NEW YORK | 610 W. 57th St. | 482 FT | 45 FLOORS

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by Dac150

I view it as less of that and more of a compromise of lifestyle. Living in an atmosphere that samples both urban and suburban lifestyles is an attractive concept, at least it is to me.

"Suburban" is a very loosely defined term, often twisted by various groups to express their distaste or affinity towards something without bothering to explain why specifically they feel about it this way. Many terms work the same way - "sustainable", "liberal", "conservative", "unpatriotic", etc. "My building is great because it's sustainable!" "You disagree with the war? You're unpatriotic!" "I don't think the news is telling the truth. Must be liberal media at work!" "You support Obama? You're a Communist!" "You oppose Obama? You're racist!" "I don't like the aesthetic appeal of a proposal, so it must be suburban!"

Babybackribs, it would help us if you specified your issues with the design. You don't like the way it looks? I'm not a big fan myself, to be honest. But "suburban amenities"? What exactly do you mean by that? List at least one "suburban amenity" you were able to decipher from such a crude massing render.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Dac150

I wouldn’t necessarily take ‘suburban’ at face value. It sounds like a sampled suburban environment for those (sounds like young families are the target market) who desire the best of both worlds. The ability to live in the big city with some small town features.

im sorry but im just not following...what do they want to build,Staten Island on the west side? town houses etc.?

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

im sorry but im just not following...what do they want to build,Staten Island on the west side? town houses etc.?

Notice the redundancy of the word ‘sample’ I used in my post, along with its variations. The aim, from what I can understand, is to bring a taste of suburban lifestyle to the city. Not suburban lifestyle, but a taste, variation, sample, whatever term you want to use.

As far as ‘suburban’ goes in this case, I attribute it to an atmosphere. Just as city living has its own atmosphere, so does New Cannan Connecticut, and that mix is the ambiance the architect is aiming to create.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Lecom

I'm not a big fan myself, to be honest. But "suburban amenities"? What exactly do you mean by that? List at least one "suburban amenity" you were able to decipher from such a crude massing render.

I am curious myself, but my guess would be the ‘gardens’ that the architect was referring to in the article. Individual open space rather than community space such as plazas or parks. But then again, rooftop gardens and terraces aren’t an uncommon amenity in Manhattan.

Based on the architect’s description, he’ll create an atmosphere that is new to the city and will offer something to residents that is currently unavailable anywhere else on the island. More detailed renders would clear this up.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Notice the redundancy of the word ‘sample’ I used in my post, along with its variations. The aim, from what I can understand, is to bring a taste of suburban lifestyle to the city. Not suburban lifestyle, but a taste, variation, sample, whatever term you want to use.

As far as ‘suburban’ goes in this case, I attribute it to an atmosphere. Just as city living has its own atmosphere, so does New Cannan Connecticut, and that mix is the ambiance the architect is aiming to create.

ohhhh now i gotcha but...i really dont think thats possible in Manhattan.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

i really dont think thats possible in Manhattan.

Two words for you; High Line. Here’s two more; Central Park. There are points in both of those atmospheres where if you didn’t know any better you’d think you’re somewhere far from Manhattan. It’s all about creating an atmosphere, and in some way this architect will do just that.

[Crawford]

Folks, there's no design yet, so there's no point in arguing over the design.

The previous rendering was just a general concept from a presentation at Harvard Design School.

It doesn't even remotely make any sense from a zoning or financial standpoint.

I would guess that, whatever the final design, it will look closer to a conventional tower than one might expect. The Durst Organization isn't going to build something inherently unprofitable.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Folks, there's no design yet, so there's no point in arguing over the design.

The previous rendering was just a general concept from a presentation at Harvard Design School.

It doesn't even remotely make any sense from a zoning or financial standpoint.

I would guess that, whatever the final design, it will look closer to a conventional tower than one might expect. The Durst Organization isn't going to build something inherently unprofitable.

First off, there’s no arguing going on here, just perception based debate and some interesting discussion if you ask me.

Second, the design may very well be cloudy at this point, but the concept is quite clear as stated by the architect.

How doesn’t it make sense from a zoning standpoint if you said yourself there’s no design? Again, were going by the concept, not by what we see.

Finances; what about them? How wouldn’t it make sense? And that’s not to say I could give solid reasons as to why it would, but based on what we know I don’t think any of us can determine the financial sense of this project.

Flirting with unprofitability? Of course they wouldn’t, but why would they deal with this architect if they thought he’d produce a concept that would be anything short of profitable? Durst is obviously a believer in what this guy can bring to the table.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Dac150

How doesn’t it make sense from a zoning standpoint if you said yourself there’s no design? Again, were going by the concept, not by what we see.

The fuzzy concept pic doesn't conform to Manhattan zoning. It couldn't be built without a bunch of variances. That's why I'm confident it isn't the design.

And, again, the architect refuses to say anything. Obviously Durst doesn't want him to divulge details. If he refuses to tell the NY Times anything, why would he then go and post pics on his website?

Originally Posted by Dac150

Finances; what about them? How wouldn’t it make sense?

There's a reason developers build highrises in a conventional format. The rendering, if you actually built it, doesn't appear to make any financial sense whatsoever. It's just archectural doodling on Form Z or Auto-Cad or whatever the heck they use.

In Manhattan, every square inch of available developable floor area has to make sense. The picture, assuming it would even fit the site, would waste giant amounts of floor area, and that's after you got the necessary 1,001 variances.

I'm eager to see what he's come up with, but I don't think it will look too much like that rough concept. This is market-rate housing, not a design charette.

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by Dac150

I am curious myself, but my guess would be the ‘gardens’ that the architect was referring to in the article. Individual open space rather than community space such as plazas or parks. But then again, rooftop gardens and terraces aren’t an uncommon amenity in Manhattan.

Precisely. Ground level personal green space is very suburban; rooftop gardens atop multi-apartment buildings is the epitome of urbanity. Manhattan wouldn't be the same without its rooftop gardens.

Back on topic, this site, being so (relatively) far away from major points of attraction and subway lines, will never see urban developments like the Rockefeller Center. Unless they extend a subway line here, this area will always be treated as a far-flung fringe stuck between Midtown, the Upper West Side and Hell's Kitchen. In Midtown terms, this area might as well be a suburb. There are reasons why this block is called the Automobile Row: nowhere else in mid-Manhattan would you find so much space where you can freely accommodate multiple sprawling car showrooms.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Durst is building this interesting pyramid-shaped building on the lot just north of Avalon's new rental tower (i.e., the empty lot in the photo just west of the Helena residential building).



http://www.observer.com/2010/real-es...street-project

Another Look at Durst's BIG 57th Street Project
By Matt Chaban

November 11, 2010

Another look at that:

http://nymag.com/arts/architecture/features/71213/

[tommaso]

Wow! When does this building get built?

[RobertWalpole]

http://www.observer.com/2011/07/hal-...ixth-and-more/

[SD_Phil]

^wow, that's an informative interview! thanks for sharing it.

[NYguy]

http://observer.com/2013/04/tf-corne...t-57th-street/

TF Cornerstone Looking to Build 45-Story Residential Tower on West 57th Street



A massing diagram from 606 West 57th Street’s rezoning application


By Stephen Jacob Smith
April 3, 2013

Back in 2011, AvalonBay abandoned plans to build a 44-story, 700-unit rental building on the block south of West 57th Street between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues. TF Cornerstone was rumored to be interested in the site, and it turns out the rumors were true: the Manhattan-based developer now wants to build a 45-story, 1,189-unit residential tower on the same site, according to documents filed with the Department of City Planning.

If approved, the project would contain a total of 1.2 million square feet of floorspace, with 42,000 square feet set aside for commercial use and a 550-space underground parking garage. Of the apartments, 20 percent—238 units—would be set aside as affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary zoning program.

The project would, along with the residential pyramid that Bjarke Ingels is building for Durst Fetner on the north side of 57th Street, anchor the booming crosstown corridor, where half a dozen other luxury towers are in the works.

TF Cornerstone will have to go through the same private rezoning process for 606 West 57th as Dursts and Fetners had to do with the Bjarke Ingels building, involving a slurry of acronyms and eventually a vote in City Council. They’re seeking to rezone the parcels—which make up most, but not all of the block—from their old manufacturing designations to a zone that allows the highest residential density in the city.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/env_...scope_work.pdf

[antinimby]

The NIMBYs will be all over this one.

BTW, i'm glad Avalon abandoned their plans. It was a boring, plain glass box.

[scalziand]

Reminds me of the stacked block proposal in JC.


https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/r...te/04NjZo.html

[Hypothalamus]

New York YIMBY:

Revealed: TF Cornerstone’s 606 West 57th Street
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON NOVEMBER 11TH 2013 AT 7:00 AM
Photo Credit: NIKOLAI FEDAK

...
The site is currently occupied by several low-slung buildings, and now that plans are apparently moving forward, demolition should be imminent. Across 57th Street, another transformative residential project – The Pyramid (625 W 57th St) – is also moving forward. Most of the attention 57th Street receives is focused between Broadway and Park Avenue, but the street’s largest developments are, in fact, on the Hudson River.

Completion of 606 West 57th Street is expected in 2017, and the building will stand just over 40 stories tall – it is clear height is not the focus here, and the structure is about sheer density. Whether the tower’s different blocks have separate addresses also remains to be seen – though it would seem likely.
...

[scalziand]

I think I can warm up to that.

[tommaso]

Cubism is sweet!!