opening at the Metropolitan.

Sotheby’s acquired Parke-Bernet in 1964, and the new Sotheby Parke-Bernet remained in the Madison Avenue building, even as the art world opened other beachheads in SoHo and elsewhere.

But the center did not hold much past 1980, when Sotheby’s — by that time the Parke-Bernet had dropped out of common usage — started moving into its present building at York Avenue and 72nd Street.

The big galleries of the 1949 building were then cut up for individual tenants, and windows were cut into the blank facades, sharply undercutting the dignity of the structure. By that time it had been included in the Upper East Side Historic District, and the alterations were approved as appropriate by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The setback fifth floor was fully built out in 1957.

Earlier this year, Aby Rosen announced plans to restore the Parke-Bernet building to its 1949 appearance, as long as he could add atop it a pair of interlocking oval-shaped apartment towers of glass, designed by Norman Foster. The taller would rise to 30 stories, several floors lower than the Carlyle. It would be an astonishing addition for Madison Avenue, although not much more so than the Carlyle or the Whitney Museum were in their day.

Much of the case before the Landmarks Commission will hinge on whether the restoration of the galleries building is enough of a public benefit to outweigh the negatives of the proposed tower. That depends in part on the critical esteem for Walker & Poor’s design, and to judge from the current record, it is not high.

The 1949 building is usually omitted from architectural guidebooks, although Norval White and Elliot Willensky included it in their A.I.A. Guide to New York City (Crown, 2000) but called it “an insipid box unrelated to any cultural values.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/08/realestate/10scap650.2.jpg
The Parke-Bernet building today, showing the 14-foot-long aluminum sculpture by Wheeler Williams.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

LostInTheZone

Dec 9, 2006, 7:37 PM

can anyone produce a rendering showing how this will look from Central Park? I'm very curious about how it will relate to the Hotel Carlyle. I think this tower looks fantastic- Foster's a good architect, the curves offset its size, it improves the elegant but rather restrained building it's using as a base, and though it faces the Carlyle, it's offset at the other end of the block to prevent loss of views to and from the older tower.

Agent Orange

Dec 10, 2006, 5:45 AM

Wow, I had no knowledge of this proposal's existence until I stumbled into this here thread. It would be quite a shame for such a refreshing design to be squelched by nimbys while several hideous towers (shameful even, for Manhattan) rise to the south.

NYguy

Dec 10, 2006, 1:15 PM

You're being a total jerk for absolutely no reason. Weirdo.

Weirdo. Wow, did you think of that one yourself?...:rolleyes:

NYguy

Dec 10, 2006, 1:40 PM

Parke-Bernet Galleries: A Blocky Base for Proposed Towers

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/08/realestate/10scapes450.3.jpg

This tower hardly has an impact on the street. And for NIMBYs to complain about the view from the park? Ridiculous. Skyscrapers can be seen to the south, east, west, and even north. And they hardly detract from the park. In fact, I think they enhance it. Being in the middle of this urban environment is part of its appeal.

http://www.ego4u.com/images/countries/usa/central-park.jpg

http://www.thecityreview.com/cp1.gif

http://research.nianet.org/~radu/photos/2003/ny-central-park-2.jpg

http://www.adrem.ua.ac.be/~michiels/gallery/albums/NY-07-20-b/central_park_1.sized.jpg

http://digilander.libero.it/hyperu/Immagini/NY/Central%20Park.jpg

http://www.rido.altervista.org/New%20York_Della/Central%20Park5.JPG

http://www.magazinusa.com/images_st2/ny_city/central_park.jpg

http://ims1.ballofdirt.com/view/d955cf18af19508081696b562a7d98abd9a717cacb40e9d6e7db0ea94104409a7f94694d3d8bc06b71caf52bc9c63878dbbe0ff1219acd66

http://www.hookbuilt.com/art/Pictures/nyc/cp5ave_orig.jpg

http://www.thecityreview.com/cpsail2.jpg

Yet, there will always be areas in the park where all you see are trees. They could put a 200-story tower up there, and that wouldn't change.

http://www.thecityreview.com/cp4.jpg

LostInTheZone

Dec 10, 2006, 4:13 PM

http://www.thecityreview.com/cp1.gif

http://www.hookbuilt.com/art/Pictures/nyc/cp5ave_orig.jpg

OK so.... thanks for the google image gallery of Central Park West and South. Now here are the two pictures the tower would actually appear in. We can see the Carlyle in the upper right corner and to the left of the center, respectively. We can see how the Caryle, with a similar height to this proposal, really is about twice as tall as everything around it, showing how this project will be very prominent and visible from many angles. NOW, I LIKE THE DESIGN- I would like to figure out its visual impact, since the view of the Carlyle from the park is one of my favorites. So, rather than go on some generalized idea that "Central Park is ringed with skyscrapers, New York is full of skyscrapers, so who cares how this specific project looks in its specific context?" I just want someone to do a simple photoshop. And we can stop feigning shock over the NIMBYism: this is one of the richest, most conservative (in the old sense of the word) neighborhoods in the country, full of people who make careers out of resisting change. This was an unlikely proposal to start with, and anyone who knows New York even a little could have figured that out.

NYguy

Dec 11, 2006, 1:17 PM

OK so.... thanks for the google image gallery of Central Park West and South.

You're welcome.

Now here are the two pictures the tower would actually appear in. We can see the Carlyle in the upper right corner and to the left of the center, respectively. We can see how the Caryle, with a similar height to this proposal, really is about twice as tall as everything around it, showing how this project will be very prominent and visible from many angles. NOW, I LIKE THE DESIGN- I would like to figure out its visual impact, since the view of the Carlyle from the park is one of my favorites. So, rather than go on some generalized idea that "Central Park is ringed with skyscrapers, New York is full of skyscrapers, so who cares how this specific project looks in its specific context?"

Surely you're not going to sit there and tell me that there are no towers of 300 ft - yes on the eastside of Central Park. Even uptown. It would be stupid of you to do so. You speak as though you've never been in Central Park. I can assure you, you will see more than the towers that line 5th Avenue.

And regardless of its height, why the hell shouldn't the tower be freakin visible from many angles. Ever hear of Time Warner Center? 15 Central Park West? Hey, even the Empire State is visible from the park. So don't sit there on some idiotic rant like Central Park is in the middle of upsate, cause it aint. And don't tell me this 300 ft tower is going to spoil the "view from the park", cause it aint. But you know what? I honestly wouldn't care if it did. You don't wanna see some building? Look the other godamned way. Many, much more important things to worry about.

skylife

Dec 11, 2006, 2:50 PM

Weirdo. Wow, did you think of that one yourself?...:rolleyes:

Heh? If you can't see how London has kept vital by embracing its past and the future, as New York should (and as Paris and Hong Kong haven't), then I'm guessing you just have a chip on your shoulder about London because it's cooler than NY...even though you live in New Jersey LOL. Not that Paris and HK aren't vital, but London's model is a better way to go for NY - an emphasis on historic preservation but not at the expense of modernity. I don't understand why you're so tweenie girl about it or on what level you disagree.

LostInTheZone

Dec 11, 2006, 2:53 PM

wow, way to read what I said. My post was about how much I like the view of the Carlyle Hotel from the park, and I was wondering how this building would fit into on the east side skyline. I wasn't talking about Central Park West, or the ESB. I am AWARE that towers are visible from most of the park. I was wondering how this particular tower would look, from the park. Next time I just won't ask. I'll just go on NY Times articles, and your insightful commentary, and use my imagination.

NYguy

Jan 15, 2007, 3:59 PM

Next time I just won't ask. I'll just go on NY Times articles, and your insightful commentary, and use my imagination.

Thanks.

NYguy

Jan 15, 2007, 3:59 PM

NY Sun

Drama Resumes on East Side Over Aby Rosen's Proposal

By DAVID LOMBINO
January 15, 2007

The drama surrounding a developer's proposal to build a 22-story elliptical glass tower on top of the limestone Parke-Bernet Gallery building on Madison Avenue between East 76th and East 77th streets will resume tomorrow in front of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

In a telephone interview yesterday, the developer, Aby Rosen, said he is willing to modify the design of the proposed apartment building, including the use of more masonry and changing the color of the building to "champagne" from silver. He said the changes would make the proposed modern addition harmonize better with its base, a five-story building built in 1949.

"There will be changes," Mr. Rosen said. "We want to hear feedback from the commissioners and come back with something that is more in line with their views."

Tomorrow, the Landmarks Commission can vote to reject the proposal, propose modifications, or approve it outright. Mr. Rosen and his architect, Lord Norman Foster, will present the original designs and answer questions from the Landmarks commissioners. Mr. Rosen said he prefers a postponement and the chance to work collaboratively with the commissioners. Preservation groups and some neighbors are seeking immediate, decisive rejection.

Since renderings were first revealed in early October, the project has been the talk of the neighborhood. Proponents say the sleek modern design would enliven the neighborhood, while critics say it is out of character with the rest of the Upper East Side Historic District. More than 200 people crammed into a Landmarks public hearing last fall, and the commission has received more than 600 letters and e-mails concerning the project, some in favor, some against.

In the interview, Mr. Rosen said the Landmarks Commission should allow developers to expand buildings in historic districts, enabling the city to blend the new with the old.

"If we freeze all those and don't find a way to add vertically, we will be living in a medieval town in 50 or a hundred years," Mr. Rosen said. "We need to find a way to grow."

His project has received strong support from several prominent members of the neighborhood's cultural elite, including financier Ronald Perelman, art dealer Larry Gagosian, and artist Jeff Koons, who say the building would spark the neighborhood's fading reputation as a creative force. They back Mr. Rosen's argument that an "iconic" modernist building and the addition of public art space breath fresh air into the artistic community. Last fall, the Whitney Museum announced it would seek to expand Downtown and abandon decade-old plans to add to its existing space on Madison Avenue.

"The galleries are fleeing, the restaurants are not there. Every street has no life. By 7 o'clock it's dead there," Mr. Rosen said. "Now the Whitney is going Downtown, it is even more important to have this."

The proposed tower, across the street from the Carlyle Hotel between 76th and 77th Streets, would contain about 18 full-floor units and duplexes spread on a total of 22 floors. In addition, Mr. Rosen has proposed to restore the Parke-Bernet gallery to its original condition, and add 45,000 square feet of public gallery space and roof garden, spaces, he notes, that are comparable to the size of the Whitney Museum's gallery space.

Mr. Foster's designs include the "Gherkin" building in London and the new Hearst Tower on Eighth Avenue in Midtown. To go ahead, the addition to the building at 980 Madison Avenue would have to receive approval by the Landmarks Commission and then pass muster with the City Planning Commission and the City Council.

The Community Board that represents the neighborhood rejected the proposal in an advisory vote in October by a margin of 20 to 13. At a contentious board meeting, one area resident, Daniel Goldberg, called the tower "a glass dagger plunged into the heart of the Upper East Side."

The executive director of the Historic Districts Council, Simeon Bankoff, said the commission's decision is crucial for the future of the city's more than 80 historic districts. "This will do irreparable damage to the streetscape of Madison Avenue, all for the benefit of the developer and the 18 families who get to live there," Mr. Bankoff said. "They are attempt to bend the law to create a palace for plutocrats."

If Mr. Rosen's project is approved, he said a precedent would be set that would severely threaten the power of the commission in rejecting rooftop additions.

"If this is allowed, it opens up the door to see every building as a platform for a tower thrusting out of it," Mr. Bankoff said.

The New-York Historical Society, he noted, is "already revving up their campaign" for a similar tower addition to its building on Central Park West.

Two years ago, Mr. Rosen, the president of RFR Holding LLC, bought the Parke-Bernet Gallery, the former home of Sotheby's, for about $120 million. Mr. Rosen has said the total cost of adding the tower would be about $180 million, and he doesn't expect to begin construction until 2008 or 2009. Mr. Rosen considers himself a preservationist, and has received accolades for his restoration of two landmarked Park Avenue office buildings, the Lever House and the Seagram Building. The high-pitched landmarks battle prompted writer and preservationist Tom Wolfe to pen a 3,496-word op-ed in the New York Times, "The (Naked) City and the Undead," slamming the Landmark's Commission and mocking Mr. Rosen and his plans. That essay prompted a cover story this week in the Village Voice, "Has Tom Wolfe Blown it?" suggesting the author's op-ed was an attempt at self-promotion.

Mr. Rosen called Mr. Wolfe's oped "insulting " and the act of someone who was trying to revive a dying career.

"This is a man who has lost a little of his luster," Mr. Rosen said. "White suits alone won't keep in you in the limelight."

The Landmarks Commission will hear Mr. Rosen's case tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. at the Surrogate's Courthouse near City Hall.

NYguy

Jan 15, 2007, 4:02 PM

The executive director of the Historic Districts Council, Simeon Bankoff, said the commission's decision is crucial for the future of the city's more than 80 historic districts. "This will do irreparable damage to the streetscape of Madison Avenue, all for the benefit of the developer and the 18 families who get to live there," Mr. Bankoff said. "They are attempt to bend the law to create a palace for plutocrats."

If Mr. Rosen's project is approved, he said a precedent would be set that would severely threaten the power of the commission in rejecting rooftop additions. "If this is allowed, it opens up the door to see every building as a platform for a tower thrusting out of it," Mr. Bankoff said.

The New-York Historical Society, he noted, is "already revving up their campaign" for a similar tower addition to its building on Central Park West.

Great. Let the history buffs go head to head in battle. May the most historical win.

StatenIslander237

Jan 15, 2007, 10:34 PM

[size=4]
[b]In a telephone interview yesterday, the developer, Aby Rosen, said he is willing to modify the design of the proposed apartment building, including the use of more masonry and changing the color of the building to "champagne" from silver. He said the changes would make the proposed modern addition harmonize better with its base, a five-story building built in 1949.

Greeaaatt. (sarcasm) I don't see how these changes will improve the design. How will they be able to inlcude "masonry" without making this modernist design look silly.

Preservation groups and some neighbors are seeking immediate, decisive rejection.

These people are real assholes.

In the interview, Mr. Rosen said the Landmarks Commission should allow developers to expand buildings in historic districts, enabling the city to blend the new with the old.

"If we freeze all those and don't find a way to add vertically, we will be living in a medieval town in 50 or a hundred years," Mr. Rosen said. "We need to find a way to grow."

This is true.

"The galleries are fleeing, the restaurants are not there. Every street has no life. By 7 o'clock it's dead there," Mr. Rosen said. "Now the Whitney is going Downtown, it is even more important to have this."

Of course this doesn't matter to the NIMBYs.

One area resident, Daniel Goldberg, called the tower "a glass dagger plunged into the heart of the Upper East Side."

Give me a break!

Scruffy

Jan 16, 2007, 7:13 AM

Everyone is fighting this week. calm down. smoke a bowl.

LITZ- The carlyle apartments can be seen primarily from the rambles, bow bridge, the lake, fountain.. that general area and you mostly just see the top third and its trademark roof. this tower will be across the street from it but in between the park and the carlyle. Since its only 350ft or so you will still be able to see the trademake carlyle roof that hits 426 feet. Personally i think it will be a good look. It will be horrendous if he changes the color to champagne. good god no.

to the NIMBYs that claim, this tower will kill the park.. get a life. are you serious? You can barely see the carlyle from the park. you see just the top sprouting over the trees. You see Trump condos better. But god forbid a glass tower will be seen from that section of the park your day will be ruined? 17 blocks south and across the park you have not one but 2 glassy behemoths in the time warner center. i understand their need to protest but to come up with "save the park" is pitiful and it shows that they really dont have an argument to stand on.

So this could go two ways, it could end up harmoniously like the Hearst tower and its base, or the odd man out like Astor Place tower. For those non NYCers, they built a 22 story blue reflective glass upscale condo in the middle of Astor Place in the east village. while the site did lend itself to a highrise, the tower does not mesh with the masonry and brick that surrounds it. Its a good looking tower in its own right, just not right there. I don't have the photoshop skills to see if this tower fits in its location. But i'll send along some pics i took of the carlyle from from central park so that everyone can judge for themselves.

LostInTheZone

Jan 16, 2007, 7:03 PM

thanks scruffy. I agree with you RE the astor place building- i can never quite put my finger on what bothers me about that building, because I feel that it should work, but really doesn't. I think it might have to do more with the fact that the glass they used is too wavy and it makes the building look cheap.

And yes, champagne glass would look terrible.

Jularc

Jan 16, 2007, 10:34 PM

Landmarks Commission Parks Parke-Bernet Plan
They like it the way it is.

By Felix Gillette | January 16, 2007

Tuesday morning, in a major victory for the city's historic preservationists, the members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission more or less shot down developer Aby Rosen's plans for the redevelopment of the Parke-Bernet building at 980 Madison Avenue. Although the commission did not officially kill the project today, it became clear throughout the course of the hearing that without huge modifications, the proposal as it currently stands has little hope of ever getting built.

Along the way, various commissioners praised Rosen's plans, which would restore the five-story building to its original 1949 design and add on top of the exiting structure a nuzzling pair of glass towers, reaching some thirty stories into the sky. That said, all but one commissioner noted that they could not support the current proposal due to problems with its scale, massing, materials, and location.

Commissioner Joan Gerner called the proposed structure "an architectural masterpiece." Albeit, one that had failed to win her support. "My issue is with the location," said Gerner. "This building belongs on a vacant site."

In other words, not on top of an existing building. And not in the midst of the Upper East Side Historic District.

Other commission members said that despite his best effort, renowned British architect Norman Foster had failed thus far to come up with an architectural scheme that would properly harmonize the proposed glass towers with the existing limestone-clad base.

"I'm an authority on marriages," said Commissioner (and practicing minister) Thomas Pike. "And this marriage makes me nervous."

A few minutes later, Commissioner Margery Perlmutter suggested that the project might be appropriate in some Blade-Runner-like version of the future, when every vacant inch of the city has been filled. But for the time being, she too gave the proposal a thumbs-down.

Not surprisingly, the proceedings were well attended. Ever since news of the proposal first became public this past fall, the project has been dividing neighbors throughout the Upper East Side. Today, a large crowd of supports and detractors packed into the hearing.

@Thevillagevoice.com

NYguy

Jan 17, 2007, 12:15 AM

the members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission more or less shot down developer Aby Rosen's plans for the redevelopment of the Parke-Bernet building at 980 Madison Avenue. Although the commission did not officially kill the project today, it became clear throughout the course of the hearing that without huge modifications, the proposal as it currently stands has little hope of ever getting built............. all but one commissioner noted that they could not support the current proposal due to problems with its scale, massing, materials, and location.

That's too bad. Rosen should just drop it, look to build that tower elsewhere, because cleary it would have ruined the upper East Side skyline :rolleyes:

http://thecityreview.com/mad980l17.jpg

http://thecityreview.com/mad980l25.jpg_http://thecityreview.com/mad980l1.jpg
http://thecityreview.com/mad980pp.html

NYguy

Jan 17, 2007, 1:31 AM

http://thecityreview.com/mad980l17.jpg

http://thecityreview.com/mad980l25.jpg_http://thecityreview.com/mad980l1.jpg
http://thecityreview.com/mad980pp.html

Let's show this wealthy developer that you can't buy New York! Power to the people!....:rolleyes:

(Washington Post)

Old Money and New Construction
In New York, a Proposed Condo Tower Pits the Rich and Famous Against the Rich and Famous

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/01/15/PH2007011501180.jpg

On New York's Upper East Side, a developer wants to restore the Parke-Bernet Galleries building and add a 22-story glass tower -- a project that has generated discord among the community's moneyed residents. (Photos By Helayne Seidman For The Washington Post)

By Michael Powell and Robin Shulman
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

NEW YORK -- To the ramparts, my friends!

An haute New York developer has proposed to erect a 22-story condominium tower atop the austere and officially landmarked walls of the Parke-Bernet Galleries building on the Upper East Side. And the burghers of this oldest of old-money neighborhoods are as revolutionaries to the barricades.

It's one of those marvelous New York moments when outrage trumps self-awareness, laying bare egos and ids more often artfully concealed from public view.

"If this tower is completed," complained Alexandra Donati, who lives in a Park Avenue cooperative where the net worth of members is counted in tens of millions of dollars, "it will mean that power for profit can overwhelm long-term conservation goals."

Then there is the aggrieved cry of Nicholas J. Sands, who happens to live across the street from the proposed tower. Like Donati, he has written to the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, which could vote today to approve or reject the Madison Avenue project.

"Is there anything sacred left in New York?" he asked. "As the owner of a full floor condominium and private art gallery residence . . . which directly overlooks the building in full scale picturesque view, I would like to express my opposition."

One preservationist reported nearly passing out when word broke of the proposed tower atop the five-story art gallery, while novelist Tom Wolfe penned an exclamatory jeremiad against the project on the op-ed pages of the New York Times.

"It would be hard to dream up anything short of a Mobil station more out of place there than a Mondo Condo glass box," wrote Wolfe, who then executed a rhetorical pirouette and lanced the Landmarks Preservation Commission as "a bureau of the walking dead."

High on the opposing ridge, we find developer Aby Rosen, who calls himself a modernist and fancies himself a patron of the arts, and Lord Norman Foster, a properly British architect. They have recruited high-society worthies to their banner: perfume magnate Ron Perelman, heiress Veronica Hearst, celebrity editor Anna Wintour of Vogue (whose signature is three inches high and eight inches wide), a celebrity dermatologist and a few famous artists, not the least of whom is Jeff Koons. (Koons is not without a moneyed horse in this race, as Rosen a few years ago paid a record sum to purchase one of his artworks.)

Rosen and Foster cast themselves as aesthetic adherents of the progressive and the radical. Absent their glass-and-steel tower, they warn, young hedge-funders will shun this shtetl of prewar brick apartment buildings, where three-bedroom apartments retail at $5 million, give or take a million.

"You need to revitalize the area in order to give the younger generation who are seeking modern life and want to go away from classic building prewar," Rosen explained. The young titans yearn to "stay uptown close to private schools. You can't shut them out."

Lord Foster, who called in on his cellphone as he strolled to a fondue restaurant in Switzerland, framed the debate no less grandly.

"Cities either wither as they are preserved in aspic, as it were, or they regenerate," Foster said. "What is now revered by preservationists is the result of earlier transformations."

Supporters of the tower divine a revolution aborning.

Financier Phillippe P. Laffont, who lives in an Upper East Side townhouse, urged Landmark commissioners to walk his neighborhood.

"Look closely," he advised in a letter, "and you will see that modernity erupts from every nook and cranny. Picture windows have replaced the original panes. . . . Floors have been knocked through to create larger spaces. . . . Isn't it time we gave true expression to this pent up desire?"

The plate tectonics of power in New York in fact are shifting. For nearly a century, Park, Madison and Fifth avenues constituted a world all but hermetic in its wealth and self-regard. As late as 1998, financier Steven Rattner could aver that he knew little of the East Village; his was a world demarcated by his vast Upper East Side cooperative, his office aerie in Rockefeller Center and perhaps a side trip to catch the opera at Lincoln Center or a Broadway drama.

The dominance of that world has faded a touch. Last year, Tribeca, in Lower Manhattan, became the most expensive precinct in the most expensive borough in the most expensive city in the nation. The vaguely hip stockbroker lusts for SoHo no less than Park Avenue.

"The problem for the Upper East Side is that it's increasingly looking like a naturally occurring retirement community," said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban studies at New York University's Wagner School. "It no longer has a monopoly on brains, talent and ambitions."

Moss nonetheless views Rosen's proposed tower as too radical. A grande dame of a neighborhood must be led oh so delicately to her facelift.

"This is an idea that's 50 years ahead of its time," Moss said. "The problem for his Lordship is that the House of Lords doesn't have much standing on the Upper East Side."

Rosen is acutely aware that a war with old money is not easily won. (A Mellon and a Von Mueffling chimed in with hand-lettered notes of opposition.) He frames the battle as between the young and daring and "the conformists." He hints darkly that he could build an even bigger building and create a wind tunnel on Madison Avenue.

As for Tom Wolfe . . .

He "used to be, maybe, a good writer," Rosen said. "I don't want to say he's a struggling writer. . . . I don't want to say how many books he sold, but it wasn't too many."

A little later, Rosen talks a little compromise. Maybe he chops a few floors off, maybe he chooses a "champagne-colored bronze to be more contextual with the base." He just hopes the Landmark Commission doesn't toss a dagger into the heart of his project this week.

Whatever. Wolfe wrote his own letter to the Landmark Commission. "The tower," he wrote, "is a flagrant violation upon which the New York City landmarks preservation process was founded in 1965. But this is a new century with new money, new politics and bungee principles."

The sound on the Upper East Side is of an incoming mortar round.

Jularc

Jan 17, 2007, 4:23 AM

:( Here is a little more about this sad news...

Landmarks faults Foster's design for 980 Madison

http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1168987479_mad980y.jpg

16-JAN-07

The Landmarks Preservation Commission this morning concluded a public hearing on a controversial planned residential addition to the five-story building at 980 Madison Avenue opposite the Carlyle Hotel, and nine of the 10 commissioners present indicated they did not find the design appropriate.

The 11-member commission, however, did not take a formal vote and Chairman Robert B. Tierney invited the developer, Aby J. Rosen, and his architect, Lord Norman Foster, to return when they have come up with a design that might meet many of the concerns raised by the commissioners.

Those concerns had mostly to do with the height and massing of the proposed 22-story addition that would have contained 18 condominium apartments and also with the question of whether it might establish a precedent for tall towers in historic districts.

After the meeting, Mr. Rosen indicated that he was pleased that the commission indicated it was not opposed to a rooftop addition to the existing building, which was erected in 1950 for Parke-Bernet, the auction house that was subsequently bought by Sotheby's, and altered substantially about two decades ago.

Mr. Rosen is the owner of the Seagram Building and Lever House and most of the commissioners had very high praise for the Mr. Foster and his design, but not atop the existing building.

The proposal would have restored the existing building's fa¿ade by removing about 50 windows and a floor that had been added would have been replaced with a sculpture garden atop a landscaped and slanted inwards roof.

Foster's design for the apartment tower was placed at the north end of the block-long building between 76th and 77th Street and would have been a joined bundle of two glass-clad towers of unequal height and with curved facades.

Mr. Rosen indicated that his team will study the feasibility of a lower tower as well as one with a warmer color fa¿ade that would be, in Mr. Foster's words, "more "bronzy" than the silvery design first presented.

Mr. Foster is also designing a mixed-use tower for Mr. Rosen at 610 Lexington Avenue immediately behind the Seagram Building. Mr. Foster's design for Tower 2 at Ground Zero for Silverstein Properties was recently unveiled. Mr. Foster's notched glass tower addition to the landmark Hearst Building on the southwest corner of Eighth Avenue and 57th Street was completed last year to widespread acclaim.

Mr. Foster told the commission that the landmark process was "definitely enlightening" but also "frustrating," adding after today's hearing that said that while he was disappointed that his design was not approved, architects have to be "optimistic," adding that the project is "a work in progress." He had argued that a vertical addition was more appropriate than "heavy layering" of a horizontal addition, and that a glass rather than masonry fa¿ade was an "appropriate counterpoint," citing similar additions at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the American Museum of Natural History and the Morgan Library as "happy marriages."

Commissioner Margery Perlmutter expressed concerns about what an approval of the design would mean as a precedent for building over low-rise buildings in historic districts. The city, she continued, is not yet "Bladerunner fashion," referring to the monumental height and scale of the urban environment in the movie "Bladerunner," adding that "we have plenty of places still to grow."

Commissioner Joan Gerner said that "the project holds it place with any modern building in the city," but "unlike the Hearst building the Parke-Bernet Building was never intended to be added to and the project is not appropriate."

Chairman Tierney described Foster's design as "brilliant," but called for a "rethinking," adding that "It is not consistent with the landmarks law as we are given to uphold it," he declared.

Jan Hird Pokorny was the only commissioner to support the project.

Copyright © 1994-2007 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

architect1

Jan 17, 2007, 4:29 AM

Interesting I like the building. I loved some of the pics in there to amazing shots.

GFSNYC

Jan 17, 2007, 2:24 PM

"If this tower is completed," complained Alexandra Donati, who lives in a Park Avenue cooperative where the net worth of members is counted in tens of millions of dollars, "it will mean that power for profit can overwhelm long-term conservation goals."

Or "power for profit" in the way of progress, the hypocracy is not lost here.

One preservationist reported nearly passing out when word broke of the proposed tower atop the five-story art gallery

One can only hope she fell on her minature french poodle.

I don't think anyone should really even bother trying to photoshop that tower, it MAY be visible from the western-most side of the park...from atop a rock. I jog around the resevior enough, the Carlyle is tough to spot as is.

So much for refreshing design in a funeral home of a neighborhood. :(

StatenIslander237

Jan 17, 2007, 2:25 PM

oh well, I guess the Upper East Side will have to remain lagging behind the rest of the city, sucks for them.

Scruffy

Jan 17, 2007, 9:32 PM

i guess there is no point in even talking about this one anymore

StatenIslander237

Jan 17, 2007, 9:46 PM

Jularc

Jan 18, 2007, 9:45 PM

A Pledge To ‘Completely' Alter 980 Madison Plan

By GABRIELLE BIRKNER
January 17, 2007

After his proposal to erect a 22-story glass-and-steel tower atop a Madison Avenue low-rise was criticized sharply yesterday by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, developer Aby Rosen told The New York Sun that he will alter the plans for an addition to the Upper East Side building.

"We're going to change the way the building looks completely," Mr. Rosen said, after a hearing in which commissioners asked the developer to scale back his plans to build a luxury residential tower above the six-story Parke-Bernet Gallery building. The commission stopped short, however, of voting to totally reject the building proposal.

Mr. Rosen said he and his architect, Lord Norman Foster, might propose a shorter building on a wider footprint atop 980 Madison Avenue, between East 76th and East 77th streets. "You can't just take a tower and cut it down, but we can obviously go back to the drawing board and make the building look different — and that's what we're going to do," the developer said in an interview.

Renderings of the sleek cylindrical structure were made public in October. Since then, the proposal has captured the attention of the neighborhood, where its proponents tout the aesthetics of the design and say it would enliven the neighborhood. Project opponents say a contemporary tower is out of place in a historic district.

Mr. Rosen purchased the Parke-Bernet building two years ago for about $120 million. "As much as I'm unhappy that we can't build that tower, I'm very happy that we can build there — and we will build there," he said.

At yesterday's meeting, which ended without a vote for approval or rejection, some commissioners said they would support a building addition of several stories. The hearing was held at the Surrogate courthouse on Chambers Street.

"The presence of the proposed tower would cause irreparable damage," to the delicate balance of elegant low and midrise buildings along Madison Avenue on the Upper East Side, a commissioner, Stephen Byrns, said.

Another member of the commission, the Rev. Thomas Pike, said as a clergy member, he is an authority on marriage. "This marriage makes me nervous," Rev. Pike said, of the union of low-rise and high-rise. "I just feel it would be more appropriate somewhere else."

But one commissioner, Jan Hird Pokorny, said he would support the plan in its current form. During the hearing, he held up a photograph of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and an adjacent domed church, showing what he said was the successful juxtaposition of disparate architectural designs.

Mr. Rosen said the revised proposal would likely be a contemporary design, but that he would consider using masonry — in addition to glass — and changing the color of the structure from silver to champagne.

Lord Foster's design is an "architectural masterpiece" that belongs on an undeveloped lot where the public could walk up to it and touch it, a commissioner, Joan Gerner, said. Ms. Gerner said she would consider an addition to the existing structure of "two or, maybe three stories," but no more.

Another commissioner, Christopher Moore, said he would support a four- or five-story addition. Mr. Rosen said he thought he should be allowed to build to a height on par with the 14- or 15-story structures in the neighborhood.

A revised proposal must be presented in a public hearing before Community Board 8, before being resubmitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, a commission spokeswoman, Elisabeth de Bourbon, said. She said the commission, chaired by Robert Tierney, decided to postpone a vote in order to give the developer time to submit a "substantially altered plan."

A member of a preservation group, Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, Teri Slater, said she wished the commission yesterday had voted down Mr. Rosen's plan, which she called "extreme for the location."

"We shouldn't even be talking about height or scale," Ms. Slater, who attended the hearing, said. "We should be talking about what a historic district is supposed to be — and what is the contribution of low buildings inside these districts."

© 2007 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC.

NYguy

Mar 7, 2007, 8:30 PM

Meanwhile, the battle continues on the opposite side of Central Park...

NY Times

Historical Society Loses Round in Fight to Renovate a Landmark

By GLENN COLLINS
March 7, 2007

In a stormy two-hour meeting before 200 neighborhood residents last night, the New-York Historical Society was rebuffed by Community Board 7 in Manhattan, which resoundingly opposed the group’s proposal to renovate the exterior of its landmark building at 170 Central Park West.

The board voted 40 to 2 against a plan that would replace the society’s eight-foot-wide doorway, built in 1908, with a 40-foot glass entryway and granite portico at the main entrance between West 76th and 77th Streets.

Because the board is an advisory body, its decision does not block the renovation. But as a signal of strong community opposition, the vote could carry weight with the New York City Planning Commission and the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which is likely to hold a hearing on the plan this month. Both groups have veto power over the project.

Louise Mirrer, the historical society’s president, said the community board inappropriately linked the renovation plan to the construction of a 23-story luxury residential tower that the society has proposed as an addition to its four-story building.

“I’m disappointed,” Dr. Mirrer said, adding that the community board’s vote, if used as a precedent, “would prevent any landmark anywhere from ever doing anything new.”

Kate Wood, executive director of Landmark West, an Upper West Side preservation group, said that the historical society’s project “deserves to be stopped in its tracks.” She described it as “a Trojan horse” for the luxury tower and added, “Please don’t open the gate.”

Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, said he could not take a position for or against the plan. “But we should call it what it is,” he said. “It’s going to be a large tower. It’s not about phase one tonight — it’s about what comes after the facade.”

Dr. Mirrer argued that the renovation is essential to make the building more inviting and its exhibitions more accessible, and, she added, that it might be years before a tower could be approved. But Peter M. Wright, co-chairman of the Park West 77th Street Block Association, termed the design “an ill-conceived facade.” The tower, he said, would intrude upon the Central Park skyline and cast a shadow on the park itself.

“I’m pleased,” Mr. Wright said of the vote, adding that it was a step toward defeating the tower plan.

For weeks, preservation groups that oppose the renovation had been e-mailing their members to attend the meeting, held in an auditorium at the American Bible Society at West 61st Street and Broadway. The society, meanwhile, had been exhorting its members to lobby elected city officials to support the plan.

The debate — which followed an hour of discussion on other projects — was punctuated with catcalls and applause. The society’s plan proposes changes not only to the Central Park West entrance, it also would de-emphasize the West 77th Street entrance and reconfigure existing windows there for the construction of a cafe.

The opposition of the community board “bears the hallmark of a group that has campaigned against the historical society,” Dr. Mirrer said. “Of course we will press on.”

antinimby

Mar 8, 2007, 7:34 AM

NIMBYs again. Is their whole purpose in life is to fight development?

JohnFlint1985

Jul 18, 2007, 4:48 AM

Any recent news on this one? I totally don't understand why the Fosters tower was not accepted. What is so bad about it. It looks rather original. It is not a usual "box" -- so it is something that we need in NYC (Oroginality). Anybody know anything about it?

WonderlandPark

Jul 18, 2007, 4:59 AM

This is one of the biggest disappointments I have read about on this board. Not a Burj Dubai or anything, but an renovation with a purpose and a damn nice tower to go along with it. Oh well. Now they may get a nice light-blocking squat tower. I don't get it, 22 stories? WTF is the big deal, this is MANHATTAN. jeez.

Zerton

Nov 20, 2007, 8:36 AM

i wonder if they're keeping foster for the more 'classic' design. Should be interesting to see him do something like that.

CoolCzech

Nov 21, 2007, 12:42 AM

Heh? If you can't see how London has kept vital by embracing its past and the future, as New York should (and as Paris and Hong Kong haven't), then I'm guessing you just have a chip on your shoulder about London because it's cooler than NY...even though you live in New Jersey LOL. Not that Paris and HK aren't vital, but London's model is a better way to go for NY - an emphasis on historic preservation but not at the expense of modernity. I don't understand why you're so tweenie girl about it or on what level you disagree.

There's so much to disagree with in this silly paragraph, it's hard to know where to even begin. :haha:

CoolCzech

Nov 21, 2007, 12:45 AM

Here we go:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/56730481/original.jpg

Looks pretty "cool" to me, NY Guy!

CoolCzech

Nov 21, 2007, 12:56 AM

What's so funny? London has been able to keep its historical and architectural integrity and heritage while being modern and dynamic.

New York can't learn anything from how London has adapted? Ha ha, Hilarious.

:rolleyes:

The thing is, London has far more truly old history than New York. What makes New York what it is in the eyes of the world is a scale all its own, and the fact that even older developments like the ESB were startling developments for their day... such as the entire Westside proejct will be in our times. So on those two points, you're comparing apples and oranges. I've decided that's all I'm going to say on this topic, because obviously you're looking for some sort of New York/London thing, and it's not worth even a keystroke to have to state certain things that are just obvious.

antinimby

May 14, 2008, 6:24 AM

Redesigning a Building to Preserve Peace in the Neighborhood

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/14/arts/proposed190.jpg
The original plan.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/05/13/arts/proposed191.jpg
Above, Norman Foster’s new
design for expanding the Parke-
Bernet Gallery building.

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF
Published: May 14, 2008

You have to pity any architect who appears before the landmarks committee of the Upper East Side’s community board. Packed with amateur preservationists, it is notoriously adverse to anything new.

Two years ago, an effort to preserve two nondescript brownstone facades forced the Whitney Museum of American Art to drastically revise a plan to expand its Madison Avenue home; ultimately that project was scuttled. The group seems as open to the notion that cities can change as some biblical fundamentalists are to evolution.

The recent battle over the Parke-Bernet Gallery building, an austere 1950s-era limestone structure on Madison Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets, is a case in point. When the British architect Norman Foster first presented his proposal to erect a 30-story glass tower atop the existing building, many neighborhood residents were outraged. “A glass dagger plunged into the heart of the Upper East Side,” one said.

The project’s developer, Aby Rosen, sent Mr. Foster back to the drawing board, and he has returned with a plan, one that both hope will be more palatable to neighborhood preservationists. Clad in elegant bronze bands, its low blocky form would rest directly on the existing structure, echoing its exact proportions. More important, perhaps, it would be far less visible from the multimillion-dollar penthouse apartments just across the street.

Should the plan be approved, it would only underscore the bizarre thinking behind decisions governing historic landmark cases today. Both proposals would have significantly changed the building; both are thoughtful attempts to fuse old and new without compromising either.

But the new design is more polite and less original, hewing to the reactionary view that most contemporary architecture is best when it is invisible. Little wonder that this neighborhood has not gained a significant new work of architecture in more than a quarter-century.

Planting modern appendages on top of old buildings is an unnerving trend these days in Manhattan real estate, where soaring prices can make any empty space look like a money-making opportunity. Just two years ago Mr. Foster completed a faceted glass-and-steel tower that pierces the core of the 1928 Hearst Building, a low limestone structure that looked a bit like a mausoleum, anyway. And plans are in the works for a 40-story office tower atop the Port Authority bus terminal and a 140-room hotel on the Battery Maritime Building in Lower Manhattan.

But the Parke-Bernet building has neither the charm nor the civic stature of the Beaux-Arts Maritime Building. With five floors of commercial offices and art galleries, its austere form, punctured by a single row of windows at the sixth floor, is a subdued interpretation of the hard-edged architecture of Rockefeller Center — minus the glamour. As architecture, it does have a subtle impact on its surroundings, offering a pleasing contrast to the early-19th-century brick structures on either side.

In his original proposal Mr. Foster sought to strengthen those contrasts rather than smooth them over. Only the elevator core would have penetrated the existing building; the rest of the tower would have seemed to float just above the building’s northern end, barely touching it. Its oval floors would have housed luxury apartments with 360-degree views. The building’s old roof, meanwhile, would have been transformed into a luxurious roof garden.

By comparison with the Hearst Tower’s faceted exterior, the Parke-Bernet project’s oval form seemed rather slick and subdued. Still, the idea — held by most serious architects today — was that the best way to respect the past is not to mimic it, but to weave a contemporary vision into the historic fabric with sensitivity.

The delicate bronze bands are in strong contrast to the building’s heavy stone base. A six-foot gap separates the two; just below it, the parapet of the old building hides a series of narrow terraces that wrap around the building on three sides. It’s a wonderful sectional detail, with the two forms literally interlocking in a double-height living space.

The new version suggests an excessive desire not to offend. The taut bronze bands immediately bring to mind Herzog & de Meuron’s haunting 1994 railway Signal Box in Basel, Switzerland, a classic of contemporary architecture. Yet that work, flanked by rows of rail tracks, radiates a terrifying energy, as if it were charged with electricity. Foster’s design, by contrast, radiates luxury, not mystery. The bands, modeled on an earlier Foster design for an apartment complex in an Alpine resort, are conceived as delicate movable screens, reflecting the good taste of the inhabitants while protecting them from the unwanted gaze of outsiders.

The real question here is not so much which of Foster’s designs is better; it’s why he has to strain for a more palatable alternative to the first. Both significantly alter the existing structure; both add roughly the same amount of space. What separates the two is not a newfound sensitivity to the preservationist’s perspective, but a calculated response to the bottom-line politics of building on the Upper East Side. The building’s low profile and bronzed exterior, while no more contextual than a glass tower, seem well mannered if complacent. By lowering the height of his building, Mr. Rosen is no longer required to get a zoning variance; as long as the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission signs off, there is no legal impediment to construction.

Perhaps more important, however, the new design would not affect the views of the handful of wealthy and potentially litigious apartment owners across the street. Nowadays that seems to be a more critical issue for the Landmarks Preservation Commission than what the rest of us will experience on the street.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company