NEW YORK | One Manhattan Square ( 227 Cherry ) | 847 FT / 258 M | 72 FLOORS - Page 7

NYguy · #**121** Posted **Sep 29, 2014, 12:28 PM**

As expected, this will be a massive tower, visible from many locations...

chris08876 · #**122** Posted **Oct 4, 2014, 11:26 PM**

Extell’s 68-Story ‘Tetris Tower’ Will Have Private Bowling Alley, Swimming Pools, and Basketball Court

Quote:

Some new details just came down the pike regarding the 68-story Extell phallus rising onsite. While plans for the so-called “Tetris Tower” still carry “disapproved” status by the Department of Buildings, zoning documents on file give us a better idea of what to expect.

We already know that the 800-foot building will house 790 luxury apartments and roughly 29,000 square-feet of commercial retail space for a store. However, it’s definitely worth pointing out the tenant amenities available in this juggernaut, especially given the “poor door” property for low-income families adjacent.

Let’s start with the cellar:

1,874 square-foot lap pool (plus accessory kiddie pool)
Basketball court
Bowling Alley
Male and female locker rooms
Squash court
Golf simulator
Turkish bath (“hammam”)

An open-air lap pool will also grace the fifth floor, “the top level of the base on which the residential tower sits.”

By the way, zero community facility space.

Meanwhile, the rhythmic, migraine-inducing pounding of pile drivers has begun, but according to Lend Lease, should only last two weeks. The project manager promises that they’ll “take every measure to ensure that work will be performed safely,” and ensure that there are “minimal disruptions.” Right. Tell that to the neighbors – particularly those in the adjacent Two Bridges Tower – who will deal with vibrating homes.

================================
http://www.boweryboogie.com/2014/10/...ketball-court/

NYguy · #**123** Posted **Oct 5, 2014, 12:13 PM**

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...2-park-avenue/

Richard Berenholtz on Photographing the Rise of 432 Park Avenue

Joseph Kellard
October 4, 2014

Quote:

Kellard: Will your photos of 432 Park form the basis for a new book? What projects will you be working on in the future?

Berenholtz: There has already been a beautiful book of photographs of the foundation portion of the project, which was designed by the late and brilliant Massimo Vignelli. He was someone whom I knew and admired when I was an architect, and it was a dream come true to work with him on this book. There has been talk of doing another book documenting the remainder of the project, but nothing definite yet.

As for new projects, I’m always working on a number of things. At the moment, some of those include 220 Central Park South for Vornado, and One Manhattan Square at the foot of the Manhattan Bridge for Extell. I am also still involved in One WTC as the designated photographer. Also, Rizzoli has recently published an updated mid-sized edition of my book New York New York. It has fifty-one new images, and to the best of my knowledge it is presently the only book available with numerous photographs of the completed One WTC or Freedom Tower.

I guess it'll be known as 1 Manhattan Square.

NYguy · #**124** Posted **Oct 15, 2014, 9:52 PM**

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

Lower East Side Board Joins the Anti-Poor Door Movement

Wednesday, October 15, 2014
by Shannon Ayala

Quote:

A poor door war is going down in the Lower East Side. Neighbors spoke out against income-divided buildings at a meeting last June and now the community board is putting ink behind the sentiment. Over the summer, a general debate over separate entrances for affordable and market rate tenants spiraled out of the Upper West Side, further provoking CB3 members to take part in the anti-poor door movement. "The laws that are set up do not reflect what we want as a neighborhood," said board member MyPhuong Chung. "They're not conducive to creative the kind of world we want to live in." The impetus for the board's decision to make a statement is Extell's proposed development on Cherry Street and South Street, which would have separate market rate and affordable buildings.

Extell—Gary Barnett and company really love poor doors—plans to build a 68-story, 790 market-rate unit tower at 227 Cherry Street (addressed at 250 South Street) and a smaller 13-story, 205-unit affordable building. The larger building, to be designed by Adamson Associates, is expected to have outlandish amenities such as a bowling alley and a Turkish Bath, while the same can't be expected for the affordable priced building.

Representatives with Extell were in the house and presented a one page defense of the separated buildings. These were the reasons:

· Combining the buildings would delay overall construction and "add a significant premium on the structure."

· Financing doesn't come easy for combined rental/condo developments and "buyers are hesitant to purchase in these types of projects."

· Separate buildings allow Extell to hire a management company that specializes in affordable housing to manage the affordable housing.

The statement added, "Extell is committed to helping in (the city's effort to build affordable housing) but can only do so where it can make a reasonable return on its investment."

A couple of board members departed from their peers at times. "Two hundred and five units sounds like a lot of affordable housing to me," said one member, afraid Extell will bail if it can't do what it wants.

But the peers expressed certainty that Extell would not flee the neighborhood if all its desires weren't met. The main idea: Extell is only building affordable housing for the bonus that allows them to build more market rate units. "We should collectively put something on paper and also let our local elected officials know we don't agree with them getting all these subsidies," said board member Enrique Cruz.

The committee voted on a resolution proposing to prohibit new developments that would have segregated doors or entrances. Of the dozen members, one person voted opposite and another abstained.

If Extell can't build its affordable housing separately, the Lower East Side might at least get a new plaza. Noted in the statement, "should Extell not be afforded the ability to build two separate buildings, it will consider the plaza bonus option."

scalziand · #**125** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 2:20 AM**

Because a plaza is going to add so much more to the neighborhood than 200+ units of affordable housing...

NYguy · #**126** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 8:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

Because a plaza is going to add so much more to the neighborhood than 200+ units of affordable housing...

That's just what those ingrates will get. You know, you can only complain and demand so much from developers when these things are getting built. These boards always feel they have the power to demand anything, and that is not the case. They are very close to finding that out.

Submariner · #**127** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 1:55 PM**

Je**s Ch***t. What a bunch of spoiled a**holes.

You should be thanking whatever god or cosmic fate there is that you're getting a nice place in a nice development for so little money, not complaining that you have to use a separate entrance.

Notyrview · #**128** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 2:32 PM**

Actually, you should be complaining that you have to use a separate entrance. We decided that 'separate but equal' was not ok in 1954, and then again in 1964. There's nothing ungrateful about demanding equality, neanderthal views to the contrary notwithstanding.

chris08876 · #**129** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 2:36 PM**

New York is the Capitalist shrine. If anything, equality is not expected. Kill or be killed is the mentality.

Submariner · #**130** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Actually, you should be complaining that you have to use a separate entrance. We decided that 'separate but equal' was not ok in 1954, and then again in 1964. There's nothing ungrateful about demanding equality, neanderthal views to the contrary notwithstanding.

We did no such thing.

Racial equality has nothing to do with monetary equality. If what you're saying is true, I'd have equal access to 1st class seats on airliners, luxury apartments in the city and sports cars as "wealthy people" do because I would have the same resources that they do.

These buildings do not discriminate on the grounds of race, but on the grounds of income. There is nothing immoral about that, unless of course you feel entitled to something you didn't earn in which case, your problem should be with the system as a whole, not just a building.

I'd love to live in a beautiful building with great amenities but ironically, I make too much - more than the minimum cutoff for affordable housing, less than for the market rates. I'm not complaining about being discriminated against, but then again, I don't feel like other people should be paying for what I can earn through hard work and smart investing.

antinimby · #**131** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 6:40 PM**

^ Well said.

BTW, I thought permits were filed already. I don't think the CB would have any say at this point.

Crawford · #**132** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Actually, you should be complaining that you have to use a separate entrance. We decided that 'separate but equal' was not ok in 1954, and then again in 1964. There's nothing ungrateful about demanding equality, neanderthal views to the contrary notwithstanding.

You have to be joking.

You are seriously equating the civil rights movement with separate doors within buildings for separate uses??

There are hundreds of buildings all over Manhattan with separate doors, because they are multiuse buildings.

How do you propose to design buildings? You want one door for all uses? So the Time Warner Center should have the same door for the shopping mall, the hotel, the condos, the office, and the theater, just because you say so?

And the funniest thing is that you claim that the current policy is "unequal", when you are the one demanding unequal treatment. If you wanted everyone to be treated equally, then they would all be paying the same rent, having the same amenities, and the like. In other words, there should only be 100% market rate housing, or 100% subsidized housing.

NYguy · #**133** Posted **Oct 16, 2014, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview

Actually, you should be complaining that you have to use a separate entrance. We decided that 'separate but equal' was not ok in 1954, and then again in 1964. There's nothing ungrateful about demanding equality, neanderthal views to the contrary notwithstanding.

At first, I thought this was a joke, but apparently not.

So if we're all for equality, how about we just let everyone pay the market rates that the majority in the development will pay. For those who can't afford it, or would benefit from the "affordable" units, well equality is the name of the game. Or so you would have it.

Yes, there absolutely is something wrong with demanding more than what the developer is supposedly providing - an affordable unit.

NYguy · #**134** Posted **Dec 29, 2014, 11:01 AM**

http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...work-site.html

City Issues Partial Stop Work Order at Extell’s Cherry Street Construction Site

By Ed Litvak
December 20, 2014

Quote:

Extell Development Corp. has been stepping up work lately at the former Pathmark site on Cherry Street, where it’s building a 68-story luxury residential tower. But yesterday the Department of Buildings slapped a partial stop work order on the whole site, which carries the addresses 227 Cherry St. and 250 South St. The inspector noted: “No excavation operations. Provide site safety manager forthwith.”

Earlier in the day yesterday we toured the area around the construction site with Trever Holland and Elaine Hoffman, tenant leaders at Two Bridges Tower, the adjacent building. In the past several days, they said, engineers have been patching the walkway alongside the construction site as the concrete buckles and cracks.

There are also concerns about the stability of the former Pathmark pharmacy building, which sits just to the east of the Extell development parcel, as well as a daycare center located on the ground floor of the Two Bridges building.

Crews from Lend Lease, Extell’s contractor, have been installing metal sheeting along the perimeter of the site in preparation for digging the foundation for the massive skyscraper.

Residents have been urging Extell to schedule quarterly meetings to answer questions and address issues that come up. So far, Holland, said, they have not committed to doing that.

UPDATE 12/22 Here’s what we’re told by Victor Papa of the Two Bridges Neighborhood Council, the co-owner of Two Bridges Tower. He initially became concerned about construction issues alongside the daycare center and went to talk with Extell representatives about the situation. After expressing worries about safety and the integrity of the wall that is adjacent to the construction site, Two Bridges brought in their own engineer to have a look. Papa said he was ultimately satisfied that steps were being taken to make sure the day care center and residents were not being endangered.

He points out, as noted above, that the “stop work order” is related to the absence of site safety manager and not because of the buckling/cracking sidewalk. Papa said Extell has promised to repair the walkway area.

Meanwhile, drama at a neighboring site where a 47-story tower was planned...

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.2048636

Real estate developer sues nonprofit for $50M over dashed housing plans

December 17, 2014

http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...macy-site.html

Quote:

The lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court, is known as “Little Cherry LLC vs. Two Bridges Housing Development Company and Two Bridges Associates.” In the complaint, Schoenberg’s attorneys say he agreed to purchase the development site in 2012 for $4 million.

The project was envisioned as a 47-story tower with 309 apartments, ground floor commercial space and a community facility to be used by Two Bridges Neighborhood Council. There would be 70 rent stabilized apartments for families earning 80% of Area Median Income. A portion of the building would be cantilevered over part of the existing single story structure.

This design work-around was made necessary because Extell Development, which is building a massive project on the neighboring site, holds a lease on a section of the former Pathmark pharmacy building until the year 2044.