NEW YORK | 36 Central Park So. (Park Lane development) | FT | FLOORS

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Exactly. And deciding what should stay or go based on one's personal taste is what I was talking about. And just so mistermetAJ knows, "new" is progress:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progress

2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) :

Look up the definition of "new" and show me how it matches your posted definition of progress. Two words with completely different meanings. New does NOT mean progress. Progress can sometimes come from new things, but progress itself, the goals, objectives, etc is subjective.

[aquablue]

I hope that the new tower is something classic and stone and not a building resembling one 57. It is a classic area for the most part, and should remain so. Horse and Carts, Iron railings, Beaux Arts Hotel, etc. I feel this is the most beautiful part of NYC, the confluence of 5th, CPS and the Park. It's not really a place for glass.

[chris08876]

First Look: 36 Central Park South, Park Lane Hotel Redevelopment

The imminent redevelopment of the Park Lane Hotel at 36 Central Park South has become one of the most talked about projects in real estate over the last few weeks, as reports emerged of a frivolous battle to preserve the original structure as a landmark. Now, YIMBY has obtained the first renderings of what the replacement may look like, though the images likely do not depict a final product.

Still, the idea conveyed is perfectly clear, and it appears that the original structure will receive a gut-renovation and vertical addition, avoiding a complete tear-down.

Unfortunately, onerous neighborhood zoning may prevent the complete demolition of the current building, which is a relative eyesore on the Central Park skyline. Per the Wall Street Journal, a completely new development would only be able to contain two-thirds of the tower’s current 370,000 square feet.
This invites creativity with the existing envelope, in a way similar to 425 Park Avenue, where the bottom portion of the original structure will also be integrated into the new building. The mandate for preservation is completely arbitrary and nonsensical, but so is most of the city’s zoning policy, so in the context of greater bureaucratic incoherency, it actually makes sense.

In the rendered plans, produced by Spivak Architects, the Park Lane emerges from its conversion as a plain and glassy box, with some additional height. Essentially, current FAR is reconfigured within a taller envelope to give higher ceilings, which are a must for new luxury developments.

===============================
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/10/fir...velopment.html

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Look up the definition of "new" and show me how it matches your posted definition of progress. Two words with completely different meanings. New does NOT mean progress.

You'd be stupid to think it does not. Progress is a move forward. Any development by that definition is a move forward.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progress

2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal)


prog·ress

: movement forward or toward a place
: the process of improving or developing something over a period of time


new

1. not existing before; made, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time.

synonyms: recently developed, up to date, latest, current, state-of-the-art, contemporary, advanced, recent, modern, cutting-edge, leading-edge
2.
already existing but seen, experienced, or acquired recently or now for the first time.

Now, I'm not here to take over where the education system failed you, so move along.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by chris08876

First Look: 36 Central Park South, Park Lane Hotel Redevelopment




===============================
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/10/fir...velopment.html

HORRIBLE.

Id rather they reclad the Park Lane than destroy the street wall with this mess.

[chris08876]

Might just be tentative and subject to change. But if this is the final design, its terrible.

[Submariner]

Better than the current turd, but fairly disappointing, especially considering its proximity to the likes of 220CPS, 111w 57th street, etc.

[NYguy]

^ That's more than likely just a massing showing a potential tower at the site. I put it in the same category as this one...

Consider that the Central Park views would be most coveted, the design could take a different form based on the 58th Street side.

[Submariner]

I would think they would do something along the lines of 220CPS - where the broad side faces the park.

[vandelay]

There's a proven formula for success on a property like this: classic design + limestone = $$$.

A developer would be a fool to put up a glass box.

[sparkling]

Originally Posted by vandelay

There's a proven formula for success on a property like this: classic design + limestone = $$$.

A developer would be a fool to put up a glass box.

I don't really see the need for limestone. Tower Verre and 111 57th have none yet boast intricate designs that distinguish them from the crowd. I agree that a blue box will be out of place there but well designed glass and steel building with proper cladding may fit nicely in the area. We already have 15 CPW, 220 CPS and 520 Park so why not something different.
Look at 30 Park Place and 50 West- a limestone vs glass located in close proximity to each other- both seem to be doing fine so far.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by vandelay

There's a proven formula for success on a property like this: classic design + limestone = $$$.

A developer would be a fool to put up a glass box.

The likelihood of a developer with such experience and money (that has brought them to a point of errecting a tower on some of the most desirable real estate on earth), making a massive blunder that would turn him into a fool in the eyes of his peers and competitors, is low. They know what they are doing. Limestone or not, this tower will probably be a success based on LOCATION alone, and they have teams of market researches telling them what they need to know to make a building that will sell. Not all demographics want limestone. How do you know classic/limestone appeals to all investors. It could be that the Chinese or the Qataris hate limestone and want Glass and a modern box. We can't know, these are powerful men with teams of people studying what people want.

The tower is dull and disappointing. I didn't expect much exciting architecture in such a conservative location, but i thought we'd have something a little bit more inspired.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

You'd be stupid to think it does not. Progress is a move forward. Any development by that definition is a move forward.





Now, I'm not here to take over where the education system failed you, so move along.

Progress is a move forward. New is something not there before. A "move forward" is SUBJECTIVE. New is not. They in no way mean the same thing. Now, something new can RESULT in progress, i.e., a developer progresses economically, however that is completely subjective to the developer. The fact you are trying to circumvent this difference speaks to a strikingly biased opinion either in blanket favor of developers or just against those like me who actively criticize bad architecture. Maybe its more an altruistic defense of New York's reputation. I find your hostility equally as shocking, especially from a moderator. Clearly there is a double standard on this board. Dont attack other cities, but feel free to personally attack other posters. Gotcha...

Anyway, hopefully "progress" does not mean an all glass modern dump on the street. A littke stone would be much appreciated on this site.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Progress is a move forward. New is something not there before. A "move forward" is SUBJECTIVE. New is not.

Enough, you've derailed this thread for the last time. A move forward is not subjective. When this plan is enacted, it is a move forward, and the plan will progress. It will be a progressive development of the site, not a flash backwards. Now go back into hiding unless you have something to add about this development.

[NYguy]

Here's that resolution from CB5...


http://www.cb5.org/cb5/resolutions/o...uation_rfe_for

Request For Evaluation (RFE) for interior and exterior landmark designation for the Park Lane Hotel, located at 36 Central Park South

At the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of Community Board Five on Thursday, October 09, 2014, the following resolution passed with a vote of: 36 in favor; 0 opposed; 2 abstained.



WHEREAS, East Garden LLC., William Kaplan as its sole member, John Furth Peachy and Mark Mueller have filed a request for evaluation (RFE) to designate the Park Lane Hotel as an interior and exterior landmark; and

WHEREAS, The applicants filed a RFE with the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) on March 31st 2014, and LPC rejected their request on May 7th 2014 but granted that the decision could be reconsidered if new information was provided; and

WHEREAS, The applicants have expanded their research and are now seeking the opinion of Community Board Five; and

WHEREAS, The Park Lane Hotel, is a 46 story building located at 36 Central Park South facing Central Park on a mid-block site between 5th & 6th Avenues; and

WHEREAS, The building was designed by Emery Roth & Sons and constructed between 1967 and 1971 for the prominent NYC developer Harry Helmsley and his real-estate company, Helmsley-Spear, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, The building is a 46 story slab resting on a raised two story L-shaped base, clad with glass and limestone on the Central Park South and 58th Street facades and face brick at the party walls; and

WHEREAS, The North façade is divided by five bays of windows that run the full vertical height of the building and culminate with rounded arches, and are separated by limestone piers, while the side walls are treated with face bricks; and

WHEREAS, The 58th street base features a porte-cochere, and the building features a courtyard connecting 58th Street to Central Park South; and

WHEREAS, The lobby and second floor rooms, including the restaurant, bar, and ballroom were decorated by interior designer Tom Lee; and

WHEREAS, The central lobby connecting Central Park South to 58th Street feature two varieties of travertine marble on the walls and floor, crystal chandeliers, Scalamandre drapery and Wilton carpets; and

WHEREAS, The second floor restaurant features barrel vaulted ceiling, while Harry's Bar features dark wood finishes; and

WHEREAS, The building's architecture has been characterized by architecture critics, including Robert A.M. Stern and Paul Goldberger, as well as preservation advocates, such as the Municipal Art Society and the Historic Districts Council, as banal, undistinguished and mediocre; and

WHEREAS, The interior is neither unique nor original; and

WHEREAS, The building does not feature a unique architectural style nor a special historic character; therefore be it

RESOLVED, Community Board Five recommends denial of the Request for Evaluation of the Park Lane Hotel for interior and exterior landmark.

[JayPro]

Aye.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Enough, you've derailed this thread for the last time. A move forward is not subjective. When this plan is enacted, it is a move forward, and the plan will progress. It will be a progressive development of the site, not a flash backwards. Now go back into hiding unless you have something to add about this development.

Go back into hiding? This is an internet message board, what am I hiding from? Why so personal? Every one of my posts on this thread made a reference to this building along with our discussion of "new" and "progress".

Don't exonerate yourself from derailing this converstation. You are equally as culpable as me, despite your moderator status. In fact, you are the one getting personal and attacking another forum memeber, not me.

Before you settle too much on your strawman argument, now defining progress as "the plans will progress" let me take you back to the ACTUAL converstation, that anything new in New York is defended as "progress" and "not a museum" against valid architectural criticism. It is progress in what sense? Economic...ok. Since that is the ONLY grounds you can stand on in which "new" equals "progress" virtually unequivically, the argument has no grounds as a defense against architectural criticism.

So far, based on the renderings posted on this thread, this building looks too glassy in the context of its surroundings. I finde that architecturally shameful, especially in this part of Manhattan which is stone and limestone as the backdrop of Central Park. I stand hopeful the massing is not indicative of the final design.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

So far, based on the renderings posted on this thread, this building looks too glassy in the context of its surroundings. I finde that architecturally shameful, especially in this part of Manhattan which is stone and limestone as the backdrop of Central Park. I stand hopeful the massing is not indicative of the final design.

Considering the posted rendering has nothing to do with what is planned for the site, what is your point? We know you don't like glassy buildings.

[vandelay]

Originally Posted by aquablue

The likelihood of a developer with such experience and money (that has brought them to a point of errecting a tower on some of the most desirable real estate on earth), making a massive blunder that would turn him into a fool in the eyes of his peers and competitors, is low. They know what they are doing. Limestone or not, this tower will probably be a success based on LOCATION alone, and they have teams of market researches telling them what they need to know to make a building that will sell. Not all demographics want limestone. How do you know classic/limestone appeals to all investors. It could be that the Chinese or the Qataris hate limestone and want Glass and a modern box. We can't know, these are powerful men with teams of people studying what people want.

It's good to know you have such great faith in the wisdom of the rich and powerful, and so soon after the crash of 2008.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Go back into hiding? This is an internet message board, what am I hiding from? Why so personal? Every one of my posts on this thread made a reference to this building along with our discussion of "new" and "progress".

Don't exonerate yourself from derailing this converstation. You are equally as culpable as me, despite your moderator status. In fact, you are the one getting personal and attacking another forum memeber, not me.

Before you settle too much on your strawman argument, now defining progress as "the plans will progress" let me take you back to the ACTUAL converstation, that anything new in New York is defended as "progress" and "not a museum" against valid architectural criticism. It is progress in what sense? Economic...ok. Since that is the ONLY grounds you can stand on in which "new" equals "progress" virtually unequivically, the argument has no grounds as a defense against architectural criticism.

So far, based on the renderings posted on this thread, this building looks too glassy in the context of its surroundings. I finde that architecturally shameful, especially in this part of Manhattan which is stone and limestone as the backdrop of Central Park. I stand hopeful the massing is not indicative of the final design.

Of course you wouldn't leave it alone. But I won't continue the "stupid dance" with you in this thread.

If you're that dense that you just can't get it, then send me a PM.