PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : NEW YORK | Travelstead Tower | 1,080 FT / 329 M | 74 FLOORS | 1991 | NEVER BUILT



StarScraperCity
May 26, 2008, 3:57 PM
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=8332

Originally proposed for 383 Madison Avenue, current site of the Bear Stearns Building (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1958).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2204987374_59a9e58841_o.jpg

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1D8143DF93BA3575BC0A967958260

Plan to Use Grand Central Air Rights for Tower Is Rejected
By DAVID W. DUNLAP
Published: August 8, 1991

A state judge yesterday upheld the rejection by New York City planners of a proposal to transfer air rights underground from Grand Central Terminal to a development site four blocks away.

By virtue of its novelty and daring, the proposal has been closely watched since it was presented five years ago. Sylvia Deutsch, then chairwoman of the City Planning Commission, even raised the specter of air rights stretching to Yonkers when she and other commission members turned down the proposal two years ago.

Their action was upheld yesterday by Justice Eugene L. Nardelli of State Supreme Court against a challenge by the developer, G. Ware Travelstead.

The importance of the case goes beyond Mr. Travelstead's project. It affects the enormous pool of air rights over Grand Central that the Landmarks Preservation Commission has blocked from being used to build a tower directly atop that celebrated Beaux-Arts landmark.

The question remains as to what will happen to those air rights, which amount to something between 1.6 million and 1.9 million square feet -- nearly equal to two Chrysler Buildings.

Mr. Travelstead said yesterday he would press his appeal to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary. "We never expected to win until we got into the Federal court system," he said. "The fact that the judge just sat on the case forever and ever told me it was politics as unusual. All this does is start the appeals process."

But Richard L. Schaffer, the current chairman of the planning commission, said he was "very pleased" with the decision. Virginia Waters, an assistant corporation counsel, said, "The decision is a confirmation in every way of the city's action."

Mr. Travelstead wishes to build what would be one of the tallest and bulkiest office towers in Manhattan: a 1,040-foot skyscraper at 383 Madison Avenue, between 46th and 47th Streets, with 1.4 million square feet of space. Not Adjacent to Terminal

To qualify for that size, he intends to use 800,000 square feet of Grand Central air rights, buying them from the Penn Central Corporation of Cincinnati, successor to the New York Central Railroad, which owns the terminal and air rights.

The problem is that 383 Madison Avenue is not adjacent to the terminal, as it must be to permit such a transfer under the city's zoning rules.

So Mr. Travelstead tried to establish adjacency by arguing that the rail yard under the terminal and 383 Madison Avenue constituted a chain of tax lots under common ownership and therefore satisfied zoning requirements.

But Justice Nardelli rejected the notion, writing: "Development rights are an inherent attribute of ownership of the surface of property. This concept is reflected throughout the language and plain meaning of various sections of the New York Zoning Resolution."

"Moreover, the very concept of transferable development rights relates to surface rights as to a zoning lot, and their availability and precise quantity is calculated on the basis of the dimensions of a zoning lot and other zoning factors totally unrelated to tax lots. Thus the underground tax lots are irrelevant to the matter of adjacency."

Justice Nardelli also found the city had "valid reasons" for denying the transfer because it would "unduly increase the bulk, density of population and intensity of use" in the area and have "unmitigable adverse environmental impacts" and because the program to maintain the landmark, which would be part of the arrangement, was "insufficient."


One of the best buildings never built in Manhattan in my opinion.
...

antinimby
May 27, 2008, 1:48 AM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2204987374_59a9e58841_o.jpg

Lecom
May 27, 2008, 5:30 AM
Great size, location and bulk, yet the design is too Po-Mo for my liking.

StarScraperCity
Jun 6, 2008, 12:58 AM
...

Thank you, I have added the image to the opening post.

Patrick
Jun 6, 2008, 1:24 AM
Idea of what it would have looked like in the skyline.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8285/000000001ro8.jpg

ethereal_reality
Jun 6, 2008, 12:08 PM
^^^ Good job Patrick.

Nowhereman1280
Jun 6, 2008, 6:01 PM
This building is ultra-icky, good thing it was never built! Could this be an attempt at Aztec PoMo?

StarScraperCity
Jun 7, 2008, 3:07 AM
Looks like I'm the only oddball that liked this one.:haha:

i_am_hydrogen
Jun 7, 2008, 5:52 AM
Horrible po-mo schlock.

alexjon
Jun 7, 2008, 7:49 AM
A soulless remix of the WaMu Tower in Seattle.

Aleks
Jun 7, 2008, 8:34 AM
I like it.

Patrick
Jun 7, 2008, 9:29 AM
^Ditto.

Although I cant complain with the Bear Stearns Tower, it fits Midtown nicely, Travelstead maybe would have looked better somewhere else in NYC :yes:

Austin55
Jun 7, 2008, 7:11 PM
Its prety cool,but I think it would be better if it where shorter,but I like it.

scalziand
Dec 16, 2009, 6:21 AM
Found some more renders of this.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4140/travelstead1.jpg
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/134/travelstead2.jpg
I'll have to see if I can rescan them at a higher quality later. I didn't realize the ones I'd taken were so bad.

-A couple days later-
Here are the better scans:
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5300/bg1o.jpg
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/6066/29249671.jpg

Patrick
Dec 21, 2009, 11:04 PM
^Omg, thank you for those! I'm kind of disappointed that it wasn't built, it would have looked great in the skyline, great height.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork
Apr 14, 2010, 9:02 PM
those renders prove that NYC is desperate for supertalls

Zerton
Apr 21, 2010, 11:55 PM
I'm stangely drawn to it. It would have been an instant landmark.

Troyeth
Apr 22, 2010, 12:19 AM
The massing is simply sublime. And the Post-Modern design is quite conservative, actually, and thus not so offensive.

You're right, Zerton, this would have become a landmark rapidly.

NYguy
Apr 25, 2010, 1:06 PM
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5300/bg1o.jpg
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/6066/29249671.jpg

Those are the only renderings I remember seeing of this tower. I also remember thinking this one was going to get built..:(

Crawford
Apr 25, 2010, 6:17 PM
Those are the only renderings I remember seeing of this tower. I also remember thinking this one was going to get built..:(

NYC will eventually get a supertall next-door, at the Roosevelt Hotel site. Vornado now owns a share of that site, and will eventually take full title.

JDRCRASH
May 4, 2010, 3:29 PM
I like it, but for some reason I think it'd be best in Dubai.

THE BIG APPLE
May 25, 2010, 10:27 PM
This was a great building that never got built. First time I'm looking/posting anything in this thread. I think Kohn Penderson Fox did a great job, not just on this but many others that never got built. If the current 383 Madison Ave has a great crown imagine what kind lighting/crown this would've had. BTW can't they build it a block south at the hotel site, or anywhere N,E,or W. It would've also had a killer view.

MolsonExport
May 28, 2010, 4:09 PM
For some reason, it reminds me of Barad-dûr.

THE BIG APPLE
Feb 4, 2012, 12:51 AM
This building is beyond awesome. I'm covering it heavily in my thread "What if names like Larkin, Metlife, and Travelstead were synonymous with NYC?". This building is THAT good that I can't stop covering it (it has THREE parts in the thread).

DrNest
Feb 4, 2012, 1:16 AM
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5300/bg1o.jpg


I have just come across this thread, and the first time I saw this tower. This picture is fantastic. And goes to show what a true shame it is this building never got planning permission to be constructed.

Roadcruiser1
Feb 4, 2012, 2:17 AM
This building's design is the child of the Empire State Building and the Transamerica Pyramid. It's a shame that it was never built.

Roadcruiser1
Feb 4, 2012, 2:38 AM
Sadly I read that Kohn Pedersen Fox only has two successes in NYC. That is the two Hudson Yard towers, and that is it. Such a good company and such a jinx for them.

plinko
Feb 5, 2012, 5:03 AM
Sadly I read that Kohn Pedersen Fox only has two successes in NYC. That is the two Hudson Yard towers, and that is it. Such a good company and such a jinx for them.

Define 'success'?

KPF has done some very nice buildings in the city.

125 East 57th Street isn't a 'success'? It's one of the most distinctive corner towers in the city.

ABC complex?
180 East 70th Street?
745 Seventh Avenue?
712 Fifth Avenue?
505 Fifth Avenue?
Shearson Lehman?
Moynihan Courthouse?
One Jackson Square?
1055 Park Avenue?
Buildings at NYU and CUNY?
Baruch College?
The MoMA renovations?

This is a worldwide firm less than 40 years old that has done plenty of work in NYC. Or is this just about supertalls?

Personally I like only some their projects (maybe 40%), but to argue that they have not been successful in NYC is a bit uninformed.

THE BIG APPLE
Feb 5, 2012, 5:20 AM
^ Their headquarters are in NYC. But success as in you see a building and you automatically know the architect. Like Time Warner Center- SOM. Chrysler Building- William Van Allen. Hearst Tower- Norman Foster. NY Times Building- Renzo Piano. That type of success.

plinko
Feb 5, 2012, 5:26 AM
You realize that 3 of those 4 architects you listed don't (didn't) have their world headquarters in NYC right? Childs is an NYC guy though (by way of DC).

KPF has plenty of signature towers around the world to more than make up for some perceived lack of one in NYC.

Shanghai World Financial Center anyone?

BTW, count me in the camp that is glad that Travelstead wasn't built. Nice proportions, but really odd massings and overly fussy (typical of many of the KPF towers of that era).

gramsjdg
Feb 5, 2012, 6:19 AM
This tower is sweet. Only changes I would make would be to make it taller as it is such a good design- maybe 1500 ft or so.

Another change that might be neat would be gargoyle/eagle type protrusions at the very top sides of the tower- similar to the Chrysler, the tower in Fritz Lang's Metropolis and the Ziggurrat tower in the 2000 anime Metropolis.

What really stinks is that designs for cancelled projects are never used again -its a damn shame.:hell:

Roadcruiser1
Feb 5, 2012, 8:37 PM
Define 'success'?

KPF has done some very nice buildings in the city.

125 East 57th Street isn't a 'success'? It's one of the most distinctive corner towers in the city.

ABC complex?
180 East 70th Street?
745 Seventh Avenue?
712 Fifth Avenue?
505 Fifth Avenue?
Shearson Lehman?
Moynihan Courthouse?
One Jackson Square?
1055 Park Avenue?
Buildings at NYU and CUNY?
Baruch College?
The MoMA renovations?

This is a worldwide firm less than 40 years old that has done plenty of work in NYC. Or is this just about supertalls?

Personally I like only some their projects (maybe 40%), but to argue that they have not been successful in NYC is a bit uninformed.

I was talking mostly about their skyscrapers. They haven't had much success with skyscrapers in this city.

THE BIG APPLE
Feb 5, 2012, 8:49 PM
You realize that 3 of those 4 architects you listed don't (didn't) have their world headquarters in NYC right? Childs is an NYC guy though (by way of DC).

So what. I didn't say anything about the 4 architects having headquarters in NYC. I used them as an example, and the success they've had in NYC.

jd3189
Feb 5, 2012, 9:30 PM
This tower is sweet. Only changes I would make would be to make it taller as it is such a good design- maybe 1500 ft or so.

Another change that might be neat would be gargoyle/eagle type protrusions at the very top sides of the tower- similar to the Chrysler, the tower in Fritz Lang's Metropolis and the Ziggurrat tower in the 2000 anime Metropolis.

What really stinks is that designs for cancelled projects are never used again -its a damn shame.:hell:

If an architect wanted to finish or do a project in a vision similar to what was thought of before, maybe they could. I would want this tower to be taller than the Chrysler,but not too high so that the latter still has an influence in the area. And with the rezoning of Midtown East coming soon, we have a better chance of seeing another supertall in the area.

scalziand
Feb 8, 2012, 2:34 AM
What really stinks is that designs for cancelled projects are never used again -its a damn shame.:hell:

There's at least one project that escaped this fate. Jahn reused his design for the canceled Bank of the Southwest Tower (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=148875) in Houston for Liberty Plaza in Philadelphia.

THE BIG APPLE
Feb 8, 2012, 3:27 AM
Only if there was NO zoning, then the sky would REALLY be the limit.

DURKEY427
Nov 2, 2012, 5:27 PM
I like it it would have had a great impact on the park avenue boxes



Forums Directory