SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Proposals (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   NEW YORK | 316 Fifth Ave | 535 FT | 40 FLOORS (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=229005)

NYguy Jul 6, 2017 7:15 PM

NEW YORK | 316 Fifth Ave | 535 FT | 40 FLOORS
 
https://therealdeal.com/2017/07/06/c...-fifth-avenue/

Cottonwood planning a 40-story condo tower on Fifth Avenue
27-unit project would be part of developer's luxury brand Echelon


By Will Parker
July 06, 2017


Quote:

Developer Cottonwood Management wants to bring 27 expansive luxury condominium units to a new 40-story tower one block south of the Empire State Building, according to plans filed Thursday with the city’s Department of Buildings.

The project is the second in a luxury lifestyle brand Cottonwood has less than subtly dubbed “Echelon,” which includes a 733-unit project already underway in Boston.

The New York development, slated for 316 Fifth Avenue, would replace the 113-year-old Kaskel & Kaskel Building at the corner of 32nd Street. Plans call for what will be a slim, 535-foot tower that will hold just 59,240 square feet of space. Retail space is scheduled for the ground floor and two units on the higher floors will be two-level apartments. Amenities include terrace space, a gym and a reading room.

Cottonwood purchased the development site for $19.3 million in 2016.

Crawford Jul 8, 2017 12:54 AM

KPF will be the architects for this one. Will be a very skinny, presumably glassy tower.

Busy Bee Jul 8, 2017 1:11 AM

The two structures that will be demolished for this project are absolute gems.

314-316 Fifth:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AsPh...Da8IebGT.0.jpg
curbed

chris08876 Jul 8, 2017 1:57 AM

Yeah as much as I like towers, what it's replacing is a sting. Shame the crap near MSG can't be developed fast enough. But... it is what it is. Downside of a growing city is that sometimes, nice little gems will be lost. BUT... sometimes, they are saved. Tradeoff I guess.

Must we never forget the Singer Building. That was a horrid loss, kinda like the original Penn.

NYguy Jul 10, 2017 12:48 PM

It's not so much the buildings that will be lost as it is that street level retail, that odd mix that makes the streetscape what it is. I also find Little Korea a little fascinating after dark.

But it's still Fifth Avenue, which is seeing the rise of new luxury towers march south.

Zerton Jul 10, 2017 2:37 PM

The existing buildings reminds me of Luc Besson's vision of New York in Fifth Element.

chris08876 Jul 24, 2017 6:42 PM

Landmark Push May Be Too Late to Save Century-Old Fifth Ave. Building

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.jpg

Quote:

Preservationists may be too late in in their effort to landmark a century-old Fifth Avenue building.

Earlier this month, developer Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates filed plans to build a 539-foot-tall condo tower at 316 Fifth Ave. before applying on July 12 to demolish the 1903 Kaskel & Kaskel building currently standing at the site.

Upon hearing the news, neighbors expressed frustration that the building — which originally housed a men's clothing store that catered to the rich and famous — was going to be razed.

"It's the only structure of this kind on this stretch of Fifth Avenue, between 23rd and 34th streets," said George Calderaro, a representative of the 29th Street Neighborhood Association, noting that the building is "an extremely rare, small-scale purpose-built store and an incredible example of the Beaux Arts style."


:(

"Unfortunately, it's not surprising [that a developer has plans to demolish it], because if you look around the area, almost every block in that vicinity from Sixth to Madison avenues is losing buildings seemingly on a weekly basis."

The 29th Street Neighborhood Association has been trying to get the Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate the building since 2009 as part of a proposal to expand the Madison Square North Historic District. But because of a number of issues with the proposal, including its length, it took until last year to get the LPC to review it.

Despite the association revising its proposal based on recommendations by the LPC, including trimming its length, the commission rejected it this year, Calderaro said.

[...]

But according to landmarks rules, property owners that have demolition permits issued prior to designation would have that work grandfathered in and would be allowed to proceed — spelling certain doom for the Kaskel & Kaskel building, since the demolition permits have been submitted with no designation in sight.

"I call it inexcusable," Calderaro said. "We don’t want to give up on the outrageous, potential loss of this building, and the interest that it’s inciting gives us hope there could once again be a review. This is the fourth time we’ve requested this. If or when the wrecking ball hits this building, hopefully there will be another outcry and call to action among members of the commission and the general public."
========================
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...ition-landmark

NYguy Aug 8, 2017 1:32 PM

https://patch.com/new-york/midtown-n...on-gains-steam


Push To Landmark Midtown Building Doomed For Demolition Gains Steam
Developers have proposed tearing down the Kaskel & Kaskel building on Fifth Avenue to build a 40-story apartment tower.



By Brendan Krisel
August 7, 2017


Quote:

The city Landmarks Preservation Commission has decided to review a Midtown building under threat of demolition for landmarks status, a commission spokeswoman told Patch.

The LPC will decide whether to extend landmarks designation to 316 Fifth Avenue — also known as the Kaskel & Kaskel building — the site of a proposed 40-story luxury residential building. Local politicians sent a letter to the LPC last month urging the body to consider landmarking the 115-year-old building.

"The loss of the Kaskel & Kaskel building would be yet another blow to this neighborhood that is rapidly losing the buildings thatcontribute to its sense of place and character," State Senators Liz Krueger and Brad Hoylman wrote in
the letter.

"In light of the imminent threat of demolition, we urge you to act quickly to save this building before it is lost to the city forever."

Developer Cottonwood Management filed plans with the Department of Buildings to fully demolish existing six-story building in July, but no demolition permits have been awarded, an LPC spokeswoman told Patch.

Should permits be filed before the building is awarded landmark status, it could mean the end for the Kaskel & Kaskel building.




http://www.ourtownny.com/local-news/...-wrecking-ball

Racing the wrecking ball


BY DOUGLAS FEIDEN
PUBLISHED AUG 7, 2017


Quote:

Preservation or hyper-luxe development? Continuity with a century-old streetscape or an in-your-face, skyline-defining tower? The quirkiness of old Manhattan or modernity’s embrace of the shiny, glitzy and sleek?

While those stark choices reflect nothing less than the future of the city itself, they are now playing out in a pitched battle over the fate of the celebrated Kaskel & Kaskel Building at 316 Fifth Avenue at 32nd Street.

At issue is a developer’s proposal to knock down the six-story, white-marble, Beaux-Arts treasure, which was built in 1902 for Kaskel, one of the city’s premier custom shirtmakers serving the carriage trade.

A 40-story, 535-foot sliver tower – housing just 27 high-end condos – would rise in place of the small-scale, showroom-and-headquarters space where President Theodore Roosevelt once bought his shirts.

Preservationists dread the prospect. They’re racing the clock to seek landmark status for the old dowager – as Los Angeles-based developer Cottonwood Management LLC gets ready to swing the wrecking ball.

“One single building can create a great deal of destruction,” said Mario G. Messina, president of the 29th Street Neighborhood Association. “It would basically destroy the Fifth Avenue view corridor from Madison Square Park looking north up to the Empire State Building because of its height.”

The glassy newcomer would doom Kaskel & Kaskel’s striking copper-clad French mansard roof, bold decorative work, marble cartouches emblazoned with the carved letter “K,” and other relics from an era when it was a crown jewel in the then-elegant shopping district.

“It’s a real beauty,” Messina said. “It’s part of the fabric of the city and the neighborhood – an example of the architecture of New York that made New York world-famous.”

Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer agrees. On July 18, she fired off a letter to the chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Meenakshi Srinivasan, saying she was “appalled to learn the stunning structure” faces the imminent threat of demolition – and would soon be replaced by “yet another high-end residential, overly tall banal glass box building” if LPC doesn’t immediately act to landmark the property.

The very identity of a 150-year-old neighborhood is “hanging in the balance,” Brewer wrote.

Then on July 25, state Senators Brad Hoylman and Liz Krueger followed up with a joint letter to Srinivasan arguing the loss of Kaskel would be “yet another blow to a neighborhood that is rapidly losing the buildings that contribute to its sense of place and character.”

In an interview, Hoylman added, “Another luxury condo is exactly what the city does not need. The idea of that building being replaced with a 40-story glassy tower developed by someone from Southern California is objectionable on the face of it.”

The scramble to protect the architectural and historical gem before it is lost to the city forever began on July 6 when Cottonwood and architect of record Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates submitted plans to the city’s Department of Buildings to erect the slender tower.

Six days later, the developer applied for a demolition permit, which is still pending with DOB.

“It would be a tremendous loss for a neighborhood that has already seen the disappearance of too many of the buildings that give it its unique character,” wrote City Council Member Dan Garodnick to the LPC.

The outpouring that followed shows how passionately New Yorkers often feel toward their buildings:

• Community Board 5 passed a resolution calling on LPC to “calendar” the building for immediate review. In listing the glories of the Kaskel property, it cited a 1902 issue of Electrical World and Engineering Magazine that said the building was among the “first to innovate using electricity and lighted store windows.”

• The 29th Street Neighborhood Association helped spearhead a Care2 Petition campaign to “Stop the Demolition of 316 Fifth Avenue and NoMad District!” A staggering 10,638 supporters signed up online, with 662 of them based in the city.

• Separately, a letter-writing campaign was launched by the Historic Districts Council, a coalition of community groups in landmark districts. At least 167 letters supporting landmark designation were sent to Mayor Bill de Blasio and LPC.

“In most other cities in the country, if not in the world, if they had a building like that, people would say, ‘Yeah, of course, let’s save that building!’” said Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the advocacy group. “It both captures and creates a sense of place.”

If there’s an argument for tearing down Kaskel & Kaskel, Cottonwood hasn’t yet made it publicly: The developer has not released renderings of its proposed tower. It won’t discuss its merits. It didn’t even address the status of its application for a demolition permit.

“Cottonwood Management LLC has submitted public project filings to the New York City Department of Buildings,” it said in a statement on August 3. “Cottonwood will be contributing further information as the project evolves.”

The Kaskel & Kaskel Building is “currently under review” by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, said spokeswoman Damaris Olivo. The agency received two requests for evaluation of the site from community members, as well as letters from the four elected officials and multiple letters from the public, she said.

But the clock is ticking. If an active demolition permit is issued, and the building doesn’t have landmark status, Cottonwood can legally raze it. If LPC decides the building has potential landmark value, it can calendar it for a public hearing and review, in which case DOB would be unlikely to issue a permit to take it down.

Bottom line: It’s in a state of limbo right now. As a landmark, it could survive in perpetuity. Without that status, it can be demolished as of right.

The choice is pretty simple, according to an e-bulletin from the Historic Districts Council. It asks, “Do New Yorkers deserve a district rich with history and personality, with small stores, human-scale buildings and a fascinating story that includes characters like Alfred Stieglitz, Irving Berlin and Zero Mostel in the heart of Manhattan?

“Or should it become an area of large drug stores, placeless fern bars and gleaming towers of solitude?”


Whether you agree with the demo or not, saying the city doesn't need another condo building is idiotic. If there is no demand for it, it wouldn't get built.

These so called preservationists would be better served trying to landmark more buildings before the threat of imminent destruction.

JSsocal Aug 8, 2017 2:09 PM

The LPC has been wishy washy on this neighborhood. The problem is that it's an extension of midtown, and when historic preservation and air rights meet the LPC sometimes backs down. Clearly there has been room to expand the NoMAD historic district, (see this and the bancroft building)- but they've really dragged their feet here.

End of the day this building is a beaut and should be saved, and the city should be upzoning neighborhoods further afar to account for growth.

antinimby Aug 8, 2017 2:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSsocal (Post 7887450)
The LPC has been wishy washy on this neighborhood. The problem is that it's an extension of midtown, and when historic preservation and air rights meet the LPC sometimes backs down. Clearly there has been room to expand the NoMAD historic district, (see this and the bancroft building)- but they've really dragged their feet here.

End of the day this building is a beaut and should be saved, and the city should be upzoning neighborhoods further afar to account for growth.

Totally agreed. Nice buildings like those two on the corner should be preserved while the garbage like the three just to their right should be where the tower needs to go on.

On the flip side, the same moron pols like Krueger and Brewer (they rhyme interestingly) are constantly fighting developments and tall buildings but the problem is that it will just spread the development pressure out in more places.

It's all very simple. For example, if the market calls for 100 new units. If you keep new buildings small and short, then those 100 units need to be spread out in 10 different sites. If you allow taller buildings, then you can build those 100 units in just one or two sites, thus requiring less demolition and displacement.

New Yorkers and the NYC politicians are really stupid. Many of the unaffordabillity issues in the city are really their own doing.

chris08876 Aug 8, 2017 10:49 PM

Its as of right. They should've thought about landmarking it awhile ago, and now, it's too late. They are grandfathered in. Demo permits filed and all. Landmarks missed this opportunity.

At the end of the day, this should be a lesson to landmarks. What is silly is pushing for it now in the moment. We must respect the rules. Gale Brewer is not doing that. If you want it to change, find other parcels that may warrant landmark status, and go after those... before they are developed and permits are issued.

Busy Bee Aug 9, 2017 12:39 AM

I know a lot of people cringe at them but I think a FACADECTOMY might be a good solution here. I can see a carefully reconstructed 314-316 or just 316 if it came to that at the base that steps back 4 feet or see into a nice transparant glass tower. Especially with that mansard roof line that steps back anyway it kind of seems a perfect fit. It could be done if the developers wanted to preserve a piece of history and would look fantastic.

yankeesfan1000 Aug 9, 2017 2:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7887922)
Its as of right. They should've thought about landmarking it awhile ago, and now, it's too late. They are grandfathered in. Demo permits filed and all. Landmarks missed this opportunity.

At the end of the day, this should be a lesson to landmarks. What is silly is pushing for it now in the moment. We must respect the rules. Gale Brewer is not doing that. If you want it to change, find other parcels that may warrant landmark status, and go after those... before they are developed and permits are issued.

Yup. The usual suspects are trying to blame the developers for this, but this lies squarely on the shoulders of the LPC, and the local politicians/community groups who are complaining. This should have been landmarked years ago. It isn't. Tough.

chris08876 Aug 19, 2017 2:05 PM

City Won't Landmark Century-Old Fifth Ave. Building, Officials Say

https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.jpg

Quote:

Time has run out for preservationists racing against the clock to save a century-old Fifth Avenue building.

The city will not landmark the Kaskel & Kaskel Building at 316 Fifth Ave. because it's undergone too many changes over the years, officials said, meaning the 1903 building will likely face the wrecking ball.


In an Aug. 11 letter to Councilman Dan Garodnick, who has been pushing for the property's designation, the Landmark Preservation Commission said that the building at East 32nd Street isn't eligible because of "extensive changes that reduced" its "historic integrity."

"We have received a significant number of letters supporting the designation," wrote Meenakshi Srinivasan, the commissioner for the Landmark Preservation Commission. "[The Kaskel & Kaskel building] does not rise to the level of an individual landmark."
=======================
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...on-commission#

Busy Bee Aug 19, 2017 2:11 PM

What a load of bullshit...

Crawford Aug 19, 2017 5:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 7898013)
What a load of bullshit...

No, it's great news.

The city is never going to landmark buildings after building permits have already been granted. That makes no sense, and would just cause NIMBYs to use the landmarking laws to stop any building from being built.

Basically 90% of this immediate neighborhood is already landmarked. All the buildings, more or less, are nicer old buildings. So if you want anything built on Lower Fifth, some nice buildings will have to come down.

Busy Bee Aug 19, 2017 7:57 PM

Thats fine. How about the buildings next door.

The North One Aug 19, 2017 11:13 PM

How depressing, it's beautiful midrises like those that make cities special and a pleasure to walk through. Any new building taking its place is a downgrade.

"Too many changes over the years" is a bullshit strawman excuse indeed, the facade is completely intact except for the cornice, it has plenty of "historic integrity".

mousquet Aug 22, 2017 2:44 PM

This was only a wannabe Parisian building anyway. I can tell. Originals of this type here are more subtle and prettier. Also perfectly fit the older urban fabric they sit on, which is not so much the case over there.

So why being pissed by this demo? It's not like they would be tearing down an unparalleled and truly historic Art Deco building. This is no Chrysler building, huh. Just an average pastiche, even when it would supposedly be old.

Sometimes you simply must admit you can't have what others own. NYC wasn't meant to be a pastiche of Central Paris. Something contemporary and taller will be much better there.

aquablue Aug 22, 2017 7:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 7900044)
This was only a wannabe Parisian building anyway. I can tell. Originals of this type here are more subtle and prettier. Also perfectly fit the older urban fabric they sit on, which is not so much the case over there.

So why being pissed by this demo? It's not like they would be tearing down an unparalleled and truly historic Art Deco building. This is no Chrysler building, huh. Just an average pastiche, even when it would supposedly be old.

Sometimes you simply must admit you can't have what others own. NYC wasn't meant to be a pastiche of Central Paris. Something contemporary and taller will be much better there.


Nope, I want this building prserved and restored because it is an old characterful building that is more interesting than another quick profit making modernist/pomo box (which is likely to rise here). Too many of these old buildings are being demolished in midtown and if continues, the street will be less interesting. Don't want to see all of midtown looking like 6th Ave or Park Ave with bulky corporate monoliths that are unloved by most. I don't care if it's not a perfect representation of a Parisian building or not, that doesn't matter to me. Frankly, it's a fine old NY building, pastiche or not. Without these buildings, NY would be some dull art-deco and modernist wasteland (not everyone loves art-deco!). The city is known for it's melange of various styles due to architects going over to study in Europe and bringing back ideas in the past. If you are a purist and hate buildings that differ to your classics or mix and match different styles, you won't like NY. Stay in your safer Paris, Romes, etc. NY doesn't have to admit to anything. It is proud and unapologetic of it's dynamic mix of styles of European origin and never intended to replicate any other city. That is why it is important to keep some of the older smaller buildings like this that give the city some flavor and character that newer buildings often white-wash away because as we know, they don't build stonework like they used to anymore due to costs/labor, etc. I don't think anyone wants to see NYC's midtown be HK"s Central or Sao Paulo - basically just modernist glass or concrete towers.

Also,Art-deco is a later phenomenon in NY history. Before that NYC was full of old ornate European-inspired buildings that in my opinion, are far nicer than most plainer art-deco towers. I.E, the new Waldorf vs the Old Waldorf. The Old one was far superior. NY is not defined only by Art-Deco just because some of it's major scrapers are of that style. Therefore, just because this building isn't a historic art-deco tower as you say, doesn't mean it's not worthy of preservation.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.