daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers Discussions of projects under construction between 200-299m/650-999ft tall.
» Proposed Skyscrapers



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 12th, 2009, 06:37 PM   #1
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

NEW YORK | 220 Central Park South | 290m | 950ft | 66 fl | T/O





Design by Robert A.M. Stern




















All above: http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...r_revealed.php



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Early history:

The prolific developer, Extell which is constructing two 330+m towers on W 57th Street, also is planning a 41 story tower designed by Cesar Pelli at 220 CPS in partnership with another developer, the Clarett Group.



Clarett Group plans 41-story condo tower on Central Park South 19-MAY-06 The 20-story apartment building at 220 Central Park South may be demolished by the Clarett Group and replaced by a 41-story condominium tower designed by Pelli Clark Pelli, the firm that designed One Beacon Court on Lexington Avenue and 59th Street, the Museum of Modern Art tower on East 53rd Street and the World Financial Center at Battery Park City.
This 20-story, light-gray brick building was erected in 1954 and was designed by Mayer & Whittlesley and M. Milton Glass. It has 124 rental apartments. Mayer & Whittlesley also designed 40 and 240 Central Park South, which, like 220 Central Park South, are through-block buildings that extend to 58th Street.
In their excellent book, "New York 1960 Architecture and Urbanism Between The Second World War and The Bicentennial," (The Monacelli Press, 1995), Robert A. M. Stern, Thomas Mellins and David Fishman provide the following commentary about this building:
"Replacing three nineteenth-century rowhouses, and an apartment building, all built by the Appleby family, number 220 had as its immediate neighbor to the west Charles Buckham's Gainsborough Studios (1908), one of the most distinguished examples of the 'artist's studio' apartment house type that flourished before the first World War. Unfortunately, neither the character of its neighbor nor the previous efforts of Mayer & Whittlesley influenced the design. The twenty-story building had coarsely detailed rows of double-hung aluminum windows set in white brick, corner balconies and a blocky elevator penthouse; a similarly dismal building faced Fifty-eight Street and was separated from its companion by a garden. The setback base of the building on Central Park South compromised the street wall that was so critical to the framing of the park."
The building has a two-step-down entrance, a revolving front door, a concierge, protruding air-conditioners, a garage, and spiked sidewalk landscaping. It is to the west of a fire engine company on 58th Street.
About 80 tenants in the building were notified yesterday that they could face eviction proceedings because of the planned demolition.
There are about 40 vacant apartments, about 45 rent-stabilized tenants and no rent-controlled tenants in the building. The remaining "market-rate" tenants would be asked to leave when their leases expire, or possibly to remain on month-to-month basis until the plan is completed.
Veronica W. Hackett, the managing partner of The Clarett Group, told CityRealty.com today that it plans to offer "substantial" relocation assistance and has a "geriatic counselor" to assist elderly tenants and has no plans "to throw tenants out on the street." The new building would be the tallest on the block, but Ms. Hackett indicated that architectural plans have not yet been finalized. The Clarett Group’s projects include the 55-story Sky House condominium tower under construction at 11 West 29th Street, Place 57, which is under construction at 207 East 57th Street, Chelsea House at 130 West 19th Street, 2770 Broadway, the Montrose at 308 East 38th Street, the Post Toscana at 389 East 89th Street and the Post Luminaria at 385 First Avenue.
__________________

Phill, Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by desertpunk; November 13th, 2014 at 11:15 PM.
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM   #2
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Here is an aerial view of the site.

Lofter1


Lofter1
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009, 06:46 PM   #3
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Although this project sits on some of the most valuable land on earth, the building that currently occupies the site is rent-regulated by NY's infamous rent control laws. Therefore, tenants pay rents that are about 10% of the market rates, and they have a right to remain.

The owners of the building have been offering million dollar plus packages to the tenants to induce them to leave, and for those who refused that, the owners have been litigating to get them out. Here's a story about a victory the owners won in court recently. The building is nearly empty, and demolition should start next year.


Hiroko Masuike for The New York Times
"A Victory for Tenants"

Published: June 15, 2008

OFF the construction-choked streets of Manhattan, tenants are in court fighting condominium developers, in search of justice — or at least a bigger settlement.


At 220 Central Park South, 22 tenants recently won a small victory in State Supreme Court in Manhattan that could eventually delay the demolition of their building for a 41-story glass tower. In a ruling on June 4, Justice Paul G. Feinman found that state law may require the state to conduct a formal environmental review, including a study of what effect the project, and its influx of wealthy buyers, “may have on population patterns or existing community character.”

The decision rejected efforts by the developers, the Clarett Group and Vornado Realty Trust, to dismiss the tenant suit.

Jack L. Lester, a lawyer for the tenants, said the ruling marked the first time a court had found that environmental regulations might be used to protect tenants under the state’s rent-stabilization law.

Veronica W. Hackett, the managing partner of the Clarett Group, minimized the decision’s significance. She said that a state hearing officer had been assigned to the group’s eviction case and that she expected the hearings to get under way soon.

James Plastiras, a spokesman for the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, suggested that the hearings might be delayed because of the lawsuit. “We are reviewing all possible options,” he said.

The proposed demolition, announced last year, involves the eviction of 80 tenants from a large postwar building. All but 30 tenants have since left the building, including market-rent tenants and rent-regulated tenants who have accepted buyouts.

Mr. Lester said the tenants he represents had rejected an offer of $1 million per apartment to leave the building and were seeking a higher offer.

They include Jean E. Shimotake, a partner at the law firm of White & Case, and Leighton Candler, a well-known broker at the Corcoran Group. Ms. Candler was recently selected to handle the sale of the late Brooke Astor’s duplex co-op at 778 Park Avenue with an asking price $46 million.

E-mail: [email protected]
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009, 06:47 PM   #4
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Here is another article re: the court victory.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04072009

business/tower_power_on_central_park_163256.htm
TOWER POWER ON CENTRAL PARK

April 7, 2009

THE state Appellate Divi sion -- the same folks who recently clobbered Tishman Speyer by ruling that deregulating rent-stabilized apartments at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village was illegal -- just helped Vornado Realty Trust and Clarett Group get out of a pickle with their own tenant antagonists.

The development partnership, known as Madave Properties SPE, had been stymied by two different court cases before the same judge in its quest to vacate 220 Central Park South in order to demolish it and replace it with a new apartment tower.

But last week, the Appellate panel unanimously reversed a lower-court ruling that could have indefinitely stalled the already behind-schedule razing of the 22-story rent-stabilized, white-brick apartment building between Broadway and Columbus Circle.

Vornado and Clarett bought 220 CPS in 2005 for $131.5 million, with plans to knock it down and replace it with a 41-story, glass apartment tower. Under state law, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal may permit a landlord to deny lease renewals to rent-stabilized tenants in buildings to be razed as long as certain requirements are met.

The developers began buying out tenants and sought the DHCR's blessing not to renew leases of those still at 220 CPS in May 2006. But the agency held off while an unrelated lawsuit involving DHCR and similar applications at certain buildings owned by a different developer wended its way through the courts.

In that case, first heard by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Paul G. Feinman, tenants claimed DHCR's rules did not adequately define what was meant by the word "demolition" -- and Feinman agreed with them.

The Appellate Division reversed Feinman last June, but the delay had by then cost Vornado and Clarett a year. Then, during the same month, Fein man sided with 20-odd remaining tenants of 220 CPS in a suit they filed in 2007, ar guing that DHCR should produce an environmental impact statement before allowing Madave to deny lease renewals in preparation for demolition.

Although Feinman's ruling didn't require DHCR to get an EIS, it would have allowed the tenants to continue pressing their claim to make the agency do so -- a process that could have delayed the project for years more.

The developers opposed the decision for obvious reasons. DHCR also took issue with it on the basis that the agency lacks expertise to conduct an environmental impact study and that environmental review is not part of its mission. ...
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009, 06:49 PM   #5
HK999
University of HK / 香港大學
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hong Kong SAR / 香港特區
Posts: 3,389
Likes (Received): 336

i thought the USA and therefore NYC were in a recession. what the hell is going on? lol. dnobsemajdnob, the last weeks (days) you are continually digging out projects. seems NYC will have another building boom in a few years, if all those projects get realized!
__________________
Sapientia et Virtus 明德格物
Industrial Organization, MSc
HK999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009, 06:53 PM   #6
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

These projects all will be built soon.

Despite the recession, demand is building for these high-end projects in NY for two reasons:

1. Wall Street is rebounding sharply; and
2. The very low dollar incentivizes foreign buyers to purchase in NY.

Other major US cities that don't benefit from Wall Street and that don't attract foreign buyers, such as Boston, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. won't see a rebound in high-end construction.
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009, 06:57 PM   #7
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

This New Building Application was filed with the NYC Dep't of Buildings on 19 Oct. 2009.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=09
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009, 08:35 PM   #8
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Curbed.com

11 Nov. 2009



Thursday, November 12, 2009

Central Park South Rental Relic Finally Getting Wrecked?
There is new momentum in the plan to replace the post-war rental building at 220 Central Park South with a glassy and modern (and way luxurious, 'natch) 41-story condo tower: New paperwork has been filed! First, the background: the 20-story, 124-unit building was purchased by a joint venture of the Clarett Group and Vornado Realty Trust in 2005. Years of legal wrangling with rental tenants followed, but the developers have won key victories of late. Over the summer a permit was filed to underpin the building in conjunction with a new adjacent project. That, as a Wired New Yorker points out, is Extell's project at 225 West 58th Street from architects Cetra/Ruddy. Last month a new permit was issued at 220 Central Park South with the note that previous audit objections have been satisfied. Not satisfied: Our desire to see architect Luigi Russo of SLCE Architects's vision for the site. C'mon, the plans have been floating around for years, someone's got to have a rendering lying around. Hit us up.
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2009, 10:06 PM   #9
deez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 73
Likes (Received): 2

What absolutely blows my mind is how these greedy bastards (the long term tenants) have the nerve to turn down a 1 million dollar offer for their apartment when THEY ARE JUST RENTERS! they don't own those apartments, they RENT them. and they're being offered ridiculous cash for them. I live in a rent stabilized apartment as well and I'd take 10 grand and move the hell out in a second.
deez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2009, 02:50 AM   #10
Ni3lS
Moderator
 
Ni3lS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 16,465
Likes (Received): 3423

I'm kinda confused here. Someone else also made a thread for this in the highrises section. You were the first one though. It also seems that you have more information about this project. The other guy in the highrises section claims that this project is 576' tall. That's about 175 meters and that means that it belongs in the highrise section. Now I don't know what his sources are. When a height is officially revealed and it appears to be below 200 meters this thread has to be moved to the highrises section since you were the first one to make a thread about this project.

Here is the link btw: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1001421
__________________
MY SHOWCASE
FLICKR / MY TRAVELS:
[2016] > Norway, Valencia, Arvidsjaur, Innsbruck, Moselvalley, Geneva, Lisbon, Basel, Vosges, Munich, Trieste, Barcelona, Nürburgring, Frankfurt, Spa, Berlin, Wuppertal, Dortmund, Como, Monaco, Saint-Tropez, Tegernsee, Hamburg, Lübeck, Madrid, Stuttgart, Faro, Hochgurgl
[2017] > Düsseldorf, Mallorca, Geneva, Annecy, Montafon, Vorarlberg, Barcelona, Zürich, Crete, Lisbon, Cascais, Málaga, Ronda, Dolomiti, Sistiana, Kitzbühel

eduardo ll, caughttravelbug liked this post
Ni3lS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2009, 03:05 AM   #11
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ni3lS View Post
I'm kinda confused here. Someone else also made a thread for this in the highrises section. You were the first one though. It also seems that you have more information about this project. The other guy in the highrises section claims that this project is 576' tall. That's about 175 meters and that means that it belongs in the highrise section. Now I don't know what his sources are. When a height is officially revealed and it appears to be below 200 meters this thread has to be moved to the highrises section since you were the first one to make a thread about this project.

Here is the link btw: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1001421
The height is unclear at this stage, as adjacent parcels controlled by the same developers may be incorporated into this project. The only thing that is clear is that this will not be a supertall. No developer would bother to build a supertall across the street from Central Park as that would invite litigation from opponents seeking to block it.
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2009, 03:12 AM   #12
Ni3lS
Moderator
 
Ni3lS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 16,465
Likes (Received): 3423

Ok, Im curious what the source is for the 576' height though. Indeed smart not to build a supertall close to Central Park. Are investors and concurrents in New York really like that? Blocking someone else's view?
__________________
MY SHOWCASE
FLICKR / MY TRAVELS:
[2016] > Norway, Valencia, Arvidsjaur, Innsbruck, Moselvalley, Geneva, Lisbon, Basel, Vosges, Munich, Trieste, Barcelona, Nürburgring, Frankfurt, Spa, Berlin, Wuppertal, Dortmund, Como, Monaco, Saint-Tropez, Tegernsee, Hamburg, Lübeck, Madrid, Stuttgart, Faro, Hochgurgl
[2017] > Düsseldorf, Mallorca, Geneva, Annecy, Montafon, Vorarlberg, Barcelona, Zürich, Crete, Lisbon, Cascais, Málaga, Ronda, Dolomiti, Sistiana, Kitzbühel
Ni3lS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2009, 03:15 AM   #13
New Jack City
User
 
New Jack City's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,634
Likes (Received): 45

I'm excited about this one, it's being designed Cesar Pelli, the best!
New Jack City no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2009, 03:17 AM   #14
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

It was in a building permit filed with the DOB. At the very least, at that height on the permit, it would be at least 600 feet.

Since there's no ifficial height yet, it belongs in this section. For example, the moderators moved to 225 W 57th from supertall proposals to here although it is most certainly taller than 330m.
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2009, 03:40 PM   #15
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53452

If the footprint for this baby is block-thru, then they would do well to maintain the CPS streetwall and float a tower portion as a setback away from the street. If they do that, I should think that the approval process would be much easier. But that site is intriguing...could they squeeze a second, much taller tower to the south along 58th St.?
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2009, 06:08 PM   #16
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

It is a through-block site. The 58th Street side can be seen on the far right. However, the same developers own the two small buildings -- which are empty and awaiting demolition -- and the middle lot which until recently had a small building that was razed.

It's not clear whether the air rights from at least one of the lots will be added to the new CPS tower.

dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2009, 06:16 PM   #17
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Here's some good news for this and other high-end NY projects:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/re...7D0WysWu8pEi1w

"Lots to Spend, Little to Buy"

Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

Published: November 20, 2009

PITY the long-suffering brokers of luxury Manhattan real estate. They endured a lonely spell, waiting for the phone to ring. Few properties sold and few buyers were even looking. Now with the Wall Street bonus season about to begin, they are suffering again, they say, but this time because of a drought in inventory.

After a bump-up in sales over the last few months, brokers say, more wealthy buyers have come back to the table, looking for fabulous apartments at a bargain. But there are precious few listings. “I have clients who feel this is the time to buy,” said Felise Gross, a broker at Brown Harris Stevens, “but there is very little prime property to show them.”

The listing drought, they say, is most pronounced in large condominiums in the most celebrated new buildings, but also significant in the town house market. And even in the luxury co-op market, where there are more listings, only a fraction have been priced competitively enough to attract buyers, brokers said.

Last week, Thomas P. DiNapoli, the New York State comptroller, gave brokers cheer in a report suggesting that Wall Street had begun to rebound faster than expected.

The report said total compensation at the six largest banks could exceed the $163.9 billion that was paid in 2007, before the financial crisis. But some Wall Street segments like hedge funds are still weaker than before, and the securities industry is down 28,300 jobs in the city (though the number of jobs rose slightly in September). State budget officials are predicting a 22 percent decline in total cash bonuses across New York State, the report said.

In short, with employment down, a smaller number of Wall Streeters could be dividing up a larger bonus pool, though some of it will be in deferred earnings.

These buyers are joining a market already crowded with wealthy foreigners looking to take advantage of the weak dollar, brokers said.

Robby Browne, a Corcoran broker, said he had several wealthy clients seeking trophy properties but had nothing to show them that was “good to buy.” He noted that a town house at 92 Charles Street, owned by Armon Bar-Tur, a founder of SafeHarbor Capital Partners, a real estate investment firm, went into contract less than two weeks after it was listed late last month.

When sales first began to pick up over the summer, brokers say, some of the best-priced listings were sold; they have not been replaced by a new supply of similar listings.

Buyers who might have been self-conscious about buying luxury apartments in the midst of the recession are now back in the market, said Kirk Henckels, the director of Stribling Private Brokerage. “Now when you can say you bought it at a third off of its previous value, it is not quite so embarrassing,” he said. “You look smart.”

Nowhere is the luxury drought more apparent than at 15 Central Park West, the new condo at West 62nd Street, which not long ago had a listing for $80 million. That unit, a 5,200-square-foot four-bedroom, finally sold in September for $37 million.

A three-bedroom owned by Beny Alagem, the founder of Packard Bell Electronics, was listed for $24 million and sold at the end of September for $19.9 million. An apartment listed for $15.5 million is now in contract.

Now only 11 smaller apartments are on the market, with asking prices ranging from $3.2 million to $13.9 million. At the recent sales rate, that would amount to a three or four months’ supply.

The buyer of Mr. Alagem’s unit, Stuart Peterson, an investor in YouTube before it was sold to Google, also wanted a staff apartment. So, property records show, he paid $1.625 million for a 463-square-foot studio in the building, which works out to $3,510 a square foot. That comes close to matching the original sale prices for some smaller one-bedrooms facing Broadway rather than Central Park.

Arthur Zeckendorf, who developed the property with his brother, William Lie Zeckendorf, said they had decided to sell one of their own two staff apartments because “they approached us.”
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2009, 02:38 AM   #18
juan-diego
Florencia-Colombia
 
juan-diego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: FLORENCIA
Posts: 3,843
Likes (Received): 527

...
__________________
P.N.N. SERRANÍA DE CHIRIBIQUETE
Caquetá - Colombia

Last edited by desertpunk; November 13th, 2014 at 11:11 PM.
juan-diego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2011, 06:49 AM   #19
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...922583306.html

Vornado Project Hits Hard Spot






By ELIOT BROWN
March 28, 2011



Quote:

Just when developer Steven Roth thought he had cleared his biggest hurdle for a planned new skyscraper on Central Park's southern edge, here comes Gary Barnett.

For more than five years, Mr. Roth's Vornado Realty Trust has been trying to clear out the renters in its 20-story apartment building at 220 Central Park South. The goal was to knock down the building and erect a soaring luxury condo tower with sweeping views of the park in its place. Vornado agreed in December to spend $40 million paying off the remaining apartment tenants, who are now moving out.

But Vornado has a final and unlikely holdout: Mr. Barnett, the rival developer and president of Extell Development Company.

A few years ago, Mr. Barnett bought the lease to the parking garage in the white-brick apartment building, according to people familiar with the situation. Mr. Barnett has thus far rebuffed the attempts of Mr. Roth to purchase the lease, the people said.

While talks continue between the parties, Extell's continued hold on that underground garage's lease would block, or greatly complicate, Vornado's attempts to demolish the 1950s building.

Mr. Barnett's strategy remains unclear. But holdouts often succeed in extracting big payments from developers eager to break ground. Mr. Barnett also owns an adjacent property and has expressed a desire to develop in the area.

"I have the greatest respect for Vornado and its team of executives," Mr. Barnett said Sunday in a statement. "We hope to resolve any issues concerning these buildings in a mutually satisfactory manner."

Battles between developers and holdouts are common in the bare-knuckled culture of New York real estate, often tying projects up for years. The Durst family, for instance, waited more than three decades to buy out the last property owners for a site on 42nd Street and Sixth Avenue and develop the Bank of America tower.

Rarely, however, do the fights involve high-profile developers at opposite sides of the table. Vornado is one of the city's largest office landlords, built up over the past 30 years by Mr. Roth, a hard-charging negotiator. Mr. Barnett, a former diamond trader, is among the city's most active developers and is currently building a 75-story high-end hotel and apartment tower across from Carnegie Hall.

Vornado, along with development partner Clarett Group, bought the 124-unit building at 220 Central Park for $131 million in 2005. The developers planned a 41-story condo tower to rise in its place. Central Park is prime real estate, and new apartment buildings aren't built there very often. Vornado's latest quarterly regulatory filing put the development's cost at between $400 million and $425 million.

Soon after Vornado bought it, the project ran into resistance from rent-regulated tenants in the building. They sued in 2007, arguing that Vornado hadn't followed the law for removing them.

The legal challenge dragged on until December 2010, when the remaining tenants settled. Vornado spread $40 million to buy out renters of 26 units, according to property records.

Mr. Barnett remains. His lease lasts about six more years, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Barnett's ownership of a neighboring lot on 58th Street could factor into negotiations. He has filed plans with the Department of Buildings for a permit to construct an 18-story apartment building there. That lot is sandwiched by another property owned by Vornado and Clarett, a small building at 229 West 58th Street.

If Mr. Barnett doesn't budge, Vornado might be able to still erect its building over the existing garage. But it would be much more expensive, if even possible.

This isn't the first time Mr. Barnett has butted heads with a heavyweight in New York City real estate. A decade ago, he unsuccessfully sued to block construction of the New York Times tower on 41st Street after the state tried to seize land owned by Mr. Barnett for the Forest City Ratner project. And in 2005, he made an unexpected bid to the M.T.A. in an attempt to offer an alternative to another Forest City project, the Atlantic Yards basketball arena and housing development in Brooklyn.

It also isn't the first time the Columbus Circle neighborhood has seen a clash of the real estate titans. Last year, Stephen Ross, chairman of the Related Companies, made an unsuccessful hostile bid to foreclose on and demolish 1775 Broadway, a building a block away owned by large landlord Joseph Moinian.


__________________
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2011, 07:50 PM   #20
primus20
Registered User
 
primus20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sin City
Posts: 543
Likes (Received): 38

when will it rise?
__________________
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I ♥ NY
primus20 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
220 central park, 220 central park south, 220 cps, central park south, cps, new york, nyc, vornado

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu