NEW YORK | 125 West 57th Street | 440 FT | 26 FLOORS

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

The NB application was approved this week, and the Zoning Diagram is now available. It's super-lame for this location. If it were on 3rd Ave and 28th St., for example, I'd be ok with it. In this location, however, it's a total waste. FXCollaborative doesn't really drop the ball, but in this instance, they committed a game-losing fumble in the end zone.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES291633271

Based on the diagram, it's looking super boring.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

This one truly saddens me if the demolition goes through.

Hotel Salisbury - New York, New York by Cardboardamerica@gmail.com, on Flickr

Originally Posted by NYguy

The 57th Street side...

Update on demolition:



MAY 14, 2022

[urbanflight]

Shameful.

[colemonkee]

Wow. I'm as pro-development as they come, and this one bothers me. The original building was beautiful and should have been restored.

[JMKeynes]

I agree. I’d be ok with a short building if it were a limestone masterpiece by Stern, but the proposal is an utter PoS.

It also sickens me to see gorgeous buildings razed by So Low and Le Freak aka LeFrak when hideous junk like this remains.

[jackster99]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Wow. I'm as pro-development as they come, and this one bothers me. The original building was beautiful and should have been restored.

Yup in the 12+ years I have been following this forum, this is the worst teardown by a pretty big margin IMO.

Made even worse by the fact that what they are replacing it with is about as mundane as they come. If it had been a starchitect supertall, even then it would have stung, but at least been a more acceptable loss. What we are getting, talk about adding insult to injury.

[Busy Bee]

For me it was the Bancroft but they're neck and neck. The Bancroft was a true architectural loss from top to bottom. Calvary is a contender more for it's demolitions absolutely mindless unnecessity.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jackster99

Made even worse by the fact that what they are replacing it with is about as mundane as they come. If it had been a starchitect supertall, even then it would have stung, but at least been a more acceptable loss. What we are getting, talk about adding insult to injury.

Here’s the thing about that, either a building is landmark worthy, or it isn’t. It’s not a matter of do we like the replacement better or not. This buikding, while nice (at least tge top), was hardly one of the nicer works in the city.

But still, it speaks volumes that there was no big outcry from preservationists. Likely because the tower that will replace it isn’t big enough to draw the wrath of NIMBYs. And when you get down to it, that’s all many are against.

[NYguy]

Another look…

[JMKeynes]

It’s a shame that the drab office building between the church and 157 isn’t coming down. It seems to be too small of a site to redevelop on its own.

[chris08876]

Credit: Michael Young via NYY

[JMKeynes]

Sadly, that crappy 1970s office building just to the west will remain.

[JMKeynes]

There was a recent filing for this incredibly disappointing piece of trash.

https://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/J...ssdocnumber=04

I’m stunned that FX couldn’t come up with something better than this. FX doesn't really drop the ball, but in this instance, they committed a game-losing fumble in the end zone.

If, as it appears, zoning only permitted a short box, then a brick and limestone tower with nice details would have been ideal.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

There was a recent filing for this incredibly disappointing piece of trash.

https://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/J...ssdocnumber=04

I’m stunned that FX couldn’t come up with something better than this. FX doesn't really drop the ball, but in this instance, they committed a game-losing fumble in the end zone.

If, as it appears, zoning only permitted a short box, then a brick and limestone tower with nice details would have been ideal.

Access Denied for the link you provided.

[JMKeynes]

Just put in 123 W 57th on the DOB’s website. The filing was nothing of interest. I was just noting that they recently filed something.

[chris08876]

POST APPROVAL AMENDMENT FOR DOC 03
Last Action: PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED 08/24/2022 (J)


Comments for PAA Document 04 Modifying Document 03
Description of Amendment
AMENDMENT BEING FILED TO SUPERSEDE THE CURRENT APPLICANT OF RECORD, REVISE FIL ING REP AND SUBMIT REVISED PLANS UNDER THE NEW APPLICANT'S SEAL. WVA #35291/17 OLD APPLICANT: ALAN POEPPEL- LICENSE #802201
NEW APPLICANT: JAMES FUREY- LICENSE #083462

04 PAA FOR DOC #03
Status: J - PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED Status Date: 08/24/2022
Plans Page Count: Not Provided
Directive 14: N Applicant Name: FUREY JAMES Pre-Filing Date: 08/03/2022

TYPE STATUS DATE STATUS
NB - NEW BUILDING 08/24/2022 J: PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED
OT - OTHER 08/24/2022 J: PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED

[Busy Bee]

I'm still holding out that they have something in their back pocket here. Who squanders a site like this, surrounded by billion dollar condominium supertalls, in that context on a squat building that takes little advantage to maximize and monetize Central Park views? They're literally leaving 1-2 billion in potential profit on the table. It makes no sense.

[JMKeynes]

Great update by YIMBY, but this is

LAME!!!

I don’t care about the height, but a low rise building like this warranted a beautiful, old-style stone facade. This glass box is weak.



https://newyorkyimby.com/2022/10/exc...manhattan.html

[Busy Bee]

It looks like we'll also be getting a setback which will show off the ugly party walls of the neighboring buildings. And why so short? Why only commercial? To justify what was lost This should have been a minimum 1200' mixed use beauty. This whole saga just sucks.

[JMKeynes]

I agree.