SkyscraperPage Forum - NEW YORK | 36 Central Park So. (Park Lane development) | FT

Viewing Page 11 of 19

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)

- - NEW YORK | 36 Central Park So. (Park Lane development) | FT | FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208092)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynicism (Post 7165046)

There are a lot of gaps between those buildings and it doesn't look good. I'm all for supertalls but this really makes midtown look empty. Mind you these buildings would stand out in any other city.

Good idea. No more tall towers should be built, ever.

Thanks to EB-5 provision, Witkoff’s 1 Park Lane is in a low-income neighborhood

Kathryn Brenzel
October 14, 2015

Quote:

Under the EB-5 program, Steve Witkoff’s skyscraper on “Billionaires’ Row” is considered to be in a low-income area.

Witkoff is among several developers benefiting raking in financing, in part, due to census tracts shaped in order to comply with a stipulation of EB-5. The provision requires that qualifying urban projects be constructed in rural places or areas with unemployment rates at least 150 percent of the national average, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The loose provision has led to some stretching of these areas’ boundaries. State officials drew a map that puts Witkoff’s 1 Park Lane in the same census tract as numerous public-housing projects in East Harlem.

In July, the U.S. Immigration Fund was raising $800 million for four major construction projects under EB-5: 125 Greenwich Street, 111 Murray Street, Marriott Edition Hotel Times Square and 1 Park Lane. Of that sum, the fund’s president, Nicholas Mastroianni, raised $220 million for 1 Park Lane, a planned 1,210-foot-tall tower at 36 Central Park South.

Several provisions of the program, which offers a green card and potential citizenship to foreign investors, was set to expire in September but Congress extended EB-5 to December 11, holding off on addressing efforts to tighten certain provisions of the program.

As for the location requirement, Sen. Charles Schumer is pushing to keep the current provision in tact, saying that critics aren’t taking into consideration that development projects are a huge job creators

- See more at: http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/10/....t1YbS3e4.dpuf

Nice rendering in that article:

http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up.../05/36-CPS.jpg
Tad bit bigger than one above.

CTBUH has one too.
http://legacy.skyscrapercenter.com/c...(c)Witkoff.jpg
===============
CTBUH

Not at all a fan of that weird setback from CPS' streetwall. I'm hoping this one gets a redesign before it seriously approaches fruition.

I hope the demolition of the hotel starts soon!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 7197429)

Not at all a fan of that weird setback from CPS' streetwall. I'm hoping this one gets a redesign before it seriously approaches fruition.

The main shaft itself is going to have to be set back, due to the footprint of the site. I don't think the CPS portion will be as transparent as the render suggests though. I'm not ecstatic about the design, but I can live with it. I would be surprised though if that is in fact the final look.

Quote:

Nicholas Mastroianni, raised $220 million for 1 Park Lane, a planned 1,210-foot-tall tower at 36 Central Park South.

At least things are progressing to the point where this may be coming up on the radar.

We have two conflicting heights. WSJ claims 900 ft but TRD claims 1,210 ft... :???:

If thats the case, WSJ, this will be what rises

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...21.22%20AM.png

=====================

Swanky New York Condo Project Exploits Aid Program

Quote:

If developer Steven Witkoff’s ambitions are realized, he will complete by 2020 a soaring 900-foot condominium tower that would be the latest addition to the “Billionaires’ Row” of ultraluxury skyscrapers on the southern edge of New York’s Central Park.

Aiding Mr. Witkoff and his partners: more than $200 million in low-cost financing from aspiring immigrants, in increments of $500,000, through a provision of a federal visa program designed to help economically ailing neighborhoods. For the purposes of the program, known as EB-5, a special district was created linking the planned tower with public-housing projects in East Harlem—a common practice for developers.

The proposed $1.7 billion tower at 36 Central Park South is the highest-end project yet to tap the EB-5 program, which gives green cards to immigrants who invest in new businesses measured to have created jobs.

Should the project be built—a final decision to start construction hasn’t yet been made—prices are expected to be as high as $13,000 a square foot, just shy of the city’s record price a square foot, according to a presentation for potential investors. Some of the planned condo units may “include dedicated security offices to accommodate private security personnel,” according to offering documents.

Mr. Witkoff said he is following all program rules, and the project would create construction jobs throughout the city and region—not just around the development.

“Those are working-class people who are getting those jobs,” he said, adding the EB-5 program has helped start construction on numerous other projects that wouldn’t have been built. “EB-5 has been a huge positive for the financing market.”

The planned tower, on the site of the Park Lane Hotel, represents one of the starkest examples of what critics call a widespread abuse of the immigrant investor program that is at the heart of a debate in Congress. A crucial piece of the program expires Dec. 11, having been extended from Sept. 30.

After months of discussions, key members of Congress in recent weeks have reached broad agreement on how to reform many aspects of EB-5, including making changes meant to reduce the possibility of fraud. But the main sticking point is a fight over whether projects like 36 Central Park South, in wealthy neighborhoods of big cities, should be able to continue benefiting from a provision meant for economically strained areas, congressional aides said.

“Much of the investment money coming into targeted employment areas has been directed towards lavish building projects in well-to-do urban areas,” Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), said in Congress last week. He called this an “abuse of the program” that is “not fulfilling the intent of the law.”

[...]

========================
http://www.wsj.com/articles/posh-tow...uth-1444728781

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7200160)

We have two conflicting heights. WSJ claims 900 ft but TRD claims 1,210 ft... :???:
]

That could just be a reference to earlier planning stages (though even that was at 850 ft). I wouldn't get too stuck on either figure though, as these things tend to change.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...2&postcount=30

Quote:

...The requested actions are sought in connection with the potential construction of a new building at 36 CPS with a height of approximately 850 feet;

...BSA approval is only needed for this zoning lot merger because an underlying variance is in place for the restaurant use. If no restaurant existed on the 40 CPS site then no BSA approval would be needed for the construction of a new building at 36 CPS with 40 CPS air rights;

...If the applicants were to merge with additional zoning lots that the applicant commits to return to the Community Board and Board of Standards and Appeals for a subsequent modification of their special permit. This modification only permits the use of 40 Central Park South air rights.

The applicant agrees to continue a discussion with Community Board Five about the design of the building as the design process unfolds.

Obviously a 1,210ft tower would be great but I would actually be totally fine if this ends up being somewhere between 900-1000ft because that means Verre would be able to stand out a bit more in the skyline from Central Park.

Also, I sorta like the idea that the billionaire towers on Central Park South are around 900ft but then they gradually ascend to 1000ft+ as the streets themselves descend in their numbers.

1.7 billion is too high of a figure for a non-supertall. Like NYGuy mentioned, probally an earlier design reference, which makes sense. Witkoff would be foolish not to take advantage of the market and build higher. More units, more cash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7200160)

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...21.22%20AM.png

Looks like 36 CP will partially cover 31 W 57th's views. 31 W will have to be taller to get the most money from the top floors.

This video is over a year old, but we can see Witkoff was closely watching Vornado's 220 Central Park South. That one is doing fantastic, and we can see how that has driven to development here....

• Video Link

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynicism (Post 7208094)

That's a really good design. Probably the best out of all the towers going up near Central Park despite being shorter.

It will essentially be the same combo as 220 CPS + Central Park Tower but on the other side.

Park Lane and CPS...

(October 24, 2015)

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161697463/original.jpg

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...f-central-park

Old and new Manhattan collide just south of Central Park

By Tom Acitelli
October 29, 2015

Quote:

Central Park South between Fifth and Sixth avenues recalls a bygone New York, when a hotel was a place to stay the night, not a placeholder for condominium development.

.....The nearby Park Lane Hotel, meanwhile, may cease to exist in any form. Developers want to raze it to make way for a mega-tower near a stretch of West 57th Street that has become known as Billionaire’s Row. Developer Harry Helmsley (who once owned the Empire State Building, among other trophy properties) built the 46-story Park Lane in 1971—reportedly to impress his future wife, Leona. It remains the tallest building on Central Park South, but that could change should developers overcome preservationists’ attempts to get the building landmarked. Then it will become one of the tallest towers in the city, period.

.....The Witkoff Group, a development and investment firm, bought the 46-story site of the 605-room Park Lane Hotel for $660 million in 2013. Partners included Hong Kong-based Jynwel Capital, Macklowe Properties and Highgate Holdings. Witkoff plans to convert it into an 88-unit luxury condo stretching to 1,210 feet, which would make it the fourth-tallest residential spire in New York. To do that, it would have to largely or totally demolish the Park Lane. (Witkoff has not specified what it will do, and the city has yet to approve any plans.)

A 2014 push to landmark the hotel failed, though activists resurrected the prospect this past summer. Nothing has yet been decided. A landmark designation would seriously curtail Witkoff and partners’ redevelopment options. Should the 1,210-foot tower full of undoubtedly pricey condos go up, it will have company in the neighborhood. A nearby stretch of West 57th Street between Columbus Circle and Park Avenue has become known as Billionaire’s Row because of the number of high-profile high-rises planned or underway, including 432 Park Ave., One57 and 111 W. 57th St. Condos in these towers ask—and routinely get—more than $5,000 a square foot.

That seems to be old info (1210').

They don't have to build as high as possible on that plot. And building high greatly increases the cost. I'm expecting 900 feet or so, as in the more recent renderings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSky (Post 7217321)

I doubt any of the renders we've seen are final as far as what's getting built. As far as the height goes, even when we do get a render, that's always up to further revisions until it gets under construction and built.

Small version seen on this model of the Tower Verre. Of course, they would be foolish to put anything taller on the model as it will show inteference with the view...:surrender:

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/1...les_office.php

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/161756399/original.jpg
(caption obviously referring to 111 W57th or the Park Lane)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7220337)

I have a feeling that massing shown here for the Park Lane tower will end up being more or less the same height in the final product. Witkoff has recently implied that it won't be higher than 1000ft and most of his focus on Billionaires Row was directed toward 220 CPS by Vornado which will obviously be about the same height as Witkoff seems to be gunning for (900ft range). Besides, isn't there gonna be another tower developed by Vornado next to the Solow Building? I have a feeling that since that site is right behind the Park Lane, we'll probably end up with a setup similar to the Central Park Tower and 220 CPS which would actually look more balanced and diverse.

Viewing Page 11 of 19