NEW YORK | One Vanderbilt | 1,401 FT | 58 FLOORS

[De Minimis NY]

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08

Well, it will be argued as being a "per se" takings. What the courts will have to determine is whether or not this rezoning removes all use of the land...in this case, the use is a transfer from the landmark to an adjacent site. From what I understand, the entire purpose of air rights was to allow owners to profit from land value since the current landmarks law doesn't not allow them to extract that value, on-site.

From a strict reading of the law, this guy probably doesn't have any standing, since the air rights simply guarantees that development can be transferred from the landmark site elsewhere, but doesn't guarantee/protect the value of that right.

Theoretically, a depreciation of the air rights does not remove all economically viable use of that [transferable property].

I don't predict an injunction from the court...but you never now.

I appreciate that it would be argued as a "per se" taking, but would that argument not apply to all rezonings? When the city passes a down-zoning and the FAR of a particular parcel is reduced, existing air rights are not just less valuable (as in this case), but they are literally eliminated all together. To take the argument a step further, all zoning laws could be viewed as a per se "taking", in that they effect a diminution in the value of a parcel relative to what it would be without government intervention (i.e., if air rights were unlimited).

Thinking about this a little further, I'm guessing that this case is going to have to turn on the "public purpose" prong of the analysis. As you correctly point out, there is no colorable argument that the regulation extinguishes all economic use of the property--in fact he can still sell for a massive profit to other parcels in the area. I think his best argument would have to be that, unlike with a typical rezoning, which has a broad public purpose and applies equally to a number of property holders, this is a quasi-spot rezoning that is disproportionately benefits individual property owners (SL Green) at the expense of others (Penson), with only an incidental public benefit. I don't buy that argument for a second and don't think a court will either, but it's the only case I can see him making.

Apologies to forumers who are completely bored by legalistic stuff.

[De Minimis NY]

^^I take that back. The question of public purpose should only go towards the determination of whether a taking is permissible, not whether a taking has occurred (meaning that compensation is due), as in this case.

The argument would have to fight and die on the question of whether the grant of air rights to SL Green so completely deprives Penson of the value of his property as to constitute a taking. It wouldn't necessarily have to eliminate all economic use (character of government action and degree of economic impact, generally, would be considered), but the bar that Penson would have to overcome would be enormous. This obstacle is greatly increased by the fact that this isn't a classic regulatory "taking", in that there is no prohibition on the sale of Penson's air rights, but rather would be some new kind of "implied taking", in that the grant of rights to another (SL Green) acts like a taking by effectively prohibiting the sale of Penson's air rights (absolute bullshit, by the way). There is no Supreme Court case law on the topic, meaning that nobody has ever successfully demonstrated what Penson is trying to demonstrate in that regard--a pretty good indicator of how this is likely to go.

[The North One]

This is absolutely disgusting, NYC is selling it's soul to developers and it's really sad.

These buildings are beautiful and irreplaceable. Shame, absolute shame.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Once this goes up, all those memories will be shattered, and lost in the rabbit hole. Only in America do you have people complain about a 1,514 ft tower. You should be sending love letters to KPF, Barnett, Stern, SHoP Architects, Shvo, and Silverstein as these are the super tall gods. All of which are transforming the skyline for the 21st Century. Couple of more to list, but you get the point.

This is backwards and distorted thinking, skyscrapers do not enhance anyones lives except for the developers who pocket the money and the billionaires who live in their penthouses, the buildings being torn down are quintessential NYC buildings with character and history.

This is exactly why central Paris has such strict height regulations, at the least French learned from their mistakes of tearing down pre-war architecture in the 50's and 70's, when will the U.S.?

[chris08876]

We think big in this city. NYC is a skyscraper city. Has been for over a century. I'm sure the employees who work in those skyscrapers benefit from it. A modern, sleek work environment which they spend 8 or 10 hours a day in. Places where 1000's of jobs could be relocated domestically or even from abroad.

In terms of backwardness, then I guess centers of power like China must be backwards with the 1000's of skyscrapers built in the last decade or most of the Western world which is seeing a boom in skyscrapers. A building such as this will be forgotten. Its not a Singer tower or the original Penn. How do you propose adding residential space, and office space in a city thats needs much more of it without increasing height and building over low-rise structures? Employers like Manhattan, and now, Brooklyn and LIC are the next frontier. Some buildings will be lost, but if you walk in Manhattan, and try to use your brain, you will see 100's of other pre-wars. There are 1000's in the city, and smaller ones like this will be forgotten in time due. Only neurotic people worry about things like this. Call the demo of smaller structures a side effect of being the global financial capital.

Paris can keep its height limits, fine, but watch them disappear when space becomes a problem and demand is through the roof. Some will be saved, some lost, this is the battle that is capitalism.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by The North One

This is backwards and distorted thinking, skyscrapers do not enhance anyones lives except for the developers who pocket the money and the billionaires who live in their penthouses, the buildings being torn down are quintessential NYC buildings with character and history.

This is exactly why central Paris has such strict height regulations, at the least French learned from their mistakes of tearing down pre-war architecture in the 50's and 70's, when will the U.S.?

Have you ever considered what you type when you enter this sites web address into your browser?

Anyways, there isn't much remarkable about these buildings. They're old, rundown, dark abysmal messes. Their likeness can be found all over the city - there are literally tens of thousands of structures just like them in Manhattan alone. They have no remarkable architectural flourishes, nor do they have a compelling story behind them.

Furthermore, as office spaces, they are woefully inadequate. I've been in two of the buildings being torn down and both had the space efficiency of 1930's buildings, and the decor typical of the 1950's style rectal-leekage that plagues so many structures in this city. Zero worth, zero merit.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Have you ever considered what you type when you enter this sites web address into your browser?

Anyways, there isn't much remarkable about these buildings. They're old, rundown, dark abysmal messes. Their likeness can be found all over the city - there are literally tens of thousands of structures just like them in Manhattan alone. They have no remarkable architectural flourishes, nor do they have a compelling story behind them.

Furthermore, as office spaces, they are woefully inadequate. I've been in two of the buildings being torn down and both had the space efficiency of 1930's buildings, and the decor typical of the 1950's style rectal-leekage that plagues so many structures in this city. Zero worth, zero merit.

Do you consider how willfully ignorant you about pre-war architecture? Contrary to what you say the city does not have a surplus of prewar buildings, they are finite and can never be replaced, we don't build structures like this anymore or to this level of detail and beauty, these styles are not likely to ever come back. There's plenty of money and investors in NY, these buildings could be renovated and look absolutely stunning inside.

And lets be frank, this Vanderbilt tower that's replacing them isn't special either, it's quite ugly and oversized and certainly NOT worth the sacrifice of these buildings. Part of a city's character is in it's architecture and this bland glass building that looks like the shard with the top cut off could have been built anywhere in the world, it's not unique to NY at all.

Regardless it's absurd to use the argument that "there's plenty more where that came from" because before you realize there won't be nearly as much left and cities like NY will end up regretting their mistakes, NY has already lost a large number of masterpieces that are heavily missed even on this forum.

If it must be built it could be built somewhere else, look at the hudson yards, there is no valuable architecture being destroyed there and I'm sure there are other sites in the city that don't have pre-war buildings of this caliber.

If they indeed end up being destroyed, this is a loss for the city, NOT a victory and not something to celebrate.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Paris can keep its height limits, fine, but watch them disappear when space becomes a problem and demand is through the roof. Some will be saved, some lost, this is the battle that is capitalism.

Space and demand is already through the roof in Paris and has been for quite some time now, sure there are problems but they seem to value the incredible architecture that they have and that's never a bad thing, plus skyscrapers are already being built in La Defense so I'm not too worried for them.

I'm not saying NY should become a mid-rise paradise like Paris, I'm saying they should value what they have more and not give in so easily to a developers every wish. They could have at the very least saved the facades of the buildings, that would have been reasonable. People of NYC should demand and deserve more.

[chris08876]

In terms of saving the facade, not many developments do it right (although some on the UWS and UES make it work). 5 Beekman is a case where they added on top of it, and it keeps the original structure, and it somewhat works. Thing is though, that's not preferred by tenants. If somebody like JP Morgan (tishman spyer site, cough cough), wanted to build a 1200 foot tower, they want something new. New can sometimes be good, and its what tenants want.

But no worries North One, many renovations are occurring which only add to the existing structures. You can't look at every development, and think that original structures will be demolished, because around the city, the renovations to existing structures (adding units, office space, and so on) exceed the total amount of proposals in this city. A lot is being saved. Example being in Brooklyn where renovations are very common. This is kinda knit-picking to be fair. Look at the greater scope of the city. Much is being saved, while adding to the supply.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by The North One

This is backwards and distorted thinking, skyscrapers do not enhance anyones lives except for the developers who pocket the money and the billionaires who live in their penthouses, the buildings being torn down are quintessential NYC buildings with character and history.

Skyscrapers do enhance people's lives. They allow dense urban walkable neighborhoods to exist. They allow large cities to exist at all. You'd rather those billionaires live on sprawling 10 acre estates? You'd rather the jobs be in some far flung auto centered suburban office park?

But if "enhancing lives" is your standard, enhancing who's lives? When those pre-war buildings were built, did they enhance the lives of the people who's homes were torn down? Did they consider the character and history of the land before that?
Did those early homes enhance the lives of the farmers who were already there? And did the farmers enhance the lives of the Native Americans who were living on Manhattan long before that?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Skyscrapers do enhance people's lives. They allow dense urban walkable neighborhoods to exist. They allow large cities to exist at all. You'd rather those billionaires live on sprawling 10 acre estates? You'd rather the jobs be in some far flung auto centered suburban office park?

You're using extreme hyperbole in this question.

There's a massive difference between "sprawling estates" and a "walkable city"

It's ironic you even mention walkable cities because the most walkable cities on earth are old and mostly in Europe sans high-rises.

Those pre-war buildings enhance the street life and character of the city, it's just a shame to see these go. I would much rather see this city block be preserved especially being so close to grand central, I'm not saying every last building must be preserved, I'm not an extremist.

[artspook]

I get your point Submariner - but I don't think that there are quite . .
"tens of thousands of structures just like them in Manhattan alone" . .
Some of the buildings on this block are pretty exceptional . . 42nd St. and 57th Streets
(and their vicinities) had (and still have) some of the grandest old buildings. .
best of their era in the entire world . . warm - detailed - well articulated . .
quality craftsmanship . . and big - but somehow humanly scaled . .

NYC was the preeminent abundant city of the world at the time when they were built . .
Both of these grand streets have magnificent old buildings . .
under-appreciated - irreplaceable - stone and masonry structures . .
So North One you are indeed right to be concerned . .
If I could magically move this wonderful block elsewhere I would.
It certainly will be a great loss . .

But KPF's One Vanderbilt is an inspiring modern skyscraper of great stature . .
The City - especially East Midtown - will benefit immensely and be transformed by it . .
the visage of this new ultra tall office tower with its unique noble silhouette . .
will dramatically modernize the skyline . . and elevate Midtown's image . .
as an up-to-date modern business center once again.
So I believe the great sacrifice is exciting and worth it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Contrary to what you say the city does not have a surplus of prewar buildings.

That's definitely not true. NYC probably has around 20x as many such buildings as any other city on earth.

Originally Posted by The North One

If they indeed end up being destroyed, this is a loss for the city, NOT a victory and not something to celebrate.

If NYC were to save every single prewar building, then the city would be a declining museum city like Venice, useless except for tourism. No thanks.

Even somewhere like Paris or Rome would consider this to be an absurd policy.

Your point is so ridiculous that even the ultra NIMBY, landmark everything types, the ones who try to landmark even parking garages and tenements and no-style warehouses in NYC haven't uttered a peep about these buildings. There are thousands of such buildings throughout the city, and they are of no particular architectural merit.

[antinimby]

^ I can only think of a handful of current projects / proposals that I'm against because I'm for the preservation of the existing building. You really think that with all that's going on around the city, that without those handful of projects, this city would turn into a museum?

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's definitely not true. NYC probably has around 20x as many such buildings as any other city on earth.

If NYC were to save every single prewar building, then the city would be a declining museum city like Venice, useless except for tourism. No thanks.

Even somewhere like Paris or Rome would consider this to be an absurd policy.

Your point is so ridiculous that even the ultra NIMBY, landmark everything types, the ones who try to landmark even parking garages and tenements and no-style warehouses in NYC haven't uttered a peep about these buildings. There are thousands of such buildings throughout the city, and they are of no particular architectural merit.

Unfortunately, there is no where else to build tall buildings in Manhattan outside of a few zones, so these old buildings must come down. The space limitations of a tiny island are the enemy of preservationists. The city leaders and developers want to keep as many towers in NYC as possible, so they must demolish the buildings they can acquire as cheap as possible, it makes economic sense. And it's far more economically sensible to buy an old, outdated building that is cheap compared to buying a more modern office building to demolish in such a prime location.

On the other hand, if these towers lack architectural merit, then the majority of the pre-wars in Manhattan thus lack. Because these towers are pretty good examples of a NY pre-war building, not some dowdy tenement. Well, why not just bulldoze them all then, as obviously they are not great architecture as you say? Nobody will care when they are all gone, right?

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Unfortunately, there is no where else to build tall buildings in Manhattan outside of a few zones, so these old buildings must come down. The space limitations of a tiny island are the enemy of preservationists. The city leaders and developers want to keep as many towers in NYC as possible, so they must demolish the buildings they can acquire as cheap as possible, it makes economic sense. And it's far more economically sensible to buy an old, outdated building that is cheap compared to buying a more modern office building to demolish in such a prime location.

On the other hand, if these towers lack architectural merit, then the majority of the pre-wars in Manhattan thus lack. Because these towers are pretty good examples of a NY pre-war building, not some dowdy tenement. Well, why not just bulldoze them all then, as obviously they are not great architecture as you say? Nobody will care when they are all gone, right?

Even though I doubt it will happen, I really wish that Hell's Kitchen above 42nd Street could be rezoned. I would love to see taller buildings rise west of Times Square. Whenever I see images of Midtown from the air, you can get a sense of what I mean, it's an abrupt end of high-rises and that section of Hell's Kitchen really could grown a bit vertically. It really looks out of place and is kind of a dumpy area of Midtown.

I'm not necessarily suggesting supertalls be built there (this is a haven for NIMBYS after all), but maybe buildings between 300-500ft which could provide a bit of density balance in Midtown as well as creating a nice gradual slope towards to the taller buildings east of Times Square.

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by The North One

This is absolutely disgusting, NYC is selling it's soul to developers and it's really sad.

These buildings are beautiful and irreplaceable. Shame, absolute shame.

Originally Posted by artspook

I get your point Submariner - but I don't think that there are quite . .
"tens of thousands of structures just like them in Manhattan alone" . .
Some of the buildings on this block are pretty exceptional . . 42nd St. and 57th Streets
(and their vicinities) had (and still have) some of the grandest old buildings. .
best of their era in the entire world . . warm - detailed - well articulated . .
quality craftsmanship . . and big - but somehow humanly scaled . .

Not all old buildings are equal. There are "garbage" ones that can be tear down without anybody noticing, and they are buildings like these that I think should be preserved. New York is a vibrant modern city and it should not be a living museum like Paris.... but its unfortunate that they need to go. Enjoy the last pictures.


Last look, before the building is covered in black netting.

[RobEss]

Does anyone know what sort of recovery and reclamation is done at sites like these? Are those terracotta tiles on the facade saved or destroyed?

[WIGGLEWORTH]

^I hope with all my heart that they do.

[patriotizzy]

Fuck, that hurts my heart :'(