NY POST

ROSEN BUYS Y SITE FOR CONDOS

http://www.nypost.com/photos/biz011305038.jpg
Y NOT: Developers Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs have worked out a deal to purchase the YWCA site (above) so they can build condo apartments.

January 13, 2005 -- Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs are buying the YWCA site at 610 Lexington Ave. for $31.5 million, The Post has learned.

Sources say the duo intends to build a sky-high skyscraper of at least 50-stories that will likely become some kind of residential condominium with perhaps a hotel component.

Rosen could not be reached for comment but his company, RFR Holdings, became the likely buyers, as their Seagram Building shares the block.

Along with unused air rights from Seagram at 375 Park Ave., they can also transfer development rights across Park Ave. from their landmarked Lever House.

Additionally, they purchased other air rights from the London & Leeds developed Manhattan Tower at 101 E. 52nd St. also on the block due south of the Y.

The 1915 building is not landmarked and sits on a plot of nearly 10,000 square feet.

There is no height limitation on Park Avenue. The building is diagonally across the street from the Citigroup Center, which rises 915 feet to 59 stories.

The Y is holding a press conference this morning to announce its closing schedule and a special deal for members with a health club.

The YWCA offices will likely move to one of the United Federation of Teachers buildings at 50-52 Broadway, where it can continue to serve women, sources said.

Cushman & Wakefield's capital-markets team, led by Charles Kingsley, handled the sale.

The firm was preparing to help sell the property and relocate the Y in 2001 before Sept. 11. C&W declined comment.

"The Y has always been a challenge," said David Lebenstein of Time Equities who, with a partner, completed a similar deal for the McBurney YMCA.

That Y moved from 23rd Street to a new building on 14th Street.

"It is not because the real estate isn't extremely valuable," said Lebenstein, "but because relocating them to an affordable site with a gym, pool and other amenities is extremely expensive and difficult in Manhattan when you are competing with all these crazy residential deals."

Im not so sure, thats a decent looking building...couldnt they pull a Hearst and build atop or use the skin?

^Agreed. But a minumum of 50 sounds good any day. Maybe they'll raise it?

That would be sweet. :righton:

that'd be cool, if they can build the new skyscraper over the ywca, or at least preserve the facade of the lower floors.

if it's built, then that means there'll be 3 tall (100m+) skyscrapers crowded onto the same block. yikes! i just hope the building won't dwarf seagram.

good news nonetheless :)

Nice, that's right across the street from Citicorp.
Too bad the old building looks pretty classy, cad to see it go.

wow! sounds good but I agree with the rest they maybe should look at preserving the old facade and integrate in with the new tower! Let it be a new trend in nyc after Hearst I would say! :)

Any pictures of the sugested historic building to be demolished?
I tried to find on Emporis but there is nothing there....

^I feel like a fool,I hadn't seen the picture above the article...
:hammer:

wow! sounds good but I agree with the rest they maybe should look at preserving the old facade and integrate in with the new tower! Let it be a new trend in nyc after Hearst I would say! :)
It's been done before Hearst. Good idea though.

Great news, the tower will be designed by Norman Foster...

NY POST

E. SIDE HOTEL IS IN WORKS

By STEVE CUOZZO

October 11, 2005 -- SIR Norman Foster, designer of Hearst Corp.'s striking new tower at Eighth Avenue and 57th Street, has landed his next big Manhattan commission: the residential/hotel project that Aby Rosen's RFR Holding LLC plans on the site of the former YWCA at 610 Lexington Ave. at 53rd Street.

My colleague Lois Weiss first reported RFR's $31.5 million purchase of the site last winter.

Now, Rosen's spokesperson confirms the hiring of Foster, one of the world's greatest architects whose green glass Hearst tower rises like a jack-in-the-box atop the original masonry base.

RFR also owns the landmarked, Mies van der Rohe-designed Seagram Building at 375 Park Ave. on the same block as the Y site. RFR plans to transfer air rights from Seagram to the new project, which will likely be 50 stories or more.

Fantastic news. Another biggy for NYC

705 feet sounds good to me!

NY Times

In Deal for New Tower, Protection for Old One

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/11/25/nyregion/25seag184.1.jpg
The former Y.W.C.A. building at 610 Lexington Avenue will soon make way for a new building. Behind it, to the right, is the Seagram Building, which many regard as an architectural jewel. As part of the deal, the Seagram's owners will be required to permanently maintain its building's exterior in nearly pristine condition.

By THOMAS J. LUECK
Published: November 25, 2005

The city's Landmarks Preservation Commission has approved the transfer of unused development rights from the venerated Seagram Building on Park Avenue to an adjacent site on Lexington Avenue that will allow for construction of a large hotel and condominium building there.

In return, the owners of the Seagram Building would be required to permanently maintain the exterior of their 50-year-old modernist skyscraper, which is widely regarded as one of the most significant contributions to the urban architecture since World War II, in something close to pristine condition. The 38-story Seagram Building at 53rd Street and Park Avenue was designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

The arrangement "ensures the highest level of protection for the Seagram Building, one of the world's most significant works by a genius of modern architecture, but it also provides New York City with a landmark of the future," said Robert B. Tierney, the Landmarks commission's chairman. The commission approved the deal unanimously on Wednesday after reviewing a plan for the new hotel and condominium tower by Norman Foster, the British architect.

The terms of the development proposal, which must still be reviewed by the city's Planning Commission, call for transferring air rights, development rights that were not used when the Seagram Building was built in the mid-1950's.

The new residential tower, at 53rd Street and Lexington Avenue, would be taller, but distinctly slimmer, than the Seagram Building. It would replace a former Y.W.C.A. building.

The bronze and glass exterior of the Seagram Building is already protected from alteration as a city landmark. But under the development rights transfer, its present and future owners would adhere to deed restrictions requiring careful maintenance and city inspections every five years.

Similar arrangements have been made to protect other city landmarks whose owners have sold unused development rights. But the terms sanctioned on Wednesday would introduce an extraordinary level of protection for a modern skyscraper.

"You might think that the Seagram building is only 50 years old, and it's in good shape, so why worry?" said Michael T. Sillerman, a lawyer for the building's owner, RFR Holdings L.L.C. "But modernist buildings have to be in pristine condition. They don't age well."

The development plan was endorsed by several civic and architectural groups, including the Municipal Art Society, the American Institute of Architects, and the New York Landmarks Conservancy.
But one group, the Historic Districts Council, argued on Wednesday that the residential tower, which would rise 705 feet behind the 515-foot Seagram building, would be too high.

Fredric M. Bell, executive director of the city chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said yesterday that the new building would complement the Seagram Building.

The proposed Lexington Avenue tower would be a thin rectangle, without the lower-floor setbacks of many skyscrapers, and would be built of glass and light-colored structural materials selected to contrast with the dark brown hues of the Seagram building.

"The problem here was, 'How do you build something next to one of the most beautiful modern buildings in the country, if not the world?' Mr. Bell said. He said Lord Foster's design would have a "harmonious relationship" with the Seagram Building and others nearby.

RFR Holdings, which acquired the Seagram Building in 2000, also holds a large stake in the former Y.W.C.A. building, which it bought this year with Hines Interests, a real estate development company.

RFR is controlled by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs, German investors who have acquired 9 residential buildings and 21 office buildings, mainly in Manhattan, since the late 1980's. RFR also owns Lever House.

Mr. Rosen said yesterday that he had always considered the Y.W.C.A. next to the Seagram Building an eyesore in a neighborhood with many distinguished modern buildings, and his interest was piqued when the Y.W.C.A. put its building up for sale earlier this year.

RFR eventually gained control of Y.W.C.A. property over last six months.

"This gives us an opportunity to build from scratch in one of Manhattan's most desirable locations," Mr. Rosen said. The added layer of protection for the Seagram Building "will announce to the world that we do this not just because we love the building, but because there is a control mechanism," he said.

Mr. Rosen said he expects construction to begin next year, pending Planning Commission approval.

good for the seagram, huh?

So it would be a big slim box, no setbacks, tall, thin and carefully selected colors to contrast Seagram's, eh?
Well I don't see the problem in that, if it's done to emphasize the Seagram, even if it's ove 50 stories tall, I'm still for it.

sounds good, hopefully looks awesome...We want pics Sir Foster!! :)

its stupid to knock down a nice old building that is perfectly sound
isnt there anything uglier or crappier around there that they could develop instead?

or is the ywca building messed up?

its stupid to knock down a nice old building that is perfectly sound
isnt there anything uglier or crappier around there that they could develop instead?

or is the ywca building messed up?

Main reason why it's going down...

Mr. Rosen said yesterday that he had always considered the Y.W.C.A. next to the Seagram Building an eyesore in a neighborhood with many distinguished modern buildings, and his interest was piqued when the Y.W.C.A. put its building up for sale earlier this year.

RFR eventually gained control of Y.W.C.A. property over last six months.

Main reason why it's going down...


its an eyesore?
wtf?

am i crazy in thinking its not?

I personally find it sad when nice tall buildings are torn down,
true its not too distinctive, so i guess its not as big a tragedy as the lollipop building, i wouldnt go and start a campaign to save it or anything,

i would like to see the design for the new building,

i am just afraid of NYC losing its diversity of building style if destruction is TOO rampant,

I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but I found these articles with these pics:
http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/news.cr?noteid=5681
http://www.cityrealty.com/new_developments/news.cr?noteid=6041
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/985/1131742982610lex7zo.gif
http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/9264/1132699205lex610z6on.gif

DONT DESTROY THE OLD ONE PLEASE!!

This is an interesting tower - it looks like one of Foster's towers currently being built in Sydney - Lumiere & Fraser Suites:

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/8797/sydney2vp.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/944/sydney10fh.jpg

I agree with the people who have mentioned before that this building should be built on top of the older building. I think mixing old buildings with new ones could become a great trend for the future.

Towering over Mies


http://www.archpaper.com/images/news/021206_tower.jpg


Andrew Yang
02.16.2006

A proposed office tower by Norman Foster, 610 Lexington Avenue, would
rise adjacent to the iconic Mies van der Rohe–designed Seagram Building.

Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building may be getting a new neighbor, in the form of a slender, nearly 700-foot-tall highrise building from Lord Norman Foster. The project, spearheaded by RFR Holdings, is planned for the site of an old YWCA on the same block, at 610 Lexington Avenue at the corner of 53rd Street. To build the project, RFR is seeking to transfer unused air rights from the 1957 modernist icon in order to build a tower with 80 to 90 condominiums and a 45- to 50-room hotel.

The Seagram Building’s design has been heralded for its dramatic use of a large plaza which sets the building back nearly 90 feet from the sidewalk. As a result, the Seagram only uses part of its site. The building, at 375 Park Avenue, is not built to the maximum height allowable by zoning laws. RFR is a high-profile real estate firm headed by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs. The company owns the Seagram Building and the Lever House, among other properties in the city. The New York Post reported in January 2005 that Rosen and Fuchs paid $31.5 million for the YWCA property.

So far, the project has won approval from the Landmarks Preserveration Commission, a plan that stipulates maintenance standards for the Seagram as part of the transfer. The developers are now seeking approval from the Department of City Planning to waive a setback rule so that the tower could rise as one continuous slab, set back 10 feet from the street. Despite the fact that 610 Lexington Avenue will be nearly 200 feet taller than its neighbor, it is unlikely to cast shadows on the Seagram due to its slender shape and distance from the Mies building. RFR also insists that the tower will be barely visible from Seagram’s plaza.

“When you look at the Seagram building from 53rd Street, the form is that of a shaft and a bustle,” said Michael Sillerman, legal counsel to RFR, noting that Seagram looks like one slender tower but hides a complex at its base. “The process [transfering of air rights] allows us to mirror that bustle-and-shaft design.”


Copyright © 2005 The Architect's Newspaper, LLC

save the old building please!!!

looks like it'll beat chicago's waterview tower in the thinnest tower contest.

otherwise, it's an okay design, but if they want a thicker tower (which they have already indicated), building it somewhere else is a better solution. i mean, the site's only about 1/8 of a block big...

Sadly another beautiful old building will be demolished. There is space enough more outside the city, they should build their towers over there and the skyline will grow.

Sadly another beautiful old building will be demolished. There is space enough more outside the city, they should build their towers over there and the skyline will grow.

but then they would be missing the manhattan street address and the prestige that comes with that. You guys cant save every building i mean come on that old building ive seen hundreds that look just like it its a freakin generic old building, which im willing to bet has an out dated floor plan. Besides its small and ugly my god every post i see in the new york forum people are upset they are tearing down some crappy old peice of junk for a beautiful new skyscraper that is way better. If it were up to some of you guys nothing new would ever be built in manhattan i just dont understand. If im missing something here please enlighten me, i just dont see the importance of an outdated, ugly, old ywca building.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be demolished. But I can still say that there is an argument on both sides. No side is radical here. The building is nice... its historic regardless of it not being protected, and overall, it would not necessarily be better at street level with this new tower in its place. However, it is nice to see another nice new skyscraper sore up on park ave with a new floorplan and a fresh new look.

I guess overall, you can't save everything... but u can certainly save some things. And if its going to be built, then its going to be built. It isn't the greatest injustice. When it is, hopefully the voices will be so loud that we can stop it in its tracks. But right now, I don't see this as big an injustice as demolishing other historic structures in the city of NY. Doesn't mean it isn't a nice piece of art in the skyscraper and urban realm tho

im really intrigued as to why would they choose this tiny site on a block already 7/8 filled with seagram building and another shorter skyscraper besides the ywca building. it's not like they're vying for a park ave address since the building's on lexington ave. and im sure there are other sites among the midtown stretch of lexington ave north of the seagram building block that contains a bigger site for development.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be demolished. But I can still say that there is an argument on both sides. No side is radical here. The building is nice... its historic regardless of it not being protected, and overall, it would not necessarily be better at street level with this new tower in its place. However, it is nice to see another nice new skyscraper sore up on park ave with a new floorplan and a fresh new look.

I guess overall, you can't save everything... but u can certainly save some things. And if its going to be built, then its going to be built. It isn't the greatest injustice. When it is, hopefully the voices will be so loud that we can stop it in its tracks. But right now, I don't see this as big an injustice as demolishing other historic structures in the city of NY. Doesn't mean it isn't a nice piece of art in the skyscraper and urban realm tho

I agree with you. I just feel bad for the developers and contractors who have to deal with this crap getting in their way. I just see this one as an especially bad example of people trying to save a building just because its old, I mean everybody has their own tastes, but god id hate to see that building in any city its freakin ugly as hell. I could understand if someone wanted to tear down the waldorf astoria or something but this is ridiculous.

^well I do agree that we can't save every building, and that this particular building has nothing interesting, but we must keep at least something from the past.
We do not want all towers to be the same, we want diversity, this is why I love CBDs like New York's where glass is next to stone next to tenements next to a classical facade, etc.
On the other hand, something like Houston looks artificial, and if New York just destroys anything old, it's bad. Of course, you have a point in that if we can't destroy anything anymore, it's ever worse, it makes the city like Paris or Rome, a gigantic open-air museum.

The second part of my post is directed to Gazmo, I do not see any resemblance between this proposed tower and the one in Sydney.

And to end, now I feel like it might be a bad idea to commission Foster for the job, after the Tower of Russia debacle, Foster seems like a foolish old man.

believe me, if this old tower had true historic significance, I would be the first one standing up... (probably just on here tho, lol)

But in the end, its just a nice building that we don't want to see go away... that's all! So..... whatever! There's a lot of nice old buildings in NY... and buildings that mean a whole lot more than this one. But again, I see both sides. Lets hope this design looks good on Park once its done...

And when they talk about demolishing a true icon, trust me, people will scream like you have no idea, and we'll save it as we should. Lets just hold our emotions and energy till that time comes. But somehow, I doubt it will because people are not that stupid... even if it makes business sense.

people are not that stupid...

I should retract that statement :D