NEW YORK | 3 Columbus Circle | FT | FLOORS - Page 3

NYguy · #41 Posted **Sep 13, 2010, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

This would suck.

Part of the plan was to get tenants into the building. I see that as a positive, assuming it works.

RobertWalpole · #42 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 10:56 AM**

October 6, 2010

Lois Weiss - Between the Bricks

Now that he's closed on the mortgage purchase of 3 Columbus, a.k.a. 1775 Broadway, Stephen Ross of Related Cos. is trying to woo building owner Joseph Moinian into his demolition camp.

As you've heard, Ross wants to tear down the newly renovated commercial office tower and construct a luxury residential condominium with -- we've learned -- 135 units that he figures he needs to sell for over $2,000 a square foot, and a retail base, which may or may not include Nordstrom's.

As The Post first revealed, Moinian, who has been partners with SL Green Realty Trust at 180 Maiden Lane and has bought and sold buildings with them over the years, has his shirtsleeves rolled up and is still working toward a deal with that trusty Real Estate Investment Trust. No comments, as you'd expect.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz11Zi0ucNZ

NYguy · #43 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 1:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

As you've heard, Ross wants to tear down the newly renovated commercial office tower and construct a luxury residential condominium with -- we've learned -- 135 units that he figures he needs to sell for over $2,000 a square foot, and a retail base, which may or may not include Nordstrom's.

I'd say about 50 stories at best.

RobertWalpole · #44 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 1:51 PM**

I think that it will be a lot taller. There is a lot of square footage and a small footprint. I predict that it will be over 300m.

NYguy · #45 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 2:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I think that it will be a lot taller. There is a lot of square footage and a small footprint. I predict that it will be over 300m.

And I think you will be severely disappointed, but you were warned...

Anyway, I would love a taller tower here as much as anyone.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #46 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I think that it will be a lot taller. There is a lot of square footage and a small footprint. I predict that it will be over 300m.

i would generally agree due to its prime location a supertall amoung future tall neighbors sounds good. im sure the developer will be set on a supertall if the economy permits.

RobertWalpole · #47 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 3:59 PM**

Lofter from WNY offered the following analysis about the potential height of this tower:

This is a good sized lot, (irregular: 216' x 201' x 121' x 216') measuring ~ 34,000 sf ...

Zoning: C5-3 - RESTRICTED CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT

Seems a tower could go very very tall here.

(The Hearst lot is ~ 40,000 sf)

Related has been talking to Nordstrom about its intent to foreclose on 3 Columbus Circle then demolish it and build a new tower in its place
NYC Zoning Handbook:

Commercial Districts: C5

High bulk commercial districts

C5-3 Commercial FAR: 15.0 18.0 with Bonus

Also, NOYAKA at WNY noted:

"According to property shark this building as is, is 46,943 square feet over FAR. The building is 532,569 square feet giving it an effective 16.45 FAR, the site is zoned for 485,625 with a 15 FAR. The lot is 32,375 square feet. For comparison the Hearst Tower has a 40,166 lot and is 703,796 square feet, receiving almost every sort of variance and bonus imaginable. I don't see any new building being much bigger than 800,000 square feet."

An 800,000 sf residential will be VERY TALL.

NYguy · #48 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

135 units that he figures he needs to sell for over $2,000 a square foot, and a retail base

Doesn't translate to a supertall at all in my opinion. The retail, which will be a major store, will take a huge chunk of the development rights. I think it could come close, but with the program, I wouldn't count on it being a supertall. I would love to be surprised.

The Tower Verre, for comparison, sits on a tighter lot, and will have the museum expansion, a hotel, and 120 units.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #49 Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 11:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Doesn't translate to a supertall at all in my opinion. The retail, which will be a major store, will take a huge chunk of the development rights. I think it could come close, but with the program, I wouldn't count on it being a supertall. I would love to be surprised.

The Tower Verre, for comparison, sits on a tighter lot, and will have the museum expansion, a hotel, and 120 units.

well maybe he'll build a slender tower here, Tour Verre V.2 anyone?

RobertWalpole · #50 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 12:57 AM**

Torre Verre was to be 1,250 feet tall with 786,562 square feet of space. Related's proposed tower likely will have 800,000 square feet.

Similarly, Carnegie 57 has about 861,000 square feet and is over 1,000 feet tall.

Related's goal is to make money, and a thin tower with maximal views of the park and city will produce that. Not a 600 foot tower on a huge base.

patriotizzy · #51 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 1:13 AM**

I guess it's good news after all! I hope they build a tall beauty such as 1WTC or Carnegie.

RobertWalpole · #52 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 1:15 AM**

I expect a thin, classic, limestone-clad tower by R.A.M. Stern. Related seems to use him for very high-end projects like this.

scalziand · #53 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 1:30 AM**

^^Something comparable to 99 Church?

RobertWalpole · #54 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 1:32 AM**

I would not be surprised to see something like that or like The Century in LA which Stern designed for Related (except a lot taller in NY).

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #55 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I would not be surprised to see something like that or like The Century in LA which Stern designed for Related (except a lot taller in NY).

oh God NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! *crosses fingers* glass...glass...glass...

RobertWalpole · #56 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 1:47 AM**

They went with glass at the TWC, but they seem to favor limestone for their latest, expensive projects, including the Harrison and the Brompton in NY and the Century in LA, all of which were designed by Stern. I love a nice stone facade. 15 CPW looks amazing.

UrbanImpact · #57 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 7:23 PM**

I prefer non glass if it's done classy.

NYguy · #58 Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

Torre Verre was to be 1,250 feet tall with 786,562 square feet of space. Related's proposed tower likely will have 800,000 square feet.

Similarly, Carnegie 57 has about 861,000 square feet and is over 1,000 feet tall.

Related's goal is to make money, and a thin tower with maximal views of the park and city will produce that. Not a 600 foot tower on a huge base.

What you people are not grasping here is that the signature retail store will cut out anywhere from a quarter to a third of that developable floor space. You want a taller tower here, as do I, but I also look at the reality. And even that's assuming Related gains control of the site, which it hasn't yet.

RobertWalpole · #59 Posted **Oct 8, 2010, 12:01 AM**

We're aware that Nordstrom may occupy a large part of the site. Nevertheless, a tall, thin tower on top of the base -- with maximal park views --to will maximize Related's revenues. People will not pay enormous sums for a view of the south facade of the museum at Columbus Circle.

While 1,000 feet or more is likely, this tower obviously could be 850 feet to 900 feet. It's unlikely that it would be less.

NYguy · #60 Posted **Oct 16, 2010, 2:13 PM**

Whatever the height, there would be great views...

andrew mace-