DETAILS REVEALED ABOUT UPPER WEST SIDE’S SOON-TO-BE TALLEST BUILDING; A ‘TWEEN LOUNGE’?

200-amsterdam5
Renderings of the building at 200 Amsterdam Avenue.

Permits filed this week reveal new details about the 51-story condo tower that’s set to be built at 200 Amsterdam Avenue at 69th Street. The 669-foot-tall building, constructed on the site of the spaceship-like former Lincoln Square Synagogue, will have very large apartments. How enormous? The average apartment will be 5,200 square feet, according to NY YIMBY. The developer said previously that the apartments wouldn’t be ultra-luxury, but that seems doubtful at the moment. The average apartment will be about 2,500 square feet, according to NY YIMBY (which updated its calculations after we published this). There will be a medical office on the ground floor and 112 apartments.

The building will have all the trimmings of a standard luxury edifice and then some.

“These apartments will undoubtedly be condos, and future buyers will have access to a slew of upscale amenities. The subcellars will hold ‘virtual golf,’ a yoga/stretching room, a gym, pool, sauna, heated lounge, and a salt room. The first and second floors will include stroller storage, conservatory, club room, social lounge, rehearsal room, dining, kid’s room, and a ‘tween lounge.'”

Yes a tween lounge. For you to send your tween when they’re being too tweeny.

 

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 54 comments | permalink
    1. Nathan says:

      I’m skeptical. The top end of the market is weakening so I wouldn’t be surprised if some amenities get cut and apartment sizes shrunk to fit more in.

    2. Maryjane says:

      The salt room kinda seals the deal for me

    3. AC says:

      Upgrading the skyline of Manhattan and the UWS, but the infrastructure (schools; parks; utilities; transportation services) continues to lag behind. We’ll feel the immediate impact, as soon as all of these new developments are done through crowded subways, lack of parking, and increased pedestrian hits. BUT the long term effects, 30 plus years from now, will have an even bigger impact on our community.

      • Nathan says:

        The UWS is less dense now than it was in the ’60s. Surely the subway can handle fewer people.

        • Independent says:

          The UWS is less dense now than it was in the ’60s.

          Does that statement take into account the total number of persons present here on a typical day– including all of the commuters and tourists*? I suspect you were considering only the resident population.

          *BTW (by the way), the hostility and disdain for tourists that is often exhibited in comments here at WSR is reprehensible and deplorable. Tourists are people who add much revenue to the City’s economy and honor us by showing their interest to travel here and visit. They deserve respect and courtesy.

          • Sean says:

            In a word, tourists suck.

          • Jes says:

            Independent
            Tourism is a fundamental sector of NYC’s economy but The number of tourists is now so large that it overwhelms aspects of daily life. One such example – five residential buildings in the East Village are being torn down for development of a hotel. There is good reason for concern when a residential neighborhood becomes transformed for tourist/commercial purposes

            Similar issues in other cities such as
            Barcelona, Venice

            • Independent says:

              Valid point. But still no justification for being nasty toward the tourists themselves, as many here are.

        • Pedestrian says:

          Have you ridden the subways recently?

      • JDP says:

        “We’ll feel the immediate impact, as soon as all of these new developments are done through crowded subways”

        You mean its not crowded already?

      • UWS40 says:

        New development started in the early ’80s.
        So called “environmental impact studies” were taken. They all came back in favor of the developers.
        Wake up people.
        New building will continue as long as city officials, assembly people, Albany insiders and community boards continue to receive “support” for their elections, etc.
        Is there a train platform more dangerous then 72nd?

        • Che says:

          Bless us all for speaking up! The as-of-right encroachment from Columbus Circle upwards is literally harrowing, as is city-wide as-of-right development. The attitude of developer impunity is an insult to all New Yorkers, for the side effect of throwing towers wheresoever they please will affect each in one way or another. Let’s keep speaking up and agitating for updated heights limits on new buildings, for new zoning laws. New architectural technology (building materials) produces taller buildings in tiny footprints; the taller, the more lucrative, to pay for the technology. Moreover, the pay-to-play political game helps our elected officials ignore or perhaps even not hear our vocalizations.

    4. Pumpkinpie says:

      The demolition of the existing former Temple on the site is proceeding very slowly (it took longer to build the Pyramids). I’m not clear if the small parking lot behind the former Temple (seemingly in the Lincoln Towers enclave and abutting on the PS 199 playground) is included in the new construction site. If not, this is truly going to be a very narrow building — the plot of land on Amsterdam, without the parking lot, is very small for such a tall building. Even with the parking lot included it is not exactly a spacious base for a tall building.

    5. dannyboy says:

      “The developer said previously that the apartments wouldn’t be ultra-luxury, but that seems doubtful at the moment.”

      Well there’s luxury and there’s Luxury.

      also, what’s a ‘salt room’? (I guess if i goota ask, i ain’t got one)

    6. Paul RL says:

      Except for the fact that it looks like a doorstop standing on Its end, and that we lost on iconic building in the process, I like it! Well, maybe I just like what’s on the inside. If we are going to change the skyline, we have to do better than this.

      • Eric says:

        Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion … there’s no accounting for taste … but I think any post criticizing the appearance of any building should be accompanied by a photograph of the commenter’s home decor so the rest of us have a yardstick to judge by.

        • Paul RL says:

          Wait, you’re judging my critique of the exterior of a building based on what the interior of my own apartment looks like? That doesn’t even make sense. And why not just weigh in with your own opinion? That said, my own building is one of the great uglies of the UWS. I love living in it but don’t envy my neighbors that have to look at it. Of course, it was built in 1983 – not a great period for residential aesthetics. There are a lot of great looking buildings being built today, but I don’t think 200 Amsterdam Avenue is one of them.

      • Wijmlet says:

        iconic building?

        • Paul RL says:

          After I posted, I realized “iconic” was probably the wrong word to use. I was trying to sum up my feeling about the original Lincoln Square Synagogue being a classic example of late 1960’s architecture. I think if falls into the “Brutalist” style. I know a lot of people hated it, but there aren’t too many buildings like this left in the city.

    7. Sherman says:

      5,200 square feet for the average apartment seems ginormous.

      I mean, a 1,000 square foot apartment is a nice size for the UWS and could easily cost over $1M.

      I can’t begin to imagine what they will ask for these apartments I have to believe there’s not a bottomless pit of people who can afford these apartments like this.

      The builders might be stuck with a lot of empty apartments but this is their gamble.

      • wombatNYC says:

        I think they probably mean 2,500 Sq Feet . That seems like a more realistic #.
        If they are talking about 5,200 Sq Ft. then it’s time for me to get out of town

    8. ScooterStan says:

      Re: “Yes a tween lounge. For you to send your tween when they’re being too tweeny.”

      Well….(classic Benjamin Kubelsky, i.e. Jack Benny, pause here)…

      NOT the big ones BUT the small ones ….the “weeny teeny’s”.

      ?

      • B.B. says:

        Tweens range from 10-12 or maybe 15 years of age. Just what kids that young need with their own lounge the mind boggles. Other than the fact families living in close quarters want them out of the apartment but want to know where they are.

        You would think with an average of 2500 square feet there would be enough room in an apartment for a “tween” and his or her family, but obviously not.

        Suppose this is a Manhattan answer to a “rec room”, or “rumpus room”, or Eric Foreman’s basement hangout.

        Yet another example of the suburban mindset taking over Manhattan. You want a “tween lounge”, buy a house in the country with a basement and or backyard. Problem solved.

        • Ish Kabibble says:

          Who said there was a problem? Besides you?

          • B.B. says:

            If there is no “problem” what is the purpose for the “tweeny” lounge? Developers just don’t put in amenities unless they see either a need and or way to make money. This other than when the City mandates such as bike storage, even then many buildings are charging.

        • Jane says:

          rumpus room! now there’s a phrase I haven’t heard in a long time!

        • Paul RL says:

          Or, we can be happy that parents are choosing to stay in the city to raise their kids rather than taking them and their tax revenue to the suburbs. By your logic, we should pave over Central Park, and tell anyone who wants to enjoy the sound of birds and a hiking path to move out to the country. A ‘tween lounge? Wonderful!

        • Independent says:

          “BB” wrote,

          Just what kids that young need with their own lounge the mind boggles.

          Boggles? Well, I suppose they could play Boggle there, for one thing. Board games, table tennis, ping pong, darts, listening-to music, watching movies, snacking and just plain socializing with each other (and of course, the inevitable* video games) are just some of the activities* I could imagine youths that age doing in their own lounge. Yes, I suppose they could do all those things in their own apartments but the lounge would presumably be a place where all such youth of the building could gather (as well, I would think, as friends of theirs from outside the building). (*Other likely inevitables will remain unmentioned.)

          Other than the fact families living in close quarters want them out of the apartment but want to know where they are.

          The closer the quarters, the greater this need but that doesn’t mean that such a need (or at least /want/) does not /also/ exist for those living in larger, more spacious homes. So you’ve essentially answered your own question. And it’s not just the /parents/ of young adolescent children who often want them out of the home. It’s hardly a secret that youths that age are typically restless and eager to get out. This would apparently provide them a safe, practical and (hopefully) fun place to go, especially during inclement weather.

          Developers just don’t put in amenities unless they see either a need and or way to make money.

          So the developers perceive an interest in this “tween lounge”, that including it will be a selling-point and/or benefit them in some other way. That much seems like a given. So again, where, exactly is there a problem here? Perhaps there is one but you haven’t shown it or what your point is. I’m afraid I cannot help but to detect a resentment on your part toward the demographic-in-question– both the youths as well as their parents. Disappointing, as from any number of other comments of yours, I had thought better of you than that.

          You want a “tween lounge”, buy a house in the country with a basement and or backyard. Problem solved.

          Couldn’t you make the same statement but with “child” or “more than X number of children” or “dog”, etc. in place of “tween lounge”? It is precisely the lack of having one’s own yard or basement when living in the City that makes something like a “tween lounge” all-the-more interesting and desirable for families.

          Having said all of the above, let me conclude by also saying that I consider Manhattan-living far from ideal for children and adolescents. To all parents and prospective parents, I would urge thorough, sober consideration and deliberation before making the decision to raise a child in the belly of the beast that is this or any other heart of a comparably major urban center.

    9. Sean says:

      Gorgeous!

    10. B.B. says:

      Am sure the setbacks are required by zoning, so guess developer worked with that they had.

    11. lisa says:

      Any info about where the building trash will go?
      Trash bags to be piled up on Amsterdam?

    12. Pedestrian says:

      So are two full floors of “community space but only for those who live ther” giving them two more floors? . Such a tall building will no doubt be followed by others and soon our streets will be dark but who cares the billionaires need light those of us down here don’t need light or sire. Who do we think we are. Thank you Mayor DeBlasio for putting us in our place!

      A double sub basement and virtual golf! Now that’s luxury!

      • B.B. says:

        Am not exactly sure where things begin and end, but the zoning at least around Lincoln Center area does allow for tall buildings. In fact think it starts down in Hell’s Kitchen.

        Zoning for this project allows for a 600 foot residential tower. Do not think you need fear anything like that going up say above 72nd Street.

        There are already a number of “skyscrapers” in that area, such as the corner of 57th and 8th, the Hearst Building across the street. Then you have the new building that went up near Fordham which isn’t exactly height challenged.

      • ScooterStan says:

        PUNCTUATION ! It’s all the rage !

        Here’s your posting, correctly punctuated:

        “So are two full floors of “community space but only for those who live ther(missing an “E”) giving them two more floors? Such a tall building will no doubt be followed by others(COMMA) and soon our streets will be dark(PERIOD, SPACE, and UPPERCASE “B”) but who cares(QUESTION MARK, SPACE, AND UPPERCASE “T”) the billionaires need light (PERIOD, SPACE, AND UPPERCASE “T”)those of us down here don’t need light or sire (SP???). Who do we think we are. Thank you Mayor DeBlasio for putting us in our place!

        P.S.: Exactly what does a private real estate transaction have to do with Mayor B.d.B?? Maybe he’s also responsible for the Zika virus??

    13. wijmlet says:

      There goes the nabe, again.

    14. John says:

      2500 sf I will need to buy 2 units to satisfy my whims.

    15. D Fury says:

      This project is far to tall/big for the scale of the surroundings- this is a residential neighborhood, not “Billionaire’s Row” in midtown. The residents of Lincoln Towers next door can say goodbye to their morning sunshine, and the buildings across Amsterdam and Broadway on 70th can kiss the afternoon sun goodbye, too. Who the hell ever approved this monsrtosity anyway?

    16. Jane says:

      most comments refer to aesthetics and demographics. my question is about math and physics (not my strongest points):
      if the building is on a small footprint, but is very tall, won’t it fall over?

    17. Independent says:

      (Response to this comment by Scooter Stan)

      Salt is an inherently kosher substance. The coarse, rock-salt known as “Kosher Salt” gets the name from its use in drawing the blood from meat and poultry as part of the process known as kashering. Iodized salt is not considered kosher for Passover, due to the maltodextrin it contains (which is derived from kitniyos and possibly even khameitz ingredients).

    18. Liz says:

      So much for the skyline and the look of the neighborhood.

      This building is ugly. It looks like it is misshaped and ready to topple over.

      There needs to be some balance in the size of building going up so as to make it fit within the area surrounding it.

      Ugh! Enough of these high rise buildings that block the sun