HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2006, 3:54 AM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,598
NEW YORK | What Does It Take to Demolish Fitterman Hall?

HULK STILL LOOMS
By STEVE CUOZZO

April 18, 2006 -- COME the fifth anniversary of 9/11 this September, the hulk of CUNY's Fiterman Hall will yet loom over Ground Zero, looking just as blackened and macabre as it did on Sept. 12, 2001.

The community can thank CUNY's selfishness and the fecklessness of its rebuilding agent, the state Dormitory Authority - and also the "leadership" of Gov. Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg.

The latest bad news: The federal Environmental Protection Agency has raised extensive questions about plans to decontaminate the building - a four-to-six-month process that must precede demolition.

CUNY and its Borough of Manhattan Community College have posted a sign on the Greenwich Street side promising a new building by 2009. Eight years to replace a simple 15-story classroom structure? Ridiculous. Yet even 2009 is looking more like wishful thinking than a serious deadline.

For months, Pataki's people have tried to suggest that the tangled ruin would be down this year. Last week, Pataki's Downtown construction-coordination czar, Charles Maikish, told me that work should start "in June," and that a "substantial portion" of the wreck should be down "by year end."

He called back yesterday with a whopper of a revision: The state is now looking at an "October start date," not for demolition, but for five-plus months of decontamination.

Yet even that can't start until the EPA gives its blessing to a detailed takedown plan that has yet to be filed - by a contractor yet to be selected. And there's no telling when final EPA approval might actually be forthcoming.

The gruesome eyesore continues to cast a pall over the area. Standing practically on the front doorstep of Larry Silverstein's new 7 World Trade Center, it scares away tenants even as Bloomberg - who has been scandalously silent about Fiterman Hall - blames Silverstein for the slow leasing.

Silverstein is building a small, attractive public park in front of 7 WTC. But few will want to sunbathe in the shadow of Fiterman's blackened entrails and exposed plumbing.

CUNY finally seems serious about replacing the hall - but it started much, much too late. The job should have been a top priority after the 9/11 attack - yet it went nowhere for four years while CUNY implored the state, city and Lower Manhattan Development Corp for money to cover a brand-new building. (CUNY selfishly refused even to prove that the old hall was beyond saving. Now, after prolonged exposure to the elements, it probably is.)

Enabling CUNY was Pataki's ineffectuality. The governor, who appoints a majority of CUNY's board members, ignored Fiterman Hall entirely until its demoralizing impact on Downtown was described in these pages. Bloomberg has yet to be heard from at all.

CUNY loves to publicize its successes - Chancellor Matt Goldstein even shows up in a TV ad to tout the school's wunderkinds. But it ducks questions on Fiterman Hall, diverting all queries to the state Dormitory Authority, its "agent" in the process.

Last week, the EPA finally replied to a preliminary "remediation and deconstruction" draft proposal filed in January by the state's environmental consultant, a company called AirTek. On Thursday, Maikish optimistically termed the EPA's response "good news" and characterized it as "approval" of the "general methodology" to be used.

But EPA spokesperson Mary Mears told me, "While we certainly are having a very positive working relationship with the folks surrounding Fiterman Hall, neither EPA nor any of its regulatory partners have approved any part of the Fiterman Hall plan."

In fact, EPA's questions on the AirTek proposal ran 36 pages. It found the draft full of inconsistencies and lacking detail about the presence of lead paint, mold and roof contaminants. It disputed AirTek's claim that EPA "lead inspectors" had joined in a floor-by-floor survey of the building, saying that no EPA personnel had participated. It even complained that "many" drawings and diagrams filed by AirTek were "difficult to read" or not legible at all.

Community Board 1 District Manager Paul Goldstein said, "It's incredible to me that after spending all this money on demolishing the building, we haven't yet come up with a safe and secure method of taking it down."

Indeed, despite its own EPA delays, the former Deutsche Bank tower at 130 Liberty St. appears closer to being demolished. Yet Fiterman is a small fraction of Deutsche's size, far less contaminated and highly unlikely to contain human remains (although that has not yet been established with certainty).

Dormitory Authority press officer Claudia Hutton cut through thickets of confusion and red tape to come up with a realistic take on what's really going on at Fiterman Hall.

Hutton said that last December, the authority "pre-qualified" a half-dozen prospective contractors to take down the hall. It told them to submit bids by April 21 - but last week extended the deadline to May 9 to allow bidders more time to put their offers in, and also to evaluate the EPA response to AirTek's assessment. The authority now hopes to choose a contractor and sign a letter of intent by June 1.

Before that contractor can start work, however, it must file its own highly detailed proposal with EPA and wait for approval. And the questions for AirTek must be resolved, too.

"As far as a start date, it's not like there's one written in stone," Hutton said. "But we hope to start on decontamination by late summer or early fall."

Yesterday, Maikish explained the delay until October as allowing a "three-month process period for the EPA." But EPA took three months - twice as long as the Dormitory Authority expected - to respond to AirTek's preliminary plan. The feds are likely to need more time to evaluate the contractor's far more complex proposal, which can't be filed until June at the earliest. Even that best-case scenario would have decontamination still going on well into the new year.

Meanwhile, CUNY's architects, Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, are said to be barely at the schematic stage in designing Fiterman Hall's replacement. Partner George H. Miller, listed on the firm's Web site as "principal contact," did not return a call.

It looks like a long winter Downtown.

scuozzo@nypost.com
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


For the First Time in My Life, I'm Proud of Wisconsin!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2006, 4:41 AM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
Look how long it's taking them to get Ground Zero off and running.

Yeah, and while "Who's-Your-Daddy" & Blooper are both quibbling over who should manage and rebuild Ground Zero, this rotting Relic of the Dinosaur Age sits motionless and is more than likely infested with just as many diseases as the DBB that sits on the south side of Ground Zero!

A decision was made on the other damaged buildings, but this one still sits in the dark waiting for an answer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2006, 2:12 AM
Beyond 1000's Avatar
Beyond 1000 Beyond 1000 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: vancouver, bc
Posts: 720
What does it take to demolish Fitterman Hall?

Probably less than what it would take to drop the Deutsche Bank bldg. (see other thread on this)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2006, 2:57 AM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
But since both of those bldg's were built many years ago, they'd still have to be treated very delicately, for they are infested with cancer-causing materials that are not used in this day and age.

But you're right, there's no excuse whatsoever for the lengthy delay on decisions for what to do with them!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2006, 6:18 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beyond 1000
What does it take to demolish Fitterman Hall?

Probably less than what it would take to drop the Deutsche Bank bldg. (see other thread on this)
i don't think so. They're actually getting somewhere with the Deutsche, unlike Fiterman.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2006, 10:28 PM
Apathanoia Apathanoia is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 24
Who is even thinking about Fiterman? For all I know, it may just sit there for the next 25 years, receivng no attention whatsoever.
__________________
Do not misunderestimate the stupidity of our politicians. Or any politician, for that matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2006, 4:06 PM
Dracmus's Avatar
Dracmus Dracmus is offline
...
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 77
6 words:

an act of god, that's what...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2006, 7:06 PM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
I think that Fiterman Hall had slipped through the cracks and was just forgotten about.

It's just sitting there rotting away like a dead dinosaur and throwing off the beauty of 7 WTC!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2008, 5:08 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,539
which building is this? Can someone post a link or picture?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2008, 9:29 AM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Senior Editor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 4,541


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2008, 10:21 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,596
Preliminary studies have shown that the site can support a 700 ft condo tower, so why not go for it? Condos at such a prime location, facing a plaza at that, would fetch top dollar, which I'm sure the university could put to good use. The current design seems to suggest that they are planning to replace this Modernist dump with a Postmodernist dump.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 11:13 PM
America 117 America 117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 613

its so ugly my eyes are burning
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 11:34 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,596
Funny how that building was butt-ugly even before 9/11.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 18, 2008, 12:43 AM
antinimby's Avatar
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecom View Post
Preliminary studies have shown that the site can support a 700 ft condo tower, so why not go for it? Condos at such a prime location, facing a plaza at that, would fetch top dollar, which I'm sure the university could put to good use. The current design seems to suggest that they are planning to replace this Modernist dump with a Postmodernist dump.
I fully agree. The school does not need to be in this part of town next to the WTC. Putting a city university building there is dumb.

Sell the site to a private developer, then take the money and build the school somewhere else.

By the way, do they even need a new building? Because if they've gone this long without the use of this building, something tells me they may not need one at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2008, 8:00 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
I fully agree. The school does not need to be in this part of town next to the WTC. Putting a city university building there is dumb.

Sell the site to a private developer, then take the money and build the school somewhere else.

By the way, do they even need a new building? Because if they've gone this long without the use of this building, something tells me they may not need one at this point.
The school has every right to remain at the site. How is it going to come out otherwise? "Let's use a tragedy to our financial advantage so we can kick an educational institution out and resell the land for profit?" Schools and universities are an integral, vital part of any city fabric and the last thing that shoould be done is relocating the college from their Fitterman Hall site. All the studies I mentioned earlier revolved around keeping a base used by the school (of about the same size as the current building), while adding a condo tower on top. It would be a win-win situation - the community college would get much-needed money by selling condos, which, in turn, would bring more vitality and mixed use to the neighborhood. And for the skyscraper geek in all of us, we'd be getting another tower that would add to both the new cluster and the Barclay Street canyon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.