NEW YORK | 15 Penn Plaza (Hotel Penn) | 1,200 FT / 388 M | 61 FLOORS - Page 54

Perklol · #**1061** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 5:05 AM**

^ I disagree. It sticks out like a sore thumb with buildings in the 300-400 range and it isn't as graceful as the slender pre-wars of the time. (specifically tall slender buildings like Chrysler, 70 Pine, 40 Wall in my opinion anyway)

It's time to move forward and the Penn Station area is perfect area for office towers. Safe from rising sea levels and right near a plethora of subway lines and 3 major railroads. I think this area should have been zoned first and not the Hudson Yards. Although I do agree that the observation deck views will be ruined for the rest of time.

Rail>Auto · #**1062** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 5:38 AM**

I like this tower a lot, but not at the expense of the hotel. Question: Can this tower be built with the hotel as its base or is that not possible from an engineering standpoint?

On a side note: Two Penn Plaza, not MSG, needs to be razed for a new Penn Station. That would go a long ways for this hotel or tower either way.

JayPro · #**1063** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 1:27 PM**

IIRC they built the Hearst on a preexisting base, so why not?

tyleraf · #**1064** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 1:52 PM**

I'm glad to hear that this tower is being resurrected. It's a nice tower which in my opinion compliments ESB.

Crawford · #**1065** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael12374

The empire state is the most iconic building ever built (maybe after the eiffel tower) and putting an glass office building right next door with a higher roof height would disgrace ESB. It is the eight wonder of the world btw.

It isn't "right next store", though. ESB is on Fifth Avenue, 15 Penn is is two avenues to the west. The westside blocks are quite long.

Crawford · #**1066** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 2:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

IIRC they built the Hearst on a preexisting base, so why not?

Well, for one, Hearst base was originally built to accomodate a tower, and this hotel was never built for an addition.

And for another, there was really no Hearst base. The entire base was gutted and they just kept the facade. There would be no reasonable way to gut a gigantic hotel for the purpose of keeping a false facade and then plopping a tower on top.

And, with Hearst, the developers had no choice. Hearst is a landmark. This hotel isn't landmark, and will never be declared a landmark, so the developers can demolish.

antinimby · #**1067** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 4:06 PM**

This tower should be built on the next block north, where all those low lying stores are. A tower there right on 34th would be fantastic.

mistermetAJ · #**1068** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 4:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, for one, Hearst base was originally built to accomodate a tower, and this hotel was never built for an addition.

And for another, there was really no Hearst base. The entire base was gutted and they just kept the facade. There would be no reasonable way to gut a gigantic hotel for the purpose of keeping a false facade and then plopping a tower on top.

And, with Hearst, the developers had no choice. Hearst is a landmark. This hotel isn't landmark, and will never be declared a landmark, so the developers can demolish.

A renovated lobby back to its original grandeur would garner landmark status. Based on the architects of the hotel (McKim, Meade & White) alone, this building should be considered for landmarking and aide to developers for a renovation.

SD_Phil · #**1069** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 5:55 PM**

Count me among those who are glad this is going forward.

Crawford · #**1070** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

A renovated lobby back to its original grandeur would garner landmark status.

There are very, very few landmarked interiors in NYC. I don't think a single hotel interior anywhere in the city is landmarked.

The Landmarks Commission is loath to intrude upon private spaces. They concentrate on the public realm. The few landmarked interiors are mostly public spaces, like Grand Central or the main Public Library.

NYguy · #**1071** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

This tower should be built on the next block north, where all those low lying stores are. A tower there right on 34th would be fantastic.

A tower probably will go there eventually. But even if there were a separate proposal for a large tower there, that would only speed up the process for a tower here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

A renovated lobby back to its original grandeur would garner landmark status. Based on the architects of the hotel (McKim, Meade & White) alone, this building should be considered for landmarking and aide to developers for a renovation.

We've been down this road before. The current building itself isn't what you think it is.

http://nypost.com/2007/11/15/dont-sa...towns-monster/

If Vornado lands a tenant for the tower, I'm just torn between which of the two versions I would prefer...

multi or single tenant

_

gramsjdg · #**1072** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 8:00 PM**

Despite the lower height, I prefer the version w/o a podium as it seems more slender and uninterrupted.

Either way, its a nice, classy design.

Still, this puppy could easily absorb another 2-300 feet in height...

Onn · #**1073** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 8:03 PM**

I like both designs, I hope they keep the same shape! This was one of my favorite projects in the city before they put it on hold.

hunser · #**1074** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 8:12 PM**

With 3M sq ft, 15 Penn could go way taller. At least 200ft extra, easy.

scalziand · #**1075** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

This tower should be built on the next block north, where all those low lying stores are. A tower there right on 34th would be fantastic.

Bingo. Plus, that site would still have access to refurbish the Gimbals passage.

vkristof · #**1076** Posted **Aug 6, 2014, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

Bingo. Plus, that site would still have access to refurbish the Gimbals passage.

Ah, the Gimbels (a long defunct department store) passageway of yore! And the Hotel Shpennsylvania of Dave Barry fame!

For those not in the know on the Gimbel's passsageway, I've provided a couple of links below. I used to take this dingy passageway between Penn Station (LIRR) and the northern PATH terminus in the late 1970s, when NYC was near it's nadir. Yeesh:

http://www.erictb.info/33passage.html

http://observer.com/2014/01/reopen-t...on-passageway/

The remains of the Gimbels Passageway bring long-time New Yorkers back to a more dangerous era. (NY Post/Chad Rachman)

The secondavenuesgas.com (the SAS blogger is too young to have experienced the Gimbels passageway 1st hand) link below quotes from the NYPost article that provided the photo above AND invokes a seemingly accurate depiction of the times:
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/11...and-the-1970s/

Crawford · #**1077** Posted **Aug 7, 2014, 1:17 PM**

The site to the north does not have the same zoning, ownership, or air rights, has a weird configuration above subway tunnels, and is already a different assemblage by different developer.

This isn't Sim City, folks, you can't just switch random sites around. This site will be developed, and the site to the north will probably be developed.

ChiTownWonder · #**1078** Posted **Aug 7, 2014, 6:58 PM**

OK sorry for this comment but i don't like the super skinny towers going up in midtown at the moment. i like a good beefy structure, while still elegant and beautiful. this one if built will be a good contrast to the other skinny towers going up now.

NYguy · #**1079** Posted **Aug 7, 2014, 9:44 PM**

One of the benefits of this project moving forward is we will finally that the pedestrian passageway between Penn Station and Herald Square (connecting multiple subway lines and the PATH) reopened to the public. That's a major asset to the station, and it needs to be done ASAP.

Blaze23 · #**1080** Posted **Aug 7, 2014, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTownWonder

OK sorry for this comment but i don't like the super skinny towers going up in midtown at the moment. i like a good beefy structure, while still elegant and beautiful. this one if built will be a good contrast to the other skinny towers going up now.

I like those stocky buildings but I LOVE those tall, skinnier ones, I hope to see more of them pop up all over the city.