NEW YORK | 625 W 57th St. (Pyramid) | 467 FT | 32 FLOORS

[Duck From NY]

It's going to be right up next to that old industrial building?

That's awesome! Talk about juxtaposition!

[sbarn]

I'm holding my breath that this one makes it through the approvals process unscathed. It really will be a stunning anchor to 57th Street, which seems to be the new "it" street.

[NYguy]

http://observer.com/2012/09/communit...king-problems/

Community Board Spikes Durst’s BIG Pyramid Over Lack of Permanent Affordable Housing,
Parking Problems





By Matt Chaban 9/06/12

“My own feeling, and the feeling of board, is that we’d like this project to succeed,” JD Nolan, chair of Community Board 4′s land-use committee, told The Observer. “The Dursts are great developers, and they have worked very well with us in the past. Nevertheless, this is a rezoning, and the public should benefit as well as the developer.”

And so, the full board voted unanimously against Durst Fenter’s new apartment building on the far West Side last night. One of the most dynamic designs of the decade, 625 West 57th Street calls for a swooping white pyramid that rises dramatically up from the Hudson like an origami dove taking flight. Designed by Danish wunderkinds Bjarke Ingels Group (aka BIG), the project has even decided to eschew LEED ratings in its quest for singularity.
Still, this was not enough to sway the board, which generally seems to like the design but still has too many issues with the details surrounding it to approve the project at its monthly meeting.

The board’s vote is merely provisional, though it will be given considerable consideration from officials down the line as they cast their vote for or against the project throughout the rest of the months-long public review process.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Durst Tower to Give Green a New Shade

By LAURA KUSISTO
September 5, 2012

When the Durst Organization built the country's first green skyscraper at 4 Times Square, it kicked off more than a decade of trendy green building in the city. Now the developer is abandoning a ubiquitous green stamp of approval for its newest building, potentially changing how new construction is judged on its environmental merits.

For its new Bjarke Ingels-designed residential building on 57th Street, the Durst Organization will employ its own environmental criteria, saying it wants the chance to be more innovative and not be bound by the lengthy LEED checklist.

"We found it to be a little confining. There are things we want to do that don't give us a benefit under LEED," said Douglas Durst, chairman of the Durst Organization.

[sbarn]

Unbelievable. Community boards should be disbanded. Thankfully their vote is only provisional.

[ardecila]

This is how capitalism and democracy intersect. If you need a zoning change or something unusual, you have to be willing to kiss the ring and subject your proposal to politically-driven changes. Nature of the beast.

As far as I can tell, the board loved the design but not the operational plan or the lack of affordable housing. I tend to agree with them. Most European cities, which have had gentrified cores for decades, have realized that it is beneficial to grow the supply of affordable housing along with market-rate housing. The Europeans usually have a substantial government role, though, while in the US we'd rather force the developer to take a haircut so the government doesn't have to fund and build affordable housing.

[Towersteve]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is how capitalism and democracy intersect. If you need a zoning change or something unusual, you have to be willing to kiss the ring and subject your proposal to politically-driven changes. Nature of the beast.

As far as I can tell, the board loved the design but not the operational plan or the lack of affordable housing. I tend to agree with them. Most European cities, which have had gentrified cores for decades, have realized that it is beneficial to grow the supply of affordable housing along with market-rate housing. The Europeans usually have a substantial government role, though, while in the US we'd rather force the developer to take a haircut so the government doesn't have to fund and build affordable housing.

Yeah.. by demanding affordable housing (subsidized housing) be available.. they are limiting the supply of new housing and pushing costs up for everyone else.

[NYguy]

Serenitbee

[DURKEY427]

Is this being built or is it still a proposal?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DURKEY427

Is this being built or is it still a proposal?

What you see at the bottom is site prep.



http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/48922

Durst’s BIG Composting Scheme Biggest in New York




October 26, 2012
Jaclyn Hersh

The Durst Organization is launching a composting pilot program for the 600-unit Helena apartment building on Manhattan’s West 57th Street. The program will start in the next few months and, if successful, will be implemented in Durst’s planned 32-story W57 tower designed by Bjarke Ingels and expected to finish in 2015. This composting scheme, potentially serving 1,350 apartments, will be the largest residential composting project in the New York City.

Instead of lugging compost to collecting centers throughout the city, compost at Durst’s towers can be tossed out and picked up much like recycling. Tenants will gather their apple cores, eggshells, and other compost-able goods into a biodegradable paper bag and toss them into a communal garbage bin in the building’s garbage room. From there the waste will be picked up three times weekly and schlepped away to Riker’s Island to become fertilizer.

[mkeit]

The foundation work-remediation, excavation and piling-is underway.

[yankeesfan1000]

^^

A couple of pilling machines and back hoes on site this afternoon. Photo is mine.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

^^

A couple of pilling machines and back hoes on site this afternoon. Photo is mine.

This is the kind of progressive out of the box design that NY will benefit from and needs more of.

[Barbarossa]

Originally Posted by aquablue

This is the kind of progressive out of the box design that NY will benefit from and needs more of.

The make-work bureaucrats at the city planning commission beg to differ.

[yankeesfan1000]

Thanks to ZippyTheChimp on WNY for finding this. The CPC vote is tomorrow, with a yes, this has the green light.

Durst Development on Hudson River Re-Enters ULURP, Awaits CPC Approval



"... The development plan includes a new 35-story, pyramid-shaped building at 625 West 57th Street. The building’s facade would gradually slope upward, with the peak of the building on the northeast corner of the lot. The middle of the building will boast an open-air courtyard for residents. The new mixed-use building would provide 714,000 sq.ft. of residential space with 753 rental units, 48,000 sq.ft. of ground floor retail space, and a 285-car accessory parking garage. Durst plans to make 20 percent of the building’s units affordable, totaling 151 units, for a period of 35 years. The plan also includes a new 2-story community facility building for a children’s day care center in the middle of West 58th Street. Finally, the plan includes the conversion of the Manhattan Mini Storage building on the northeastern corner of the block to residential, retail, or community facility uses. A midblock, north-bound access drive is proposed between West 57th and West 58th Streets to provide entrances to the new building’s lobby and the parking garages of both the new building and The Helena...



... Manhattan Community Board 4 voted to disapprove of the proposal unless modifications were made. The Community Board’s chief concern was over the proposal’s affordable housing units, urging Durst to make them permanently affordable. The proposal does not provide public open space and the Community Board asked that the mid-block access drive become open pedestrian space by widening the sidewalks and adding planters and benches. Additionally, the Community Board asked that the amount of parking spaces be reduced to 163 and that if a child care tenant cannot be found for the community facility space, Durst consult with the Community Board to find a suitable replacement. Finally, the Community Board was concerned about the barrenness of West 58th Street, given that the IRT building has little pedestrian activity and Durst’s proposal calls for the new building’s mechanical and maintenance uses on that side of the development. Thus, the Community Board requested that Durst enliven West 58th Street with ground floor retail space.

Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer approved of the proposal noting that the new development would make “a considerable contribution to the waterfront.” The Borough President noted that Durst has a 99-year ground lease of the site, which does not include the ability to provide permanent affordable housing. Therefore, the Borough President did not recommend permanent affordability, but requested that 20 percent of any residential units in the Manhattan Mini Storage building be made affordable. The Borough President asked that Durst look into facilitating safe access to Hudson River Park via West 59th Street, the closest public access way to the park. Finally, the Borough President noted that Durst made modifications to the proposal in response to the Community Board’s concerns. Durst agreed to create open pedestrian space along the mid-block access drive by narrowing the width of the road and widening the sidewalks, and adding planters and benches. Durst also hopes to enliven West 58th Street by adding retail uses around the corner along 12th Avenue, and lighting the sidewalk and creating ground floor art displays along West 58th Street."

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Thanks to ZippyTheChimp on WNY for finding this. The CPC vote is tomorrow, with a yes, this has the green light.

Durst Development on Hudson River Re-Enters ULURP, Awaits CPC Approval

I think this headline is incorrect. The didn't re-enter ULURP. ULURP is a one year approval process. If they had withdrawn their application (which they didn't), they would be re-entering beginning again with the Community Board. All that has happened that they have progressed in the process and have moved on to the City Planning Commission. That's good news that the Boro Prez approved the project. I imagine CPC will do the same. Unless Burden has a problem with it.

[yankeesfan1000]

Anyone have any idea when this will go to the City Council now that it has this approval?

BIG News: Planning Commission Approves Durst’s 57th Street Pyramid Apartments
By Matt Chaban 12/20 5:55pm



"... Yesterday, Ms. Burden got to put her official stamp on the project, when she and the rest of the City Planning Commission approved Durst/Fetner’s BIG pyramid. It was the second-to-last step in the arduous months-long public review process...

...The commission required a few modifications to the project, dealing primarily with how it is experienced from the street. There is a limit on the amount of signage and obstructions that can go in the windows of the retail lining 57th Street and the West Side Highway, to ensure transparency and a sense of activity that does not obscure what is going on inside. The fear is a blank wall would deaden the street life, as has happened ion places like Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn...



...One aspect of the project that has yet to be addressed is how long the affordable units in the building will remain affordable. The development is being built through the city’s 80/20 program, which means 20 percent of apartments will be reserved for low- and moderate-income families, while the remaining number will be market rate.

Currently, those units will only be eligible for less well-off families for 35 years. The community board desperately wants permanent affordability, but Durst/Fetner insists it cannot agree to such an arrangement because they do not own the land. The developers themselves are leasing it from a family that has owned the land for more than a century, and is now comprised of some 100 trustees Durst/Fetner must negotiate with about extending the affordability window.

But local Councilwoman Gail Brewer has insisted the developers had better get negotiating, because she is willing to torpedo the project at the City Council—the final step in the public review process, where Ms. Brewer will have almost total say over the project—if her constituents do not get what they want."

[khaizer007]

That's a common tactic from community boards to get a better deal for their constituants. I very much doubt there will be any hold up and they'll find a compromise. Seems to me like this one will be going forward pretty soon.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Anyone have any idea when this will go to the City Council now that it has this approval?

The City Council has a calendar where its land use committee post upcoming agenda, so it should be posted there.



http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml

City Council Review. The City Council does not automatically review all ULURP actions that are approved by CPC. The Charter requires the Council to review certain actions, some only under special circumstances, and makes provision for the Council to elect to review other actions.

The City Council automatically reviews (Mandatory Review):

zoning map changes;
zoning text changes (not subject to ULURP but subject to Charter section 200 and 201);
housing and urban renewal plans;
disposition of residential buildings, except to non-profit companies for low-income housing
The Council may elect to review the following by voting to take jurisdiction within 20 days after CPC files its report (Council "call-up"):

- City Map changes;
- maps of subdivisions or plattings;
- zoning special permits;
- revocable consents, franchise RFP’s, and major concessions;
- non-City public improvements;
- sanitary and waterfront landfills;
- disposition of commercial or vacant property;
- disposition of residential buildings to nonprofit companies for low-income housing;
- acquisition of real property; and
- site selection.

Within 50 days of receipt of the CPC report on an application that is either subject to mandatory review, is "called-up" by the Council, or is a "triple no" application, the Council must hold a public hearing, and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the decision of the City Planning Commission.

If, during the course of its 50-day review period, the Council decides it wants to approve an application with a modification, it can do so only by referring the proposed modification back to CPC. CPC must then determine if the modification is of such significance that additional environmental review is necessary or that additional review pursuant to ULURP is required. If CPC determines that additional review is needed, the Council may not adopt the modification. If no additional review is needed, the Council can adopt the application with the modification. When the Council proposes a modification, CPC has 15 days to make its determination and during that period the City Council's 50-day clock is stopped.

A City Council action approving, approving with modifications or disapproving most CPC actions, requires a majority vote of the Council. Urban Renewal Plans that have been disapproved by CPC can only be approved by a 3/4 vote of the Council. If the Council fails to act within its review period, the Council shall be deemed to have approved the decision of the City Planning Commission.

Mayoral Review. Mayoral approval is not required. A decision by the City Council to approve or disapprove a land use application is considered to be final unless the Mayor elects to veto a Council action within 5 days of the vote. The Council, by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of its decision within 10 days of the veto.

Applications approved by CPC that the Council did not assume jurisdiction or act on within its 50 day review can also be vetoed by the Mayor within 5 days of the expired Council time period. The Council , by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of the CPC decision within ten days of the veto.

[NYguy]

http://observer.com/2013/01/councilw...treet-pyramid/

Councilwoman Brewer Lays Out BIG Demands for Durst’s 57th Street Pyramid


By Matt Chaban 1/16/13

Councilwoman Gale Brewer has sent a letter to the developer outlining her demands ahead of the hearing. They largely follow concerns she has had from the start, namely the affordability of the project, community space and an enticing streetscape for the project.

The biggest remaining issue is clearly permanent affordability for the 20 percent of the project’s 753 units that are to be set aside for low- and moderate-income residents. “It has been my strong preference that affordable units be designated as permanently affordable,” Ms. Brewer writes. “Without permanently affordable units, the city would not be able to maintain its mixed-income residential character.”

Currently, the affordability mandate is set to expire after 35 years because the Durst/Fetner does not own the land but instead has a 99-year lease on it to a family whose descendents now number more than a hundred, making negotiations very difficult. To extend affordability beyond 35 years, the developers argue, would be to risk the project’s future.

Jordan Barwotiz, a spokesman for the developer, said, without getting into specifics, that the firm is hopeful it can can reach a deal at the council to get the project approved. “We look forward to working with Council member Brewer and her colleagues to make the best project possible,” he said.

[MolsonExport]

much more of a sail and much less of a pyramid.