[NYguy]

MANHATTAN WEST

Two towers:
66 stories - 3.4 msf - 1,216 ft
60 stories - 1.9 msf - 935 ft

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/93262529/large.jpg


__________________________________________


NY Post

FOUR TOWERS NEAR FARLEY
BROOKFIELD STILL NEEDS ANCHOR

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/loisweiss_btb.jpg

March 14, 2007

BROOKFIELD Properties is readying plans for four towers totaling 4.7 million feet at the rear of the Farley Post Office on the west side of Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets.

"It will be an awesome location," Ric Clark, Brookfield's CEO, said at the Young Men's and Women's Real Estate Association luncheon yesterday.

Clark said plans call for the east end of the plot to host two office towers sharing 4 million square feet while the west end will have two residential towers totaling 700,000 feet.

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010. That process will begin with the sharing of new renderings now being prepared by Skidmore Owings Merrill.

While there's no anchor tenant yet, Clark said Brookfield is in discussions with "all the usual suspects" and expects rents to start in the $80 range.

Would they break ground without an anchor tenant? "Never say never," Clark said. "But we would need to know the Moynihan Train Station was going forward."

[NYguy]

Clark said plans call for the east end of the plot to host two office towers sharing 4 million square feet while the west end will have two residential towers totaling 700,000 feet.

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010.

With my good math skills, I put the towers at this size :)

1 tower at........... 2.4 msf
1 tower at........... 1.6 msf

2 residential towers totalling......700,000 sf

Not bad. And we don't even have the plans for the MSG site, nor the 2.5 msf tower at the Hotel Penn site. Things are really looking up...

[NYguy]

Brookfield's site in relation to other major developments...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/69609970/original.jpg


Fronting 9th Ave...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157743/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157714/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157760/large.jpg

[Trojan in NYC]

With my good math skills, I put the towers at this size :)

1 tower at........... 2.4 msf
1 tower at........... 1.6 msf

2 residential towers totalling......700,000 sf

Not bad. And we don't even have the plans for the MSG site, nor the 2.5 msf tower at the Hotel Penn site. Things are really looking up...
2.4 msf would be a pretty tall building. I hope these buildings get built soon.

[Thskyscraper]

:previous: I hope so. It's a small plot for 4 buildings, so there has to be one or two of these towers that are 600ft+.

[lazar22b]

^^ Maybe for the residential. 2.4 msf is most likely around 1000ft. BoA is 2.2 msf.

[antinimby]

2.4 msf would be a pretty tall building. I hope these buildings get built soon.But first, they have to build a platform over the railroad tracks. That takes a long time.

[R@ptor]

Great news. This will really help to link the Midtown skyline with the upcoming Westside skyline.

[CoolCzech]

^^ Maybe for the residential. 2.4 msf is most likely around 1000ft. BoA is 2.2 msf.


And don't forget that BoA has a massive base. 2.4 msf could easily translate into extraordinary height indeed on a smaller lot...

[BINARY SYSTEM]

I hope the 2.4 msf tower is 300 meters +, I'm sick of Midtown and the city picking scrapers in the range of 250 meters. NO MORE PEOPLE, LET'S MOVE IT UP A COUPLE OF NOTCHES!:D

[NYguy]

But first, they have to build a platform over the railroad tracks. That takes a long time.

Apparently not that long...

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010.

I know Brookfield has had plans and agreements in place with the transit agencies regarding building the platform. Even so, I have trouble imagining more than two towers fitting on that site. But residential towers don't have to be very large, and will likely have much smaller footprints.


Would they break ground without an anchor tenant? "Never say never," Clark said. "But we would need to know the Moynihan Train Station was going forward."

The Moynihan project is moving forward, we should be getting plans on that next month. It's just astonishing the amount of commercial space being built on basically two blocks. I guess the developers in Midtown want to strike back early and hard at the WTC, something I don't think happend the first time around. But with the office market as hot as it is in Manhattan, there's not a better time to do it.

A look at NY's largest new office developments (doesn't include nearly full towers like Times, BofA, and Goldman Sachs)

Downtown
Freedom Tower............2.6 msf office tower
Tower 2 .....................2.5 msf office tower
Tower 3 .....................2.5 msf office tower
Tower 4 .....................2.8 msf office tower
Tower 5 .....................1.8 msf office tower

Midtown
Hotel Penn site ............2.5 msf office tower
MSG site.....................6 msf - 2 office towers
Brookfield tower 1 ........1.6 msf office tower
Brookfield tower 2 ........2.5 msf office tower

[Thefigman]

This and the MSG site are going to make for an impressive cluster!

[NYguy]

This and the MSG site are going to make for an impressive cluster!

Put this visual together of the new 33rd-31st St cluster. You get Brookfield's
4.7 msf development, Related's 6 msf MSG development, and Vornado's 2.5 msf Hotel Penn tower.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75818321/original.jpg


But Brookfields site is somewhat small, considering they want to build four towers.
Even with smaller residential towers, the sites for the 2 office towers won't
be large enough to build large trading floor bases like the ones found at BofA,
the new WTC, and even the Hotel Penn tower. The tallest tower here has
the potential to be taller than the tower at the Hotel Penn site.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75818270/large.jpg

[antinimby]

Actually the base can be big enough if they do the "Bloomberg or Time Warner Center" thing where two towers share a large common base.

[NYguy]

Actually the base can be big enough if they do the "Bloomberg or Time Warner Center" thing where two towers share a large common base.

That could only happen if you build both towers at the same time, the way Time Warner Center was built.

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010. That process will begin with the sharing of new renderings now being prepared by Skidmore Owings Merrill.

That won't happen here.

I believe the Hudson Yards zoning calls for pedestrian circulation (either indoor or inclosed) between the towers, where there is no 32nd street (the same thing called for at the MSG site).

But either way, the site is too small. You would need to extend the base all the way to the western edge of the site, where apparently they want to build two residential towers. I'm constantly going through the site (entering and leaving Penn Station) and at best it's suited for two towers. But if they're looking to go up, they can cram all the space they want to in there (zoning calls for 4.7 msf).

[CoolCzech]

So in a few years, the ESB could actually be obscured behind several taller towers... quite a change for New York that would be. Probably the most significant since the Chrysler and ESB were constructed, actually.

[STERNyc]

So in a few years, the ESB could actually be obscured behind several taller towers... quite a change for New York that would be. Probably the most significant since the Chrysler and ESB were constructed, actually.

You're forgetting the original WTC, it was pretty big news when it was built...

[NYRY85]

I believe hes referring to Midtown only. The WTC never obscured the views of either.

[kznyc2k]

Man, next time I come in by way of Penn Station I'm gonna make sure I take pictures of all the surrounding blocks, before they all get redeveloped with 600+ footers and the place becomes unrecognizeable from what I (will) remember as a youngster. Pretty soon the Nelson Building will look like a midget after years of dominating its territory.. neato!

[NYguy]

So in a few years, the ESB could actually be obscured behind several taller towers... quite a change for New York that would be. Probably the most significant since the Chrysler and ESB were constructed, actually.

That would be quite a change. For so many years, the Empire State has dominated Midtown. And nothing in the immediate area even comes close. It was the world's tallest for about 4 decades, and is the only former tallest to hold the title of a city's tallest on two seperate occasions.

Yet, the day of the ESB's dominance may be coming to a close. Midtown developers want to offer the same type of space being offered Downtown at the new WTC. It's no coincidence that most of these towers have the same target dates of completion (and are all actively seeking tenants, something done years ahead in New York).

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010. That process will begin with the sharing of new renderings now being prepared by Skidmore Owings Merrill.

What surprises me is that of all the new towers in the area, I thought the Hotel Penn tower would sprout first (they're shooting for 2011). Who knew Brookfield would trump both Vornado's tower and Silverstein's WTC towers?

[CoolCzech]

You're forgetting the original WTC, it was pretty big news when it was built...

True, but I mean right now when you drive down the Westside Hwy the ESB stands out like a gigantic exclamation mark, in magnificent isolation from other tall buildings. But if all the different projects - the Brookfield and the Vornado projects, the tower at the Hotel Penn site - get underway and reach their potential heights, the ESB will be literally obscured from sight, save perhaps for its spire, from that viewpoint. THAT would make for a radical change to the "look" of NYC, at least from that side of Manhattan...

[CoolCzech]

That would be quite a change. For so many years, the Empire State has dominated Midtown. And nothing in the immediate area even comes close. It was the world's tallest for about 4 decades, and is the only former tallest to hold the title of a city's tallest on two seperate occasions.

Yet, the day of the ESB's dominance may be coming to a close.

And the ESB continued to dominate downtown even after the Twins were put up.

It is a stunning testament to the true greatness of the ESB that it was maintained its standout status in the most skyscraper-intense city in the world right thru the 1st decade of the 21st century, nearly 70 years since it was put up.

But it also underscores what an exciting time in NYC's building history this particular era has suddenly - against all expectations, really, when you consider what was being said after 9/11 - turned into.:banana:

And it's not just the mega-projects like Vornado's plan for an AOL-type development around MSG, only bigger, either... 8th Avenue is almost casually being transformed into another Avenue of the Americas before our eyes, and Manhattan is overflowing its physical boundaries into Jersey City and Queen. Even Brooklyn will soon have a skyline worthy of many another major city downtown area!

[NYguy]

True, but I mean right now when you drive down the Westside Hwy the ESB stands out like a gigantic exclamation mark, in magnificent isolation from other tall buildings. But if all the different projects - the Brookfield and the Vornado projects, the tower at the Hotel Penn site - get underway and reach their potential heights, the ESB will be literally obscured from sight, save perhaps for its spire, from that viewpoint. THAT would make for a radical change to the "look" of NYC, at least from that side of Manhattan...

It really depends on the angle. Because those towers are virtually "in line" with the ESB, they really would only block it in the 33rd-30th St range. You would actually see all of the towers from most other places. But we'll just have to wait and see the bulk and heights of the towers.

[Thefigman]

It really depends on the angle. Because those towers are virtually "in line" with the ESB, they really would only block it in the 33rd-30th St range. You would actually see all of the towers from most other places. But we'll just have to wait and see the bulk and heights of the towers.

Looking at the area in question, it would appear that the Jersey side views of the ESB would be most effected, and that would really be only from right across the river and a little south of there. Middlesex county, NJ/Brooklyn/Queens/Bronx views should still be able to see the ESB no matter what the height of the buildings constructed. Although, it just won't stand out as much.

[Stu]

As has been mentioned, the two office towers will have to be quite thin to fit on that site + leave space for 2 residential towers. Tall thin office towers of 1.6 and 2.4 msf? I can dig that.

[NYguy]

As has been mentioned, the two office towers will have to be quite thin to fit on that site + leave space for 2 residential towers. Tall thin office towers of 1.6 and 2.4 msf? I can dig that.

Yep!...:tup:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75818270/large.jpg

[NYguy]

Looking at the area in question, it would appear that the Jersey side views of the ESB would be most effected, and that would really be only from right across the river and a little south of there. Middlesex county, NJ/Brooklyn/Queens/Bronx views should still be able to see the ESB no matter what the height of the buildings constructed. Although, it just won't stand out as much.

That's true. All of the new towers would be south of the ESB...

http://www.grandscapes.biz/images/hudson_detail_images/hudson_detail3_r1_c2.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75818321/original.jpg

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by Thefigman
Looking at the area in question, it would appear that the Jersey side views of the ESB would be most effected, and that would really be only from right across the river and a little south of there. Middlesex county, NJ/Brooklyn/Queens/Bronx views should still be able to see the ESB no matter what the height of the buildings constructed. Although, it just won't stand out as much.



Hopefully, the overall effect will be of the classic lower Manhattan skyline from the 1930's, of ever steeper towers culminating with the ESB the tallest point in the middle. Or perhaps, with the ESB as a step towards an even taller tower?

[antinimby]

Anyone worried that SOM NY will not be able to pull it off?

Remember this is SOM New York (David Childs), not SOM Chicago.

[Eigenwelt]

How soon can we expect renderings?

[NYguy]

Hopefully, the overall effect will be of the classic lower Manhattan skyline from the 1930's, of ever steeper towers culminating with the ESB the tallest point in the middle.

The ESB won't be in the middle, it would be the farthest to the east. The tallest towers should go on the MSG site as far as the skyline is concerned. But who knows...

[NYguy]

How soon can we expect renderings?

Possibly soon...

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010. That process will begin with the sharing of new renderings now being prepared by Skidmore Owings Merrill.

That's the first Brookfield tower. Hopefully those renderings will be made public. Word is that Related/Vornado's MSG proposal will be revealed sometime in April. Maybe they'll unveil plans for the Hotel Penn tower as well.

[BINARY SYSTEM]

Possibly soon...



That's the first Brookfield tower. Hopefully those renderings will be made public. Word is that Related/Vornado's MSG proposal will be revealed sometime in April. Maybe they'll unveil plans for the Hotel Penn tower as well.

How tall do you think these two bad boys will be NYguy? I think the 2.4 msf tower will be around 350 meters.

[NYguy]

How tall do you think these two bad boys will be NYguy? I think the 2.4 msf tower will be around 350 meters.

Don't know. The first tower could go anywhere from 750 to 850 ft. The second, perhaps 900 to 1200 ft. Possibly more. A lot depends on the massing.

[kenratboy]

This project has a lot of potential. I look foward to seeing how it progressed.

Certainly, and opportunity like this doesn't come along very often!

[NYguy]

Certainly, and opportunity like this doesn't come along very often!

Nope. And certainly not within a block of an even larger, similar development. Good times...

[NYguy]

Anyone worried that SOM NY will not be able to pull it off?
Remember this is SOM New York (David Childs), not SOM Chicago.

Check the MSG thread for an interview with Childs on his other work in the area...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=119637&page=5

[NYguy]

APRIL 8, 2007

Quick glimpse of the rails to be covered by this huge development...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76895778/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76895793/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76895778/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76895793/large.jpg

[NYguy]

More specifics, pages 57-58
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/hyards/hy_development_information.pdf

Site 729A
Northwest corner of Ninth Avenue and West 31st Street
Ownership: Privately owned
Assemblage required: No

Design Controls: sidewalk widening, ground floor retail and transparency,
street trees, required street wall, required publicly-accessible through-block
passageway
Parking Requirement: approximately 822 spaces

Height Limits: None
Total Lot Area (SF): 128,600
Max. FAR: 19.0
Max. ZFA (SF): 2,443,400

Site Attributes: Convenient access to future mass transit and Midtown;
accommodates large floor plate commercial uses

Site Challenges: Construction of a platform over existing and proposed
below-grade railroad tracks and right-of-way; Below-grade parking
requirement


Site 729B
Southeast corner of Ninth Avenue and West 33rd Street
Ownership: Privately owned
Assemblage required: No

Design Controls: sidewalk widening, ground floor retail and transparency,
street trees, required street wall, required public plaza
Parking Requirement: approximately 516 spaces

Height Limits: None
Total Lot Area (SF): 80,729
Max. FAR: 19.0
Max. ZFA (SF): 1,533,851

Site Attributes: Convenient access to future mass transit and Midtown;
accommodates large floor plate commercial uses

Site Challenges: Construction of a platform over below-grade railroad
tracks and right-of-way; Site geometry; Below-grade parking requirement

[NYguy]

Another look at the open site...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77418257/original.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77418255/original.jpg

[NYguy]

Quote from an article in the Observer
http://observer.com/2007/behold-mini-city-rises

Behold, a Mini-City Rises

Though residential use is supposed to dominate the northern and eastern ends of the district, office towers are supposed to be arranged in an “L” shape, north-south along 11th Avenue opposite the newly reborn Javits Center and east-west in the low 30’s. Key to the southern corridor are the Metropolitan Transportation Authority railyards, which have yet to go out to bid.

But it’s telling that two landlords are willing to discuss some details of their projects.

Brookfield Properties, which owns most of the block between 31st and 33rd streets on the west side of Ninth Avenue, is drawing up plans for four towers. Mr. Katz, the president of Sherwood, has come up with a schematic plan for his 11th Avenue parcel to show off to financial companies.

Mr. Katz said he would not start without securing an anchor tenant—which is normal practice for office buildings—but both the Sherwood and Brookfield parcels are large enough to provide the 65,000-square-foot trading floors that investment banks like J.P. Morgan Chase are now looking to build at the World Trade Center site.

[Scruffy]

2.5 and 1.5 million sq feet. The 2.5 mil is near gauranteed to top 1000 feet. Between this and the going ons of MSG a block away (1360FT, 1200FT), im on overload. This is a skyscraper lovers wet dream contained in 3 continous blocks

[NYguy]

2.5 and 1.5 million sq feet. The 2.5 mil is near gauranteed to top 1000 feet. Between this and the going ons of MSG a block away (1360FT, 1200FT), im on overload. This is a skyscraper lovers wet dream contained in 3 continous blocks


And its only a couple of blocks from that planned tower by Sherwood...(and who knows what over the railyards)

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77190989/medium.jpg
(early Sherwood rendering)

It goes on and on...

[ZZ-II]

how many new supertalls are now plannend for midtown?

[NYguy]

how many new supertalls are now plannend for midtown?

With so many developments underway and in planning stages, its hard to say for sure. But I would put 2 at the MSG site, with maybe one at the Brookfield site, and 1 at the Hotel Penn Site. More on the west side of Manhattan.

[Scruffy]

Its still too soon to know, but right now it looks like a minimum of 5 1000ft +
Brookfield 1
Sherwood
Penn 1 and 2
Hotel Penn

but mostly speculation, very educated guesses and leaked renders

[NYguy]

Its still too soon to know, but right now it looks like a minimum of 5 1000ft +
Brookfield 1
Sherwood
Penn 1 and 2
Hotel Penn

but mostly speculation, very educated guesses and leaked renders

Yeah, the MSG site looks to be the only sure thing as of now. But we are only a few months (possibly weeks) away from confirmation on the others...

[Adyton]

Combine 5-6 new supertalls in Midtown with WTC's 3 new supertalls (4 almost), you have 8-9 supertalls perhaps by 2013.... incredible!

Now, we'll have to see if the designs for Mid-town are as good as the WTC. With Foster, good chance except we'll be getting two "flat" tops instead of spires for Penn 1 & 2. For Pelli, better chance of getting a lighted crown similar to BofA Charlotte or Intl Finance 2 in Hong Kong. For KPF, hopefully they design like they do for Shanghai & Seoul, Korea with a tapered crown and spire and not a flat top like the Finance Center currently going up in Hong Kong.

Interesting... the possibilities. Overall, the designs by any of the architects should be modern day versions of the ESB, soaring, inspiring towers with lighted crowns & spires... NOT a SOM bland box.;)

[NYguy]

Overall, the designs by any of the architects should be modern day versions of the ESB, soaring, inspiring towers with lighted crowns & spires... NOT a SOM bland box.;)

I don't think modern day versions of the ESB work well on either of these sites. The design needs to be something that stands out, not another ESB clone. Further over on the west side, maybe. But for MSG, Brookfield, and Penn, too close to the real thing. Maybe one spire out of the bunch.

[ZZ-II]

Its still too soon to know, but right now it looks like a minimum of 5 1000ft +
Brookfield 1
Sherwood
Penn 1 and 2
Hotel Penn

but mostly speculation, very educated guesses and leaked renders

wow :eek:

thank you very much for the info

btw. how many of these tower are acutally Approved?

[Scruffy]

that gets more complicated since not all of them require approval. let NYGuy answer that one

[NYguy]

^All of those towers are planned according to what's already zoned for the sites, so no approvals are necessary. However, must developers want to find tenants before starting construction. That's where things stand now...

wow :eek:
thank you very much for the info
btw. how many of these tower are acutally Approved?

[NYguy]

A look again at the zoning for Brookfields large towers...

More specifics, pages 57-58
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/hyards/hy_development_information.pdf

Site 729A
Northwest corner of Ninth Avenue and West 31st Street
Ownership: Privately owned
Assemblage required: No

Design Controls: sidewalk widening, ground floor retail and transparency,
street trees, required street wall, required publicly-accessible through-block
passageway
Parking Requirement: approximately 822 spaces

Height Limits: None
Total Lot Area (SF): 128,600
Max. FAR: 19.0
Max. ZFA (SF): 2,443,400

Site Attributes: Convenient access to future mass transit and Midtown;
accommodates large floor plate commercial uses

Site Challenges: Construction of a platform over existing and proposed
below-grade railroad tracks and right-of-way; Below-grade parking
requirement


Site 729B
Southeast corner of Ninth Avenue and West 33rd Street
Ownership: Privately owned
Assemblage required: No

Design Controls: sidewalk widening, ground floor retail and transparency,
street trees, required street wall, required public plaza
Parking Requirement: approximately 516 spaces

Height Limits: None
Total Lot Area (SF): 80,729
Max. FAR: 19.0
Max. ZFA (SF): 1,533,851

Site Attributes: Convenient access to future mass transit and Midtown;
accommodates large floor plate commercial uses

Site Challenges: Construction of a platform over below-grade railroad
tracks and right-of-way; Site geometry; Below-grade parking requirement


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77418255/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77418257/original.jpg


BROOKFIELD Properties is readying plans for four towers totaling 4.7 million feet at the rear of the Farley Post Office on the west side of Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets........plans call for the east end of the plot to host two office towers sharing 4 million square feet while the west end will have two residential towers totaling 700,000 feet.

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010. That process will begin with the sharing of new renderings now being prepared by Skidmore Owings Merrill.

While there's no anchor tenant yet, Clark said Brookfield is in discussions with "all the usual suspects" and expects rents to start in the $80 range. Would they break ground without an anchor tenant? "Never say never," Clark said. "But we would need to know the Moynihan Train Station was going forward."

[NYguy]

A track level view of the approach into Penn Station. This will be the site of the largest of the development,
Tower 2. The Farley building (future site of MSG) can be seen on the left...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78364989/large.jpg


The site of tower 1 also has a little parking. The Farley building is seen on the right...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78365051/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78365092/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78365152/large.jpg


There's one small building on site. Not sure if it stays or goes, but it wasn't mapped in planning papers...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78365163/large.jpg

[NYguy]

Also of note:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02072007/business/buildings_really_wired_business_lois_weiss.htm

BUILDING'S REALLY WIRED
AP'S 33RD STREET HEADQUARTERS SOLD FOR $700M+

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/loisweiss.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02072007/photos/biz038.jpg

BULETTIN: The Daily News Building (above) at 450 W. 33rd St. has been sold.


February 7, 2007 -- SCOTT Lawlor's Broad way Partners have swooped in and tied up 450 W. 33rd St. for north of $700 million.

The chunky former John Hancock Building is being almost entirely recapitalized by Joseph Chetrit and his investors through Douglas Harmon of Eastdil Secured.

A slender tower of about 800,000 feet can be added to the 1.7 million foot chunky, sloping structure that's home to both the Daily News and the Associated Press wire service.

Harmon confirmed to us the deal went to contract but would not discuss any of the details of the complicated transaction.

"They are evaluating how best to maximize the value of the assets," Harmon said of Lawlor's group.

As we revealed in last week's column, the building was on the market but it has become obvious that buyers have to move fast to grab that brass ring.

[NYguy]

http://www.therealdeal.net/issues/JULY_2007/1183145459.php

Midtown office development outpaces Downtown
Center of gravity for construction shifts north

By Catherine Curan
July 2007


Now that he's assembled a plot encompassing two city blocks at Ninth Avenue from 31st to 33rd streets, Ric Clark, president of Brookfield Properties Corp., is bullish on the prospects for 3.8 million square feet of office space.

Clark is betting on success because his two office towers will rise across from the new Moynihan Station -- and be part of a massive planned redevelopment of Manhattan's far West Side.

Brookfield's project reflects the shifting axis of commercial development in Manhattan. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with the resulting loss of 15 million square feet of office space Downtown, attention focused on rebuilding there. Since then, however, Midtown has surged and overtaken Downtown in the amount of office space under development.

There are now 13 million square feet under construction or planned Downtown, most of it at the World Trade Center site. However, Midtown, with a flurry of projects -- from the 2.1 million square feet at One Bryant Park announced farther back, to the more recent 1.1 million square feet at 11 Times Square -- totals 16.3 million square feet. Yet more activity is in the works at Hudson Yards, the rail yards in the west 30s.

While both Downtown and Midtown are benefiting from the tight office leasing market with higher rents and lower vacancy (see story on page 20), each area has distinctive features that dictate how much development will occur there, and what type. Downtown's redevelopment is dominated by the World Trade Center site, with Larry Silverstein as the key player. The investment bank Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, is building a new 43-story headquarters tower on West Street near Ground Zero. Last month's announcement that JP Morgan Chase is planning a 42-story skyscraper on the site of the soon-to-be demolished Deutsche Bank building indicates that there will be more office development Downtown, but still not as much as Midtown.

On the whole, though, development Downtown is hampered by the difficulty of assembling a large parcel and the traditional need for government incentives like the ones Chase is said to be pushing for.

Meanwhile, Midtown is poised to outstrip Downtown for the simple reason that there is more land available.

"The West Side keeps inching closer and closer to the Hudson River," says Stuart Saft, a partner at the law firm LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae. "We'll see the kind of development on Ninth Avenue that we saw on Eighth Avenue 20 years ago."

The far West Side can accommodate 24 million square feet of new space, against a projected 15 million for Downtown, according to a 2005 speech by Senator Charles Schumer.

But just because there is the capacity, it doesn't automatically follow that tenants will want to move to the far West Side if projects are built there, much less pay a premium. The Empire State Building's early days as the "Empty State Building" and the World Trade Center are just two major commercial developments that languished at first.

What Midtown developers are basing their bets on are the current sky-high rents. When Douglas Durst's project at One Bryant Park cracked the $100-per-square-foot rental ceiling, developers took notice. Midtown office rents are now averaging $75.48 per square foot, up 32 percent from last year, according to data from CB Richard Ellis.

Harry Macklowe's switch at 510 Madison from residential to commercial is just one high-profile example of a Midtown developer who decided that in today's climate, an office tower made more economic sense.

Overall employment growth is another critical factor for both Midtown and Downtown developers; the New York State Department of Labor forecasts a 6.8 percent increase for the New York City area from 2004 to 2014.

Also, the aging stock of existing space means that tenants are in dire need of high-quality space.

According to CB Richard Ellis, in 2000, 54 percent of office buildings in Manhattan were over 50 years old; in 2010 that percentage will vault to 64 percent. Those pre-Internet office buildings won't be able to keep pace with their tenants' technology needs, and they also lack the latest security and environmentally friendly features.

Most importantly for developers, tenants are willing to pay up for this premium space. And they are particularly interested in eco-friendly buildings even if they cost more, says Brookfield's Clark. Clark is talking with financial services, legal, accounting and entertainment firms about space in his new towers.

"Five years ago, tenants could not care less if you said, 'I want to build an environmentally responsible building, but it will cost a few extra bucks.' They didn't want to hear it," says Clark. "Today it's the opposite. One of the first questions out of a tenant's mouth is, 'What are you doing about green building?' And they are willing to pay a couple of extra bucks."

Construction on his project is slated to begin late next year, and Clark aims to finish the first office tower by 2011. Whether the perfect storm of factors in place now, especially a strong economy, will persist until then is an open question. Clark says he's optimistic, but acknowledges the risks.

"It is sort of a five-year time line," he says. "You never know what happens in Manhattan along the way."

[NYguy]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102007/business/seven_manhattan_development_projects_to_watch_business_steve_cuozzo.htm

SEVEN MANHATTAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO WATCH

By STEVE CUOZZO
August 10, 2007

HERE are major Manhattan de velopers with planned office building projects that could be affected by credit-market turmoil.

None has signed tenants yet. No construction plans have been filed with the Buildings Dept. except where work has begun as noted.


SJP Properties

The site: 1.1 million square feet under construction at 11 Times Square, on the southeast corner of Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street.

The line: Expected to succeed because of its quality and because it's already out of the ground, so it can draw tenants while demand remains strong.

However, early talks with Australian investment bank Macquarie seem to have sputtered.

Brookfield Properties

The site: Possible buildings comprising 4.7 million square feet on the west blockfront of Ninth Avenue between 31st-33rd streets. No work has started on the project, which must include construction of a platform over the rail yard.

The line: Brookfield won't lift a shovel without tenants.

Vornado Realty Trust

The site: The Hotel Pennsylvania on Seventh Avenue between 32nd-33rd streets, to be demolished for a 2.5 million square foot office tower. The Hotel remains open while Vornado negotiates with Merrill Lynch as a possible tenant.

The line: Vornado chief Steve Roth sat on the Alexander's site for years until he signed Bloomberg LP as a tenant. Expect no less caution here.

Boston Properties

The site: Approximately 900,000 square feet on the east blockfront of Eighth Avenue between 54th-55th streets. Publicly held Boston Properties, in partnership with William Gladstone, have demolition under way with the owners said to be going "full speed ahead" on design plans and negotiating with unidentified possible tenants.

The line: Unlikely to build without at least one tenant.

Boston Prop./ Related Cos.

The site: 840,000 square feet on a portion of the east blockfront of Eighth Avenue between 45th-46th streets. The partnership is waiting to close on several building purchases and also negotiating for additional properties and/or air rights.

The line: Wait and see.

Macklowe Properties

The site: 350,000 square feet under construction at 510 Madison Avenue.

The line: A slam-dunk, even though no tenants have yet been announced. Super-luxurious "boutique" building with small floors will easily draw hedge funds and the like.

Macklowe Properties

The site: Potentially 1 million-plus square feet at 440 Park Avenue, the former Drake Hotel, which is now being demolished.

The line: A mystery. Great location, but rents will be astronomical.

[Dac150]

After reading this I am begining to get worried that 3/4 of the supertalls planned on the Westside won't be built. Though it is too early to determine, from reading this, I have concluded that the most important thing for these companies (Vornado, Brookfield, Macklowe, & Boston prop.) to do is to nail down tenants to get these projects off the ground.

I for one cannot blame them. Building an office tower without the confirmation of tenants is a tremendous risk (even with the commercial market being what it is presently, you just never know).

I understand on the financial aspect, but as someone who loves Manhattan and skyscrapers, the lack of confidence is somewhat of a disappointment.

On a more brighter note, I am excited that the towers planned to go up in Mid-Town seem to be on their way. And as for the Westside, it is still too early to determine what will happen. Things can change very quickly.

[NYguy]

After reading this I am begining to get worried that 3/4 of the supertalls planned on the Westside won't be built. Though it is too early to determine, from reading this, I have concluded that the most important thing for these companies (Vornado, Brookfield, Macklowe, & Boston prop.) to do is to nail down tenants to get these projects off the ground.

Why? These buildings aren't going to get built without first getting tenants, regardless. What Cuozzo is trying to say is that its worth watching now to see how soon these developments will move forward. Obviously, some would move forward sooner than others.

[CGII]

So how will caissons, foundations, etc. be laid around the tracks?

[Dac150]

Why? These buildings aren't going to get built without first getting tenants, regardless.

Yes, I am aware of that as I noted it in my post. All I'm saying is that you never know how the market will turn, and if for some reason it goes down hill, 3/4 of these building's probably would not be built. The longer it takes to find tenants, the more they are riding the market. That is just a fact of the industry.

Look at the early to mid 1990's. A whole generation of buildings lost due to a crappy market. Luckily now the demand for commercial space in on a standstill of success, however it won't last forever. That is why I made note of the importance that these developers land tenants so that they can get these things in the skyline as soon as possible.

[Crawford]

What are you talking about? The NYC market is easily the tightest in the country. Midtown vacancy is practically 0%.

Even if the market did worsen, no building site will be "lost". Developers will just delay projects. The sites will all eventually be built, whether sooner or later.

[Dac150]

What are you talking about? The NYC market is easily the tightest in the country. Midtown vacancy is practically 0%.

Even if the market did worsen, no building site will be "lost". Developers will just delay projects. The sites will all eventually be built, whether sooner or later.

:haha:

1st off: Yes, the NYC market is the best of the country and probably the world. However, just as soon as markets rise they fall. During the early to mid 1990's there was a huge plunge in the real estate market causing many real estate and development firms to go bankrupt (including nearly Donald Trump who was on of the few to luckily escape but at a costly price). An entire generation of architecture was lost due to that crash. In addition to all the companies flushed down the toilet, there were many projects that just could not stay afloat, nor could be put on hold due to financial reasons.

The same thing happened post 9/11 for a couple of years only not as severe. Now granted is was due to the attacks, the market still stood in the mud and did not rebound for a lenghtly period which sunk projects such as the Stock Exchange Tower.

The bottom line is that it is not as simple as putting a project on hold. Development firms stay alive by making money through projects. If no income is coming in there is no way to support further projects. In retrospect there is simply no time to put a tower on hold (unless for a short amount of time to work through zoning or legal issues). It's easier said than done.

How do I know all this? For the last two years and two plus more to come I have been studying real estate and business (inspiring to own my own real estate development corporation). The industry is very cut throat and fragile at the same time (especially with commercial projects). It is imporatant to get tenants as soon as possible. By not doing so projects can sink like a lead balloon. There are endless deadlines with banks (ehhh....it just gets so complicated).

To put it in plain english: the sooner the better.

[Lecom]

So how will caissons, foundations, etc. be laid around the tracks?
The ntowers are to go on the plots right around the tracks, which are likely to be covered with a platform for a park.

[GFSNYC]

If you know something about real estate then, you'd know that really NYC is probably one of the least risky markets in the world. You'd also know that the market is very imperfect, immediately after 9/11 was the best time to develop, when everyone was scared.

Durst took what looked like a risk to everyone else, was actually a great opportunity. True experts know that the best time to invest is in a down market... total chaos. An upturn in the market is one of the worst, once the land is secured, the market turns sour and your left holding overpriced real estate with no tennants.

In addition, in a market that continually surges upward, if you are conservative and sit out a strong market, you may be waiting quite some time for that downturn and miss opportunities along the way.

Really, NYC is not much of a risk. It has all the fundamentals and important infrastructure of a big city to ensure its success, hell, the most destructive attack on US soil with more American casualties in one day then any other in its history has not stopped the city. There is little that can. :)

[Dac150]

If you know something about real estate then, you'd know that really NYC is probably one of the least risky markets in the world. You'd also know that the market is very imperfect, immediately after 9/11 was the best time to develop, when everyone was scared.

I was not so much speaking towards NYC rather the market in any city. I used some examples from NYC of times when the market was a disaster though.

However, yes you are right. Cities like New York, London, & Hong Kong are very low risk cities because the demand for commercial space is very good. However again, there is always a bit of a risk no matter what city you are building in. Manhattan during the early to mid 90's is a prime example.

After 9/11 though, there was a dry spell. Buildings like Ernst & Young, Bear Sterns, Random House, and Reuters were all u/c before the attacks. 2002-2004 was a dry time for commercial development because companies were frightened by the attacks. That is what's called an un-forced slump. The market plunged a little because of the attacks, not the demand. Companies were 50/50 on Manhattan and were considering other cities such as London (9/11 actually was a main contributor to London catching up big time to Manhattan as the financial capitol).

[Scruffy]

out of all the towers mentioned, the only tower that i see as a sure fire guaranteed sellout even if the market collapses is 11 Times Sq. The location is practically the most prime location left, perhaps now eclipsed by the possible Penn Station tower. Thats what boggled my mind about 11 ts. when you have solid gold real estate, why wait years and years to do anything with it.

[Dac150]

out of all the towers mentioned, the only tower that i see as a sure fire guaranteed sellout even if the market collapses is 11 Times Sq. The location is practically the most prime location left, perhaps now eclipsed by the possible Penn Station tower. Thats what boggled my mind about 11 ts. when you have solid gold real estate, why wait years and years to do anything with it.

Perhaps they are waiting for bank loans. Many times Developers take out loans from banks to fund a majority of the project. But it's not that easy. They have to state a case, show how they are going to pay back a large sum of money, give a timetable, etc. That in itself could take over a year.

Or it can be a number of other things. Zoning conflicts (I doubt for ths particular project), waiting for a good market (not likely in this case), or even conflicts with the architect (which is possible because there have been multiple designs for this tower).

There are many different aspects that contribute to the construction of a tower. It can take a year before groud-breaking, or it can take five years, or more for that matter. Banks, investment partners, tenants, markets, architects, contractors, zoning, legal aspects, on others are all obstacles to get a tower (or any project) up in the air. It can be a long, aggressive, and for sure delicate process.

[Scruffy]

it was milstein i thought back then who was sitting on it. anyways, off topic

LECOM:The towers are to go on the plots right around the tracks, which are likely to be covered with a platform for a park.

for brookfield the towers i believe will be in the four corners of the site leaving the middle kind of open. But south eastern corner of the site is open trainyard, not a parking lot like the other 3 corners. Thats got to be a major challenge. I believe that is also where the tallest of the 4 towers will be. Since the tracks below can not be closed. Im not entirely sure how the foundations will be.

[NYguy]

So how will caissons, foundations, etc. be laid around the tracks?

Don't know about that one, but reportedly, an agreement was worked out years ago between developers and the railroads.

[NYguy]

Yes, I am aware of that as I noted it in my post. All I'm saying is that you never know how the market will turn, and if for some reason it goes down hill, 3/4 of these building's probably would not be built. The longer it takes to find tenants, the more they are riding the market.

What you mean to say is, they probably would not be built tomorrow. But the space will be built ultimately and eventually because it has to. New York always needs new "Class A" office space, and the push towards more "green" space will just escalate that. Other than the WTC towers, which are pretty much under construction, the last place for expanded office growth is on Manhattan's west side.

[Dac150]

But the space will be built ultimately and eventually because it has to. New York always needs new "Class A" office space, and the push towards more "green" space will just escalate that.

Yes, right now Manhattan is in desperate need of class "A" office space. However, these developers are not going to build until they have secured tenants.

[GFSNYC]

Dac, you def cleared up a few things!

4.7msf is quite a lot, I've always wanted to know, would developers like Brookfield, build on this land with the typical 700ft glass towers or really make vie to max out the sq alotted? I imagine there is higher return on more conservative towers probably based on variables that you've mentioned before. Is there really a sort of financial height barrier, or sweet spot within the development community? Personally, I think that it was always short sighted not to max out the sq ft on a tower in NYC when, in the very long term it will be rented out.

[NYguy]

Dac, you def cleared up a few things!

4.7msf is quite a lot, I've always wanted to know, would developers like Brookfield, build on this land with the typical 700ft glass towers or really make vie to max out the sq alotted?

The site is so small, if they are going to build the 4 msf, the towers would have to be above 700 ft.


Personally, I think that it was always short sighted not to max out the sq ft on a tower in NYC when, in the very long term it will be rented out.

Most developers in NY not only max out on the allowable sq ft, but some even go above with special provisions from the City.

I can't imagine why they would want to squeeze two residential towers on the site, totaling about .7 msf of the entire development. But with this tower (below) already starting just to the west, we could see more residential sooner rather than later...

curbed.com
http://www.curbed.com/2007_07_hollnew2.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77418255/original.jpg

[Dac150]

Dac, you def cleared up a few things!

4.7msf is quite a lot, I've always wanted to know, would developers like Brookfield, build on this land with the typical 700ft glass towers or really make vie to max out the sq alotted? I imagine there is higher return on more conservative towers probably based on variables that you've mentioned before. Is there really a sort of financial height barrier, or sweet spot within the development community? Personally, I think that it was always short sighted not to max out the sq ft on a tower in NYC when, in the very long term it will be rented out.

Thank you, I'm glad I could help.

Well in this case being that there is no height restriction, the developers can build as high and as big as they can afford. Brookfield is a reputable firm though, so I am expecting some good designs.

They will try to incorporate GREEN features into the buildings to make them more echo friendly. GREEN based buildings are whats "in" in development these days. They not only benefit the enviroment, but also enhances the buildings chances of being approved.

In this case, Brookfield will try to max out what they can to allow as much square footage as possible. It's simple: more room equals more money. I believe they are erecting some sort of park to go along with the complex, but I might be mistaking.

Overall, I would count on Brookfield putting together some nice buildings.

[NYguy]

They will try to incorporate GREEN features into the buildings to make them more echo friendly. GREEN based buildings are whats "in" in development these days. They not only benefit the enviroment, but also enhances the buildings chances of being approved.

Yes, "green" features are what the newest commercial towers are all about these days. However, there's no special approval needed for construction. Zoning is already in place for what's planned.

[Dac150]

Yes, "green" features are what the newest commercial towers are all about these days. However, there's no special approval needed for construction. Zoning is already in place for what's planned.

Would you say they have a general idea of what they want the buildings to look like by now? I have seen some renders on the forum, but they are not core designs.

I think its just a matter of finding tenants now, and that's all it will be (the duration of waiting time til' construction).

[NYguy]

Would you say they have a general idea of what they want the buildings to look like by now? I have seen some renders on the forum, but they are not core designs.

I think its just a matter of finding tenants now, and that's all it will be (the duration of waiting time til' construction).

I haven't seen any renderings for the site. Reportedly David Childs of SOM has designs for the first tower already.

[Dac150]

I haven't seen any renderings for the site. Reportedly David Childs of SOM has designs for the first tower already.

Not good marketing if you ask me. If I were a company, I would like to see what the building looks like first before I buy into it.

[NYguy]

Not good marketing if you ask me. If I were a company, I would like to see what the building looks like first before I buy into it.

That's what the renderings are for...

BROOKFIELD Properties is readying plans for four towers totaling 4.7 million feet at the rear of the Farley Post Office on the west side of Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets. "It will be an awesome location," Ric Clark, Brookfield's CEO, said at the Young Men's and Women's Real Estate Association luncheon yesterday.

Clark said plans call for the east end of the plot to host two office towers sharing 4 million square feet while the west end will have two residential towers totaling 700,000 feet.

They hope to kick off marketing the northern office tower of 1.6 million square feet within the next few weeks, for delivery in late 2010. That process will begin with the sharing of new renderings now being prepared by Skidmore Owings Merrill.

[Dac150]

Ok, I see what they are doing now: Marketing each tower one by one.

[NYguy]

Ok, I see what they are doing now: Marketing each tower one by one.

With the targeted completion dates, its a competition on landing tenants to see who gets started first. I believe the Hotel Penn tower will likely be the first to get underway though.

[Dac150]

With the targeted completion dates, its a competition on landing tenants to see who gets started first. I believe the Hotel Penn tower will likely be the first to get underway though.

I would agree. The dismantlment of a low-rise hotel will take a shorter time than a large scale arena. I am curious to see how fast the Hotel Penn comes down. What with deadlines and all, this should move pretty quickly once the demolition gets rolling.

[NYguy]

I would agree. The dismantlment of a low-rise hotel will take a shorter time than a large scale arena. I am curious to see how fast the Hotel Penn comes down. What with deadlines and all, this should move pretty quickly once the demolition gets rolling.

The Hotel Penn site appears to be the one most likely to land the first tenant, primarily because its been said to be the site that can begin construction fastest. However, with Vornado involved, I wonder how much of that depends on where the 4.5 msf of space from the MSG site could be moved. If approved, potentially one of those sites could get underway sooner. But I believe the Hotel Penn site is way ahead of the game as far as marketing goes. At the very least, Vornado has options...

[Dac150]

The Hotel Penn site appears to be the one most likely to land the first tenant, primarily because its been said to be the site that can begin construction fastest. However, with Vornado involved, I wonder how much of that depends on where the 4.5 msf of space from the MSG site could be moved. If approved, potentially one of those sites could get underway sooner. But I believe the Hotel Penn site is way ahead of the game as far as marketing goes. At the very least, Vornado has options...

Well unlike MSG, we have seen a render or two of the Hotel Penn tower. Vornado has had this building in the works for a while now. I have seen various renders and read various articles explaining how they want to execute the deal. Out of all the developments this one seems the most on track.

MSG might look (as you said) to compete with the construction start of Penn, but the difference is, Penn knows the location to build as MSG no longer does. That in my book puts them ahead of the game.

[NYguy]

Well unlike MSG, we have seen a render or two of the Hotel Penn tower. Vornado has had this building in the works for a while now. I have seen various renders and read various articles explaining how they want to execute the deal. Out of all the developments this one seems the most on track.

Yeah, the older rendering was for a smaller tower. As you can see in the Hotel Penn thread, it's just a matter of finishing the signing.

[Lecom]

Yes, "green" features are what the newest commercial towers are all about these days. However, there's no special approval needed for construction. Zoning is already in place for what's planned.
Green buildings also give the developers an excuse to jack the prices above standard, making green developments even more lucrative.

[LeftCoaster]

Are they really more lucrative though? Does it not cost the developer nearly the difference to make the tower 'green'? Although im sure the developers are not losing money making buildings green, I doubt it is a huge money maker.

[Dac150]

Are they really more lucrative though? Does it not cost the developer nearly the difference to make the tower 'green'? Although im sure the developers are not losing money making buildings green, I doubt it is a huge money maker.

Green buildings are whats "now' in development. So yes, they are big money makers.

[NYguy]

Are they really more lucrative though? Does it not cost the developer nearly the difference to make the tower 'green'? Although im sure the developers are not losing money making buildings green, I doubt it is a huge money maker.

It is a large factor these days in signing tenants though.

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2998553

Building green doesn’t cost more, report says

By TIM KAUFFMAN
August 28, 2007

Despite popular notions to the contrary, experts say environmentally conscious facilities don’t take more money to build than traditional buildings.
Green building does require a different mind-set, however. Sustainable features too often are tacked on to a project as an afterthought, making them appear as an added cost that can be easily cut, according to a July report by Davis Langdon, a San Francisco-based consulting business that helps architects and building owners manage construction costs.

This is a particular hurdle now, as construction costs have risen nearly 30 percent in the past three years.

“Until design teams understand that green design is not additive, it will be difficult to overcome the notion that green costs more, especially in an era of rapid cost escalation,” according to the report, “Cost of Green Revisited.”

The Davis Langdon report, which studied 221 new construction projects, found no significant difference in the average costs for green buildings and nongreen buildings. Green buildings were defined as those in which the primary goal was to achieve environmental certification from the U.S. Green Building Council; this certification was not considered in the design of nongreen buildings.

“Many project teams are building green buildings with little or no added cost, and with budgets well within the cost range of nongreen buildings with similar programs,” the report said.

Davis Langdon compared the costs of green and nongreen buildings in comparable structures, including laboratories, libraries and ambulatory care facilities. Costs varied widely for both green and nongreen structures, indicating that there can be both low-cost and high-cost buildings in each category.

Most of the buildings surveyed were able to achieve green certification without any additional funding, while some required additional funding for specific sustainable features, such as solar panels, the report said.
About 40 of the nearly 890 buildings certified by the U.S. Green Building Council as of June 1 are owned by the federal government.

Getting the money from Congress to pay for those types of technologies is difficult because of how construction projects are funded, said Dennis Ramdahin, an energy strategist at the Air Force.

The design and construction of new buildings or renovations of existing buildings are funded separately from the long-term operating costs to run those building, even though operating a building makes up 90 percent of the building’s total life-cycle costs, Ramdahin said Aug. 16 at an energy conference in Atlanta.

Since the two expenses are funded separately, agencies often can’t get extra money upfront to cover energy saving innovations that would pay off in the long run. As a result, those innovations often are cut if projects come in over budget.

“The first thing to cut if costs are too high is green design,” Ramdahin said. “You design low [cost] and let the operating budget take the hit for the next hundred years.”

Ramdahin has designed a financial tool to illustrate how money spent upfront on green design features can save in utility bills, repairs and maintenance salaries. New York City officials have embraced the tool and have calculated operational savings into the upfront capital costs for the $400 million renovation of the Empire State Building, he said.

The federal government, however, seems to be in a different place, he said.
Agencies are under considerable pressure from Congress and the Bush administration to cut overall energy use by 30 percent by October 2015 and to increase the proportion of renewable energy used to at least 7.5 percent by October 2012.

In the past few weeks, leaders from the White House, Pentagon and Energy Department have said that agencies won’t get the appropriated dollars to pay for these initiatives. Instead, they will need to rely on private financing by so-called energy service companies, or ESCOs, which pay for improvements upfront and are reimbursed through the savings generated from the projects.

Such financing, which costs more than if agencies could pay for the improvements upfront, could be avoided if Congress would pony up the cash by recognizing the ultimate savings.

“The money you would put into the ESCO in 30 years to improve the efficiency of the building is what needs to be put upfront,” Ramdahin said.

[NYguy]

Quote from an article in the real deal...
http://www.therealdeal.net/issues/SEPTEMBER_2007/1188602318.php

Major players gobble up Hudson Yards sites
Big builders set to converge on far West Side

By Lauren Elkies
September 2007

http://www.therealdeal.net//issues/SEPTEMBER_2007/images/1188602318.jpg

A view of the rail yards at Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets.

Development of the Hudson Yards area is still in its infancy, but big builders have been amassing large swaths of land on the far West Side with plans to infuse the area with major residential and commercial projects.

This month, The Real Deal set out to take a detailed look at what many see as the area of Manhattan poised for the greatest amount of development going forward, with a block-by-block chart and map of projects planned for the neighborhood as well as recent property sales.

Of course, the big boys of development -- including Vornado, Related, Brookfield, the Moinian Group, Rockrose and Extell Development -- have accrued sizeable holdings in the area, stretching roughly between 30th and 42nd streets from the Hudson River to Eighth Avenue.

Comparatively smaller players -- names like Circle Properties and Lalezarian Developers -- are also snapping up buildings and development sites.

Extell may lead the way with the greatest number of large planned projects, bids or recent buys, with a total of five. The firm has already completed one condo building in the area, the Orion; has plans for a mixed-use tower and an office tower; is bidding on a massive hotel project; and just purchased a tract of land on 34th Street.

But it's the Related Companies, Brookfield Properties and Vornado Realty Trust that may end up covering the widest amount of land, even with fewer total projects in the works.

All three companies are among the bidders to develop the massive 26-acre Hudson Rail Yards, owned by the MTA, which run from 30th to 33rd streets and from 10th to 12th avenues.

In addition, Vornado and Related are the companies planning to develop Moynihan Station, which includes rebuilding Penn Station and Madison Square Garden on the site of the Farley Post Office.

For its part, Brookfield is planning four office towers that would total 4.7 million square feet on Ninth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets.

Brookfield Properties' CEO has said the company's plans on Ninth Avenue will be put on hold if there is no movement on the extension of the No. 7 train.

A graphic of developments...
http://www.therealdeal.net/pdf/HudsonYards_MajorSites.pdf

[NYguy]

Older, 90's proposal for the same site...
http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/portfolio/proj_detail.php?job_id=198620


http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/images/portfolio/projects/198620/thumbs/8620_m02.jpg?_http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/images/portfolio/projects/198620/thumbs/8620_m03.jpg

[Dac150]

You scared me for a second. I though that was it.

[NYguy]

You scared me for a second. I though that was it.

No, but both of those towers are situated on the site in the same way - the smaller 1.6 msf tower will be at 33rd Street, the larger 2.4 msf tower will be at 31st.

[Alliance]

You scared me for a second. I though that was it.

:haha: me too.

[NYguy]

:haha: me too.

From the website:

Situated one block west of New York City's Penn Station and developed by special permit over a railroad right of way, the design for this 31-story office tower was completed in 1990. With the development of substantial fiber optic internet cabling along Ninth Avenue, it is currently being reconsidered as a prime opportunity for leasing to high tech tenants.

The typical tower floor plates average 33,000 square feet with lease spans ranging from 40 to 55 feet. The total building holds 970,000 square feet above grade and over 300 parking spaces in two below-grade levels. The design employs bonus floor area by including public areas at the plaza level. The structure is clad primarily in glass and steps back progressively from the corner of Ninth Avenue and West 33rd Street with a clear base, shaft and top composition. This strategy creates a signature public presence and brings increased daylight to the landscaped entry plaza below, while increasing the number of corner offices within the tower.

At street level a stone paving pattern composes the plaza into a grid with trees and benches which in turn surround a retail arcade. The development of this generous public space transforms the railroad easement into an extension of the 34th Street Business Improvement District and anticipates the increased pedestrian activity that will arrive with the rejuvenated Penn Station on its new site immediately across Ninth Avenue.

Compared to the current development:

Site 729A
Northwest corner of Ninth Avenue and West 31st Street
Ownership: Privately owned
Assemblage required: No
Height Limits: None
Max. ZFA (SF): 2,443,400

Site 729B
Southeast corner of Ninth Avenue and West 33rd Street
Ownership: Privately owned
Assemblage required: No
Height Limits: None
Max. ZFA (SF): 1,533,851

[10023]

Anything is an improvement in this part of town.

[NYguy]

Brookfield's 4 tower placeholder can be seen here:

http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook2.jpg
curbed.com

[Dac150]

Some good heights it appears on the back two. The other two are just canyon additions.

[NYguy]

Some good heights it appears on the back two. The other two are just canyon additions.

I think its just an indication of the layout, but SOM's working on that one as well. In fact, SOM's work will go even beyond that to Moynihan/Penn Station itself.