NEW YORK | 36 Central Park So. (Park Lane development) | FT | FLOORS

[sparkling]

Originally Posted by NYguy

There is the site directly behind (south) of this site, the Vornado controlled 31 W. 57th development wich will be an extremely high end hotel, and the site south of that, but offset a little to the west, 16 W. 57th, which would need to stretch up just to get over the Solow building.

Not sure if this was covered in another thread, but here is a little something about 16 W. 57th in case not everybody is aware what's going on there
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/09/wha...th-street.html

BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON SEPTEMBER 12TH 2014

Yesterday, Katherine Clarke at the Daily News broke the latest on 16 West 57th Street, which has been acquired by a group of Brazilians for $95 million. While renderings of the project have not yet been released, YIMBY has a first look at the most recent plans for the site, which come from developer B+B Capital.
Air rights total approximately 100,000 square feet, and the mid-block project is located on the prime 57th Street corridor, between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. While several supertalls are rising along the thoroughfare, 16 West 57th will be of a smaller scale, closer in size to the recently completed Viceroy, one block to the west.
Still, plans will apparently include condominiums above the hotel, so views may be a driving force behind the ultimate design. Unfortunately, the site is directly across the street from the Solow Building — which stands 689 feet tall — and barring a miracle of engineering, it will be impossible for residences to reach a height that would award Central Park panoramas.
The stretch of 57th between 5th and 6th Avenues has been quiet until recently, but several projects are on the near horizon. Across the street from 16 West 57th, Vornado is planning a 7-star hotel at 29-33 West 57th Street, where Rizzoli was formerly located. Another vacant lot at 52 West 57th Street was supposed to give rise to a 25-story and slightly over 200,000 square foot tower back in 2005, but that site is also likely owned by Vornado, and could potentially give rise to something significant, assuming additional air rights are assembled.
Schematics for the B+B’s 16 West 57th show a building approximately 30 stories tall, and while the eventual structure could be taller, anything over 500 feet would appear unlikely. Still, the site’s redevelopment presents an opportunity for the continued improvement of 57th Street, especially if it includes ground-level retail, which would seem likely given the street’s rapidly rising cache.

[NYguy]

You can read more about that one here...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=213156

[NYguy]

Listed among the newbies...


http://www.6sqft.com/living-in-the-c...he-sky-part-i/

Living in the Clouds: 50 New York Residential Towers Poised to Scrape the Sky (Part I)





OCTOBER 2, 2014
BY ONDEL HYLTON

36 Central Park South (Park Lane Hotel site)

Midtown West
Witkoff Group | Macklowe Properties
850 feet




Image shown for massing purposes only

[NYguy]

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/1...lane_hotel.php

Midtown Board Rejects Bid To Landmark the Park Lane Hotel








October 7, 2014
by Evan Bindelglass

In a contentious and lengthy hearing Monday evening, the landmarks committee of Midtown's Community Board 5 rejected a bid to have the 43-year-old Park Lane Hotel designated both an exterior and interior landmark. While community boards don't hold any actual power, they are advisory bodies whose decisions are carefully considered by city agencies like the Landmarks Preservation Commission. While the session was about the past and present, many fear what it will mean for the future.

The 46-story building, located at 36 Central Park South between Fifth and Sixth avenues was designed by the firm Emery Roth & Sons, and completed in 1971 at the commission of Harry Helmsley. It is a through-block building and the tallest building on Central Park South. It features a limestone and glass exterior, as well as a semi-circular driveway on 58th Street (the only "unique" feature committee member Renee Cafaro could come up with).

Last year, it was purchased by developer Steven Witkoff of the Witkoff Group and Macklowe Properties for $660 million. Supertall towers are popping up all over the area, and the fear is that the Witkoff group will raze the Park Lane and replace it with something nearly double the height. And the fear isn't unsubstantiated: Witkoff has said that he plans to demolish the building and build an 850-foot structure. That would require approval from the Bureau of Standard and Appeals, which has not happened, nor has a formal proposal for the future of the site.

Witkoff told the committee that he has a "deep respect for the community board process" and that if they saw it as a landmark, they would not take it down. His attorney pointed to architects' and critics' thoughts of the building. In fact, the New York Times reported that architect Richard Roth, Jr. didn't even consider it special, a point somewhat refuted by his daughter Robin, who was in attendance.

The team pushing for the landmark designation, which had initially asked chair Layla Law-Gisiko to recuse herself over previous press coverage of the issue, was represented at the meeting by architects John Furth Peachy and Mark Mueller. They had applied to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which actually makes decisions such as this, for full review to become a landmark, but was denied that at their staff level. At that time, they did not put the bid before the community board. Now, having done more research and put together a bigger presentation, they went before the community board with the hope of their blessing for re-application to the LPC.

Peachy and Mueller said the Park Lane Hotel reflects a "dynamic period" in New York City history and was the "crown jewel in the Helmsley empire." They pointed out how many original facets remain intact and noted that the building bridged the gap between modernism and post-modernism. They said the limestone was contextually consistent, and they also pointed to famous visitors, such as the members of Led Zeppelin having visited in 1976, Farrah Fawcett in 1978, and Aretha Franklin having had her 70th birthday party there.

But one member of the committee said the points raised were "so thin" that the building did not merit designation. He also said famous visitors didn't matter. Cafaro referred to the building as "generally bland" and said there are many examples of both this style and the architect himself still surviving in New York City. The motion to deny landmark status passed unanimously.

Members of the public who spoke were asked to speak only to the building as it exists today since what comes next is outside the purview of the landmarks committee. New construction not involving a landmark building is handled by the land use committee. That didn't stop them from expressing their fears. Nicholas West said he feared the "ramifications" of not landmarking the building and what it would do to the Central Park South skyline. He was not alone. Another said there were really only about ten years when Central Park South ruled and this was a reminder of that period. Roth's daughter said her father liked that the building had a top and bottom. Leo Blackman, President of the Historic Districts Council's board of directors, on the other hand, called the case for designation "pretty thin."

Monday's vote by the Community Board 5 landmarks committee doesn't mean the building can't be landmarked. While the LPC doesn't always rule with community boards, it certainly does take their votes into account.

[chris08876]

Good for them. The city can't be a museum forever. Another roadblock in the stuck up, grotesque looking female and old men NIMBY's attempts to halt progress.

The tower itself isn't really worth landmarking. The Plaza or Waldorf of course, but not this...

[Perklol]

I thought I was reading an entry from the NYT.

[mistermetAJ]

The Park Lane in no way deserves landmark status. However, the location certainly warrants a design review and contextual requirements. That massing model almost killed me. There should be much more stone than glass on whatever is built there. I get NY isnt a museum (everyone says that to defend every crappy design) but some places deserve more attention and better architecture than others. This location deserves the best, not the typical mediocre glass box.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by sparkling

Not sure if this was covered in another thread, but here is a little something about 16 W. 57th in case not everybody is aware what's going on there
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/09/wha...th-street.html

BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON SEPTEMBER 12TH 2014

Add more stone or brick an we have a winner. The massing is great but the facade in context with the street is way off as rendered.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Another roadblock in the stuck up, grotesque looking female and old men NIMBY's attempts to halt progress.

The tower itself isn't really worth landmarking. The Plaza or Waldorf of course, but not this...

LOL, you guys are harsh. Of course it isn't worth landmarking, the effort was put forth to block the tower, and the gullible people at that meeting are there mainly for that reason. It's not that they actually think it's something worth preserving, they don't want anything new built. They never do. They'd landmark a garbage can it they thought it would stop development. It's a shame that's what the landmarking process has come down to. But those interested in preserving true landmarks need to hijack the process back, it's become a joke.

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

The Park Lane in no way deserves landmark status. However, the location certainly warrants a design review and contextual requirements. That massing model almost killed me. There should be much more stone than glass on whatever is built there. I get NY isnt a museum (everyone says that to defend every crappy design) but some places deserve more attention and better architecture than others. This location deserves the best, not the typical mediocre glass box.

Well, for one thing, everyone says that because it's true. As far as "crappy design", you people who claim to be for preserving "landmarks" always throw in hypocritical comments about design. What that means is you would throw the "landmark" in the garbage with everything else if the design replacing it was something you thought worth while. That puts you in the boat with everyone else, who're you kidding.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Add more stone or brick an we have a winner. The massing is great but the facade in context with the street is way off as rendered.

That rendering was for a long-ago proposal for an assemblage that no longer exists, for a developer no longer involved.

Whatever is built on 57th Street, just behind the existing Park Lane, will have no resemblance to that proposal.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well, for one thing, everyone says that because it's true. As far as "crappy design", you people who claim to be for preserving "landmarks" always throw in hypocritical comments about design. What that means is you would throw the "landmark" in the garbage with everything else if the design replacing it was something you thought worth while. That puts you in the boat with everyone else, who're you kidding.

Where in my comment did I say the Park Lane should be landmarked? I AGREE it should not be.

However, the argument that "NY is not a museum" does nothing to asuage my resistance against bad architecture. Given the choice between keeping a non-landmark worthy yet well designed structure or a brand new eye sore, I'll take the former. That's not an argument against progress or for the embalming of NY, but for maintaining a certain amount of architectural integrity in the city. Especially in a prime location around Central Park.

As for the Park Lane, there is no rendering so clearly my concerns are for naught. However, I do hope the actual building is not as glassy as the massing.

[aaron38]

What's ridiculous about the design of the Park Lane as it stands today is that with those massive blank sidewalls, in 1971 it was clearly envisioned that the buildings on either side of it would also be torn down and replaced with buildings of equal or greater height. Obviously that never happened.

I wonder what those at the landmarks meeting would say to that? So that the architecture of the Park Lane could fulfill it's original vision as part of an even taller streetwall?

And on that line of thought, is the new building going to acquire air rights from it's neighbors, and thus have windows on the sides with guaranteed views? Or windows that one day could be blocked up?

[Submariner]

The Park Lane isn't overtly ugly, but it certainly doesn't capture the eye in a good way either. I'd love to see something along the lines of 220 CPS, 15 CPW, 30 Park Place there instead.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Where in my comment did I say the Park Lane should be landmarked? I AGREE it should not be.

However, the argument that "NY is not a museum" does nothing to asuage my resistance against bad architecture.

You may as well have stated as much. It's a generalization.

Given the choice between keeping a non-landmark worthy yet well designed structure or a brand new eye sore, I'll take the former.

And you prove my point exactly.

Originally Posted by aaron38

is the new building going to acquire air rights from it's neighbors, and thus have windows on the sides with guaranteed views? Or windows that one day could be blocked up?

They have the air rights from the building shown on the right...




They may eventually include more air rights in the development from other neighbors...

-The requested actions are sought in connection with the potential construction of a new building at 36 CPS with a height of approximately 850 feet;

-The action would allow for the transfer of approximately 52,000 square feet of unused developments rights from 40 CPS to 36 CPS;

-BSA approval is only needed for this zoning lot merger because an underlying variance is in place for the restaurant use. If no restaurant existed on the 40 CPS site then no BSA approval would be needed for the construction of a new building at 36 CPS with 40 CPS air rights;

-If the applicants were to merge with additional zoning lots that the applicant commits to return to the Community Board and Board of Standards and Appeals for a subsequent modification of their special permit. This modification only permits the use of 40 Central Park South air rights.

The applicant agrees to continue a discussion with Community Board Five about the design of the building as the design process unfolds.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

And you prove my point exactly.

How does preferring good architecture over bad mean I am railing against progress? It is just a rationalization that everything new is good because of "progress".

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

How does preferring good architecture over bad mean I am railing against progress? It is just a rationalization that everything new is good because of "progress".

"Good" and "Bad" architecture is totally subjective.

Old and new isn't subjective, though, so it could be argued you're using a subjective argument (your preference of old buildings) to attain objective goals (more old buildings and fewer new buildings).

But whatever. This building is a goner, and let's hope the replacement is nice.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by Crawford

"Good" and "Bad" architecture is totally subjective.

Old and new isn't subjective, though, so it could be argued you're using a subjective argument (your preference of old buildings) to attain objective goals (more old buildings and fewer new buildings).

But whatever. This building is a goner, and let's hope the replacement is nice.

I agree, the idea of good architecture is subjective, however it's not uncommon to see a general concensus, even on this message board, on virtues of a new building. For example, Steinway is virtually universally loved, Nordstrom, not.

Equating new to "progress" is also subjective, so both arguments are fallacious to a certain degree.

I agree, hopefully the replacement is nice. The Park Lane wasn't much to look at anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard to design a superior building.

[JayPro]

It became grossly outdated by the 1980's; and it irks me still that they allowed this undeservedly tall shrine to mediocrity tower over the grand dames of the Central Park cityscape.

[aquablue]

I stayed in that hotel last year. It's reasonably nice downstairs but the room was stuffy, outdated and AC loud, place seems like it needs to meet the wrecking ball. I won't bother going into detail about how dusty the bed was, etc. THANK GOD this POS is leaving us.

C. Park South is too much of a mix of bad and nice for it's stellar location in the city. It needs a major revamp over time, and this should help one of NY's premier streets shine again.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

How does preferring good architecture over bad mean I am railing against progress? It is just a rationalization that everything new is good because of "progress".

Originally Posted by Crawford

"Good" and "Bad" architecture is totally subjective.

Exactly. And deciding what should stay or go based on one's personal taste is what I was talking about. And just so mistermetAJ knows, "new" is progress:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progress

2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) :


You may not like the progress being made, but that doesn't make it not so. Or do you think people throw away the large sums associated with development just for the hell of it?

Originally Posted by aquablue

C. Park South is too much of a mix of bad and nice for it's stellar location in the city. It needs a major revamp over time, and this should help one of NY's premier streets shine again.

Those buildings along CPS are mostly nothing special, but they work together to form the "Central Park South" streetwall that is the border of the park's southern end, similar to 5th Ave and CPW. As we've seen with 15 CPW, the new can work as well.