NEW YORK | 432 Park Ave | 426m | 1398ft | 89 fl | U/C

[ZwarteRidder]

Originally Posted by Hed_Kandi

What an absolute failure on the part of NY planning department. These facades can easily be incorporated into the new building.

Here's an example of Jameson House by Norman Foster which is currently under construction in my home city of Vancouver.

Render:





Under Construction:





Early under construction photo showing preservation of facade:

what are they going to do with those smaller buildings.,>?

[Hed_Kandi]

Originally Posted by ZwarteRidder

what are they going to do with those smaller buildings.,>?

Restaurants and Retail.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by Hed_Kandi

What an absolute failure on the part of NY planning department. These facades can easily be incorporated into the new building.

This has also been done in Chicago, most notably with Legacy at Millennium Park.

[Turbosnail]

That's interesting Norman Foster is good at preserving original parts of buildings - Hearst is another good one by Foster which preserves much of the original building.

[Vormek]

Who gives a fuck if they demolish that old ugly building? There are plenty of other old buildings in New York that looks way better.

[DinoVabec]

Now, that's a great job..

You have buildings from 20th century or even earlier down, then 21st century architecture up...Meybe, next century they build 22st century architecture up on 21st century architecture... Just like layers of rock thru the history..

[kingsc]

The lil red building is nice I would have saved it to.

[chjbolton]

Originally Posted by DinoVabec

Now, that's a great job..

You have buildings from 20th century or even earlier down, then 21st century architecture up...Meybe, next century they build 22st century architecture up on 21st century architecture... Just like layers of rock thru the history..

That was the main idea developed by the designers for the movie "The Fifth Element". Check it out

[RobertWalpole]

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/artic...st-57th-street

Harry Macklowe to go head-to-head with subtenant over eviction at former Drake site
October 06, 2010

By David Jones


Harry Macklowe and 38 East 57th StreetA state Supreme Court judge ordered developer Harry Macklowe to face off in arbitration against a retail subtenant that filed a $20 million lawsuit to block an eviction at 38 East 57th Street, a parcel at the site of the former Drake Hotel.

The subtenant, luxury watch seller Franck Muller Retail, filed suit Sept. 24, alleging Macklowe and his Los Angeles-based partners, CIM Group, served a bogus eviction notice as a pretext to empty the building and proceed with their controversial hotel and condominium project.
Macklowe bought the former hotel site at Park Avenue and 56th Street for $418 million in 2006, and planned to demolish several buildings to convert the site into a hotel, with retail space and condominiums.

In November 2008, Macklowe paid $5.35 million to buy out the building lease from Sovereign Partners, which leased out the entire building. Franck Muller originally signed the sublease for the ground floor and mezzanine space in 2005, and the sublease is not scheduled to expire until 2018, according to court documents.

Macklowe also faced foreclosure from Deutsche Bank after defaulting on his loans at the site, leading him to eventually sell the lease and the property to a CIM affiliate and bring CIM in as a partner.

"Like Brer Rabbit in the Briar Patch, there is nothing Macklowe and his partner CIM would welcome more than being able to invent a 'default' which would in turn provide pretextual grounds for a wholly consensual 'eviction,' and related wrongful termination of plaintiff's sublease," wrote Alexandra Wald, attorney for Franck Muller.

Wald said the retailer has spent more than $1.25 million to renovate the space since moving in, and made it more attractive for customers.

Wald said the retailer received a letter dated Sept. 17 stating that it had failed to pay more than $462,000 in rent since April 2010. The letter states the amount of the rent owed is based on appraisals by the landlord. The retailer claims that the landlord has conspired with Macklowe and CIM not to pay the rent, according to court records.

"Upon information and belief, either CIM's principals or their business partner Macklowe have caused the landlord, an affiliate of CIM, not to pay the purportedly demanded rent increase on the ground lease to manufacture a sham and consensual default by the landlord," lawyers wrote in the complaint. "CIM and/or Macklowe will then cause the [owner of the ground lease] to seek to terminate the ground lease and landlord's subleases [including plaintiff's lease]."

Attorney Richard Claman, representing CIM and Macklowe, argued that Franck Muller signed a lease for rent that was well below market and knew, or should have known, that the lease agreement called for a substantial increase in the ground lease payments in 2010.

He said that based on two new appraisals by Jerome Haims Realty and Cushman & Wakefield, the fair market rent for the space is $1.4 million per year.

"FMR cannot properly insist that the net lessee remain in business, at a loss for the next eight years, just to protect FMR's below market rent," Claman wrote.

Macklowe declined to comment.

[RobertWalpole]

From the 15 Dec. 2010 NY Post:

In other CIM news, sources tell us the LA-based fund that also partnered with Harry Macklowe at the Drake site has reached a confidential settlement with its retail tenant, Franck Muller.

The watchmaker did not want to move out of the tony, East 57th Street townhouse that sits across from the Four Seasons Hotel. But it is circled for demolition as part of the planned Drake redevelopment.

"Assume the tenant will be moving out [after the holidays]," said one source familiar with the terms of the mediation agreement. Lawyers for both sides declined to comment, and a wrap-up court hearing is scheduled for next year.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz18B9FyP3V

[desertpunk]

I remember all the struggles over the NY Times site. I think this one will play out the same way.

[RobertWalpole]

The developer owns all of the pieces except for the Turnbull & Asser building, which is located at 42 E 57th St.

[JohnFlint1985]

Let me just say this - Harry Macklowe is a one big scumbag and a liar. He demolished the Drake hotel in order to build really nothing special glass box. The spot is L shaped and is not convenient for any massive development. And guess what - in the process Macklowe lost all his financing. so Drake hotel empty spot is just sitting there right by the former Bear Sterns bldg. Drake hotel was a very nice and historical building that was sacrificed for another peace of junk that is not even close to being build.

[Philly Bud]

Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985

Let me just say this - Harry Macklowe is a one big scumbag and a liar. He demolished the Drake hotel in order to build really nothing special glass box. The spot is L shaped and is not convenient for any massive development. And guess what - in the process Macklowe lost all his financing. so Drake hotel empty spot is just sitting there right by the former Bear Sterns bldg. Drake hotel was a very nice and historical building that was sacrificed for another peace of junk that is not even close to being build.

I agree with you, Mr. Flint. I once had dinner at the restaurant in the Drake ... it was really elegant. The architect of the Drake was Emery Roth, who built some of those fabulous highrise Art Deco apartment buildings on Central Park West. He was a very distinguished architect.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985

Let me just say this - Harry Macklowe is a one big scumbag and a liar. He demolished the Drake hotel in order to build really nothing special glass box. The spot is L shaped and is not convenient for any massive development. And guess what - in the process Macklowe lost all his financing. so Drake hotel empty spot is just sitting there right by the former Bear Sterns bldg. Drake hotel was a very nice and historical building that was sacrificed for another peace of junk that is not even close to being build.

I share your opinion about Macklowe.

However, I would not be suprised if a very nice, pretty tall tower rises here. The NYC condo and hotel market are quite good and getter much better rapidly. This site originally was to see a roughly 900 foot condo/hotel.

Something clearly is on the horizon -- otherwise they would not be demolishing the townhouses on 57th. (That really sucks, but sadly, their fate is sealed.)

[JohnFlint1985]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I share your opinion about Macklowe.

However, I would not be suprised if a very nice, pretty tall tower rises here. The NYC condo and hotel market are quite good and getter much better rapidly. This site originally was to see a roughly 900 foot condo/hotel.

Something clearly is on the horizon -- otherwise they would not be demolishing the townhouses on 57th. (That really sucks, but sadly, their fate is sealed.)

From what I saw in preliminary drawings it was a super simple, thin glass box going up. nothing special whatsoever. Besides the plot has as I said before an L shaped footprint both lines are extremely thin. the corner building is a black box of former Bear Sterns which is not going anywhere as far as I know, so top build something there you should build it only with 3 sides open since one side will be against the wall. and it is going to be very very thin. Also I doubt very much that anything special will be in this new building even tall wise. There was a talk that maybe a 600-700ft tower will be there. 900 ft was an original idea that was discarded since Macklowe got himself into a great deal of a financial and legal trouble. I even heard that he was selling this plot altogether.

[RobertWalpole]

The initial plan was for an approximately 900 foot hotel/condo. Then, the office market took off and Macklowe changed the plan to a roughly 600 foot, fatter glass box. (You and I may have seen the same rendering which was never released to the general public.)

Macklowe lost this site, but it appears that the new owner has retained him as a developer.

No one will finance a speculative office tower at the moment. Also, this site is not big enough for a large user that needs 1m sf or so. As an office, it would cater to smaller users -- like hedge funds, PE firms, etc.

If a residential/hotel rises (which is likely since that market is very good and getter better), a roughly 900 foot tower would probably rise here. That being said, I would have preferred to keep The Drake and the townhouses.

[JohnFlint1985]

Originally Posted by Philly Bud

I agree with you, Mr. Flint. I once had dinner at the restaurant in the Drake ... it was really elegant. The architect of the Drake was Emery Roth, who built some of those fabulous highrise Art Deco apartment buildings on Central Park West. He was a very distinguished architect.

Absolutely and also once again and again and again - the plot is so inconvenient for anything that I just can't imagine anything worthy of all the trouble of getting perfectly nice old hotel just to prove the point.

I would not be so mad if lets say you take an old hotel out and build a new one which is worthy or better in architectural form, or lets say is very very tall (1000ft+) or otherwise worthy of our attention. instead you've got these greedy developers who demolish something very nice and at best offer some really mediocre crap that belongs in Newark or Morristown at most, but not in NYC. and in quite a few cases they get busted in the process so they default on the promise and instead speculate the land which is more expensive than the building.

Or for example in case of 3 Columbus circle they took a nice old Gotham style building and stupidly cover it with glass trying to make it more contemporary and in the process the developer get himself bankrupted and the building was under the threat of total demolition since it is not finished.

I am simply tired of these scumbag developers. Period! Where is the pride and style of this city? Where are the balls that all these industrialists used to have when they build bold masterpieces to make sure that we notice their industrial might? Is it the best we can do nowadays - barely 300 meters (if you lucky) simple glass box?

BTW - Do you know that Roosevelt hotel was also considered for demolition? another stupid idea to bring another glass box instead of old masterpiece.

[JohnFlint1985]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

The initial plan was for an approximately 900 foot hotel/condo. Then, the office market took off and Macklowe changed the plan to a roughly 600 foot, fatter glass box. (You and I may have seen the same rendering which was never released to the general public.)

Macklowe lost this site, but it appears that the new owner has retained him as a developer.

No one will finance a speculative office tower at the moment. Also, this site is not big enough for a large user that needs 1m sf or so. As an office, it would cater to smaller users -- like hedge funds, PE firms, etc.

If a residential/hotel rises (which is likely since that market is very good and getter better), a roughly 900 foot tower would probably rise here. That being said, I would have preferred to keep The Drake and the townhouses.

So basically we are getting crap instead of something really nice? Am I wrong?

[RobertWalpole]

I don't think so. Since a residential building with a very high-end hotel makes the most sense right now, I envision a tall thin tower sitting upon a retail podium. (If Related fails with its attempts to foreclose 3 Columbus, this site might once again emerge as the new Nordstrom site.)