NEW YORK | 3 Columbus Circle | FT | FLOORS - Page 2

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #21 Posted **Sep 9, 2010, 12:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obey

This is such a shame. Just a disaster...

but we may be getting another supertall!

babybackribs2314 · #22 Posted **Sep 9, 2010, 1:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obey

This is such a shame. Just a disaster...

It's amazing how $100 million literally just went down the drain--that money could have done so many things but it literally went down the drain. How does this happen?!? Obviously the new supertall will be nice, but seriously... that money could have gone to so many things and it literally will have been used for nothing when this is demolished...

NYonward · #23 Posted **Sep 9, 2010, 1:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

It's amazing how $100 million literally just went down the drain--that money could have done so many things but it literally went down the drain. How does this happen?!? Obviously the new supertall will be nice, but seriously... that money could have gone to so many things and it literally will have been used for nothing when this is demolished...

He took a big chance and it didn't pay off. The old building/facade was not going to attract the high-rent tenants that are coveted. Timing is where it's at in Real Estate. If the market had remained strong he would likely look like a genius. It didn't, he has an empty building and now comes out on the wrong end.

NYguy · #24 Posted **Sep 9, 2010, 3:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyo

He took a big chance and it didn't pay off. The old building/facade was not going to attract the high-rent tenants that are coveted. Timing is where it's at in Real Estate. If the market had remained strong he would likely look like a genius. It didn't, he has an empty building and now comes out on the wrong end.

Location also probably hurt just a little. Of all the companies currently looking for large amounts of space, I don't really see many of them moving to that particular neighborhood to that particular tower. To a much larger skyscraper, maybe. I just don't see it.

It's also ironic that the two evils that some people go crazy over (1. Reclading a building in glass, and 2. Demolishing a building outright), could both take place to one building over the course of a couple of years. Probably one of those only in New York stories. But that's why we love it.

RobertWalpole · #25 Posted **Sep 9, 2010, 6:05 PM**

Large companies want new space with great wiring for computer systems, etc.

Putting glass on an old building does not make it new space. Therefore, no high-end financial or law firm would move there.

I loved the old building, but as long as it's now ruined, I'm all for razing it and building a 300m+ tower in its place.

scalziand · #26 Posted **Sep 9, 2010, 6:12 PM**

While I'm sure that all of us wish the reclad had never happened, this possibility seems like it could be an improvement over the reclad building.

RobertWalpole · #27 Posted **Sep 9, 2010, 6:34 PM**

While I loved the old building, this could be the fourth 300m+ tower to rise on the CPS skyline over the next few years. This could be monumental.

NYC4Life · #28 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 1:24 AM**

Another potential supertall for Central Park South, I can smell the NIMBYs already attempting to block this.

RobertWalpole · #29 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 11:18 AM**

I don't see how they could lock it if it's built as of right.

hunser · #30 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 12:01 PM**

never underestimate the power of the NIMBYs!

RobertWalpole · #31 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 12:17 PM**

They weren't able to do anything about Extell's Carnegie 57 because it is being built as-of-right. Torre Verre, by contrast, required approval for air rights transfers from non-contiguous properties.

hunser · #32 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 1:00 PM**

i know but there will be lawsuits en masse, i can promise you that. if they can't stop it, then they will try to stall the project as long as possible.

NYguy · #33 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 1:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

While I'm sure that all of us wish the reclad had never happened,

Whoah, slow down there. I know the old thread has been lost to history, but I was never one of those upset over the recladding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC4Life

Another potential supertall for Central Park South,

Another request to slow down. I think you're all getting ahead of yourselves with this talk of a supertall. Let's just sit back and wait for an actual proposal to see what takes shape.

RobertWalpole · #34 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

i know but there will be lawsuits en masse, i can promise you that. if they can't stop it, then they will try to stall the project as long as possible.

There may be. However, they will be groundless and should be dismissed on summary judgment.

Dac150 · #35 Posted **Sep 10, 2010, 7:54 PM**

This guy gambled with what he had on the assumption that an A-list company would bail him out with a big lease signing. I’m sure he knew what he is now facing was a probable and likely outcome. I’m still amazed on how this whole thing played out; it’s like an exceptionally aggressive hostile takeover.

It does go to show how this area has and is continuing to evolve into a high end / swanky part of town.

NYguy · #36 Posted **Sep 11, 2010, 7:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

It does go to show how this area has and is continuing to evolve into a high end / swanky part of town.

Hey, they've got "fashion week" now. It's all up from there...

patriotizzy · #37 Posted **Sep 11, 2010, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

It's amazing how $100 million literally just went down the drain--that money could have done so many things but it literally went down the drain. How does this happen?!? Obviously the new supertall will be nice, but seriously... that money could have gone to so many things and it literally will have been used for nothing when this is demolished...

I don't think it literally went down the drain. After all, they had to pay someone to do the renovations right?

scalziand · #38 Posted **Sep 12, 2010, 7:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

I don't think it literally went down the drain. After all, they had to pay someone to do the renovations right?

The point is that if the building gets demolished, the renovations will have been pointless; wasted money.

NYguy · #39 Posted **Sep 13, 2010, 11:28 AM**

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...aqRQ22UWRO67sM

Moinian's Columbus circus

By LOIS WEISS
September 13, 2010

Quote:

Developer Joseph Moinian is turning to SL Green Realty Trust in a bid to stop Stephen Ross' Related Cos. from buying his mortgage at 3 Columbus Circle, foreclosing on the office tower, tearing it down and building a modern tower, The Post has learned.

Moinian is trying to hammer out a deal with SL Green Realty Trust to lend him enough to pay off the mortgage, complete the extensive renovations and provide capital tenant installations in the 700,000-square-foot office building, sources said.

The older office building has already been reclad with a new curtain wall, but has yet to sign a new anchor tenant since Newsweek moved downtown several years ago.

That may change, however. Concurrently with a possible financing deal with SL Green, sources say, Moinian is poised to land the William Morris agency at the location, formerly known as 1775 Broadway.

The plan, made in concert with his broker, Newmark Knight Frank, would have Moinian sign a non-disturbance agreement with the tenant in order to thwart Ross' takeover ambitions.

None of the parties could be reached for comment over the weekend.

RobertWalpole · #40 Posted **Sep 13, 2010, 12:09 PM**

This would suck.