Prep Work Proceeds for 775-Foot-Tall Building as Council Member Pushes Back

Photo by Stephen Harmon.

By Carol Tannenhauser

Preparations for construction have begun at 50 West 66th Street on a proposed 775-foot mixed-use building, which, if completed, would be the tallest on the Upper West Side. The Jewish Guild for the Blind, located on the site since 1971, has been demolished, and the foundation for the new building is being prepared.

What’s still pending are approved plans for the building, which have been radically altered since they were first submitted to the Department of Buildings (DOB) by Extell Development Company in 2015.

“Just to clarify, the developers have been doing demolition and preliminary foundation work, but they still don’t have DOB approval for their updated plans for the building itself,” wrote Sarah Crean, communications director for City Council Member Helen Rosenthal, in an email to WSR. “We think the DOB is looking at those updated plans, but they have not been approved yet.”

A rendering of the building by Snøhetta.

If Rosenthal has her way, they never will be. In an interview with WSR last November, she explained: “In 2016, Extell got permits from the Department of Buildings to excavate a plot of land for a 25-story building. [In 2017] they submitted new renderings and said, ‘It’s not going to be 25 stories; it’s going to be about 75.’ All of a sudden, it grew by 500 feet and 50 stories.”

Rosenthal called the maneuver “a classic bait and switch,” and, in an email to her constituents last year, vowed to “fight Extell’s current plans with every tool at my disposal, and…push for a design that is more in line with the built environment of the Upper West Side. At 775 feet, this building is far too tall for the context of our neighborhood, overshadowing nearby buildings and Central Park.

“The DOB should not allow Extell to make an end-run around its review process,” Rosenthal continued. “It should force Extell to return to square one, and seek approval for plans that accurately depict what they intend to build. In the meantime, Extell should halt its work until the community and the City have sufficient time to better understand why they believe a 775-foot-tall building qualifies for ‘as-of-right’ zoning.”

Extell did not respond to requests for comment.

Wrote Crean, “Helen’s email from last year still stands. Once the updated plans are released, we will be reviewing them extremely carefully. Our understanding from DOB is that any height addition to the building — beyond the 25 stories for which Extell has received building permits – will open up a zoning challenge period. We will follow up with residents as soon as we have seen the new plans, and we will provide information about the public challenge period.”

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 39 comments | permalink
    1. J Rockwood says:

      Not sure why so many people at least on this forum seem to hate tall buildings. The designs I have seen look really nice and I welcome the taller buildings into the area. If they were ugly designs I would object but these seem to be really nice architecture.

    2. Rob G. says:

      This building is even nicer than the one planned for 200 Amsterdam. Therefore I expect even more people to oppose it!

    3. robert says:

      Folks-this is the only part of the story you need to read ” [In 2017] they submitted new renderings” DOB has approved them, so guess what the building will be built as per the amended renderings. If you want to complain, do so at the neighbors that sold them their air rights.
      There will be marches, petitions and fund raising of it, this is an election year. The same thing was done re 200 Amsterdam Remember the city council candidates that made it the cornerstone of their campaign?

      • Jay says:

        And those same city councilors won’t lift a finger to write a bill that will stop the actions they protest. Their protests are all for show.

    4. John says:

      It’s it that the building will be ugly it is that it will be to tall for the major cross park streets that it will be clogging. The building should be put on hold till the MTA completes a cross town subway in that area. 🤗

      • A.C. says:

        John, a crosstown subway makes literally no sense. It took 10 years to make 2 miles of track and 3 subway stations, do you know how long it would take to replicate that, on a thinner and more crowded street, and under a Transverse through Central Park? You would pretty much ruin the commutes of anyone who took a bus or train that crossed 66th street. A crosstown subway would kill the commutes of those taking the M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M7, M10, M11, M15, M20, M31, M57, M66, M72, M98, M101, M102, M103, and M104, with ripple effects that would most certainly lead to increased overcrowding on nearby crosstown buses, like the M79, M86, and even the 57th street portion of the M12. You would also hinder on the commutes of the A, B, C, D, Q, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains, all for what? A 2.5 miles subway line that connects less than 20 bus lines and only 2 subway lines? That would be the worst investment the city or the MTA could possibly make, and that says something.

    5. Glen says:

      Exactly what improvements to the neighborhood infrastructure will be implemented to handle the additional several hundred residents? In particular I mean the W72nd Street subway station. Oh, right….

      • denton says:

        This building is on 66th Street. Most people work south of 66th Street. It’s hard to imagine that a lot of people would be walking north to 72nd Street to catch a train downtown. Not with the #1 train right on the corner. If the #1 train didn’t suit my needs, I would walk south to 59th Street where I could catch a number of other trains.

        A beautiful building, btw…

        • dannyboy says:

          Because the 72 Street Station is closer.

        • B.B. says:

          Sorry, but then you would “imagine” incorrectly.

          Station at 72nd is both express and local. The #2 or #3 trains can get you down to Tribeca/Financial District (where increasingly more and more want to live and or work), in just four stops (Chambers Street).

          Express trains then continue onto that other hot area of NYC real estate, downtown Brooklyn and beyond.

          Yes, you could take the local at 66th and transfer at 42nd, but for my money (and apparently many others) better to just walk a few blocks up to 72nd and be done.

          For those going uptown 72nd has the added advantage of being a “Trader Joe’s stop”. So you can get groceries, meals or whatever, then walk home.

    6. UWS Craig says:

      The taller the building, the more units. The more units, the greater the supply of housing. The greater the supply, the lower the price of housing. It’s economics 101 — this change will make housing more affordable for everyone – I support it!

      • dannyboy says:

        I expect that you either support it because you have an interest in property values (or rents) INCREASING, or are just misinformed.

        The second explanation is more forgivable.

      • John says:

        These buildings do not lower the prices lol
        They are for Billionaires from other countries apartments will Start inthe 10s of millions

      • Pedestrian says:

        The greater the supply of housing….for whom?

    7. A.C. says:

      Why is it that this neighborhood, in particular, is the only one that has a regular problem with buildings going up. 200 Amsterdam Avenue, everyone is whining, and all that happened was that completion got pushed back 10 weeks, which benefited literally no one. 50 West 66th street and everyone is screaming, and when a purchase for land is made, everyone is freaking out. Oh, and the Museum expansion, the Affordable housing complex, no one seems to like the Waterline Square complex, even though those buildings are absolutely stunning, should I go on?

      Regardless, I love this building’s design. Even though the Jewish Guild is going to get a new luxurious home, 127 Condos is still way too small. Again, just like the last building, I would change what goes in, rather than what goes up. Judging by the math in 200 Amsterdam, which is still way too few condos per floor this building shouldn’t have less than 150 condos, even accounting for size.

      Yes, it is a side street, but a slightly more significant one at that. Yes, it’s 107 feet taller than 200 Amsterdam Avenue, but it’s further south than 200 Amsterdam Avenue, and the average building height is higher, so it’s less out of context. Yes, it may cast a shadow, but, unlike the Central Park South towers, the shadow won’t be more prominent until the Summer months, and it also won’t take into effect until much later in the day, and it won’t be nearly as prominent. would’ve preferred a Robert Stern project there, that would be the perfect place for one, but hey, it’s still a gorgeous building

      I would very much love to see this building rise to its full height, but to the BSA and DOB, and any opposers, I would say this. If you’re going to fight it, fight it now, and to city officials, make a decision quickly. I am not going to give that long lecture like I did for 200 Amsterdam Avenue, but virtually all the same reasons apply here, but it would be a huge disgrace to this neighborhood if the same timeline of events takes place again as with 200 Amsterdam Avenue. Also, it would probably benefit you guys if you made progress with your opposition swiftly, because they started demolition four months ago, and considering that even taking into account the 10-week work hiatus at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, it was still slower than this building, for less to demolish. Judging by their progress, they should be at ground level by the end of the year, maybe February-March the latest.

      But this battle should definitely end quickly because crosstown commutes here are already a nightmare, slowing or stopping construction will only exacerbate it.

      • Say Moi says:

        More and more buildings going up. OK. Whatever. But isn’t it time that someone in city government could do something about the filthy condition of the streets and subways…. The overcrowding is horrendous.. God knows what we’re breathing while living in this supremely crowded town of imploding incoming rich suburban owners of expensive apartments.. And 61 million mostly American tourists pouring into our neighborhoods yearly. Nowhere in the Western World is anything quite like the dirt, squalor and neglect allowed to remain a permanent fixture within any major city.. Why aren’t the sidewalks being washed down daily as they used to be by the people owning the stores and buildings on the UWS? Garbage piled up all the time!? More and more people owning several dogs that need to urinate on the sidewalks. The combined stench is disgusting. There has to be a better way to go for those of us living here, otherwise, what’s the point?

      • dannyboy says:

        “Yes, it’s 107 feet taller than 200 Amsterdam Avenue, but it’s further south than 200 Amsterdam Avenue, and the average building height is higher, so it’s less out of context. Yes, it may cast a shadow, but, unlike the Central Park South towers, the shadow won’t be more prominent until the Summer months, and it also won’t take into effect until much later in the day, and it won’t be nearly as prominent.”

        So it’s less worse than the others!
        Who thinks like this?

        If you oppose the better, why write it on a neighborhood blog; where your neighbors expect better, not worse?

        • A.C. says:

          I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the city is growing, and, especially in Manhattan, growing outward is clearly not an option, so you have to grow vertically. You’re gonna have to sacrifice some sunlight, the buildings are going to get taller, that’s just the way it is. Why isn’t this happening in other neighborhoods? Continuity. The growing neighborhoods that have had rapid development are either already established “downtown” centers, like the obvious Midtown and Downtown, along with the South Bronx, Jamaica, Flushing, Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City, or are connected to/adjacent to existing downtown centers – Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Astoria, Clinton/Hell’s Kitchen, Chelsea/Hudson Yards, Tribeca/Hudson Square, and of course, the Upper West Side and the Upper East Side. Harlem is starting to grow in height too. It’s the growth of a city. 10 years ago, all those neighborhoods were brown and barren. This kind of skyline wasn’t even thought possible then, but now, all these neighborhoods are prime real estate areas in the city, some of the best too. Trying to stifle growth like this has two bad consequences. The first and obvious one being that it impedes on the influx of new housing, but the second reason is actually industry/economic confidence. Had 200 Amsterdam Avenue been blocked, that would’ve dealt a major blow to the real estate industry, and while it may seem like a good thing on the surface, it’s not all good. Developers lose confidence in their markets, sometimes even withdrawing renderings. 53 West 53rd Street should’ve have been completed at least 5 years ago, but due to pushback, and demand for a shorter building, it is just now wrapping up, and this is a building in midtown. Yes, I will agree that some buildings shouldn’t have been built;t. 432 Park Avenue is disgusting, but this is not that, not even close.

          Dannyboy, I make those statements to express that the sacrifices and the so-called “problems” with the building are far overblown. It’s a few sacrifices to make for a clearly beautiful building, a vast improvement to a stale neighborhood. The Summer shadows statement is actually kind of a good thing. Last time I checked, no one is really scurrying for sunlight when it’s 90 degrees out. Hell, people move in the shade when it’s even 80 degrees. When it comes to out of context, being the shouting point of 200 Amsterdam Avenue, 69th street is where the trend of taller buildings end. 65th-66th street, you’re right in the middle of it. It’s not going to be a huge burgeoning shadow since it is on a side street. It’ll peek out a little more than the existing shadows already do, and again, making more of an impact during the summer. I do have a problem what’s going inside, I do think there should be about twice the apartments in there, but the physical building itself is beautiful, architecturally pleasing, so is 1865 Broadway, and 200 Amsterdam, but not as much so. Except for Stern’s building at 81st, and maybe the Chamberlain on 87th, the projects going up to the north are lame and unoriginal at best, appalling at worst, these two buildings, as tall as they are, are a welcome change to the neighborhood. Also, let’s be real for a second, the original renderings sucked. They were almost as bad as 170 Amsterdam Avenue, and for the Upper West Side, that says a lot. If you even cut off the top portion of the building, it would be a vast improvement, but the top portion is the best part.

          Lois, To answer your question, I live here because my family has lived in the same apartment since the building opened, and we’ve found no real reason to move. Also, proximity to the arts. I’ve also spent my entire life growing up around construction, I grew up when Trump Place was going up, and I would always pass by 200 West 67th street as it rose, and traveling down to Western Beef, I would always stop and look at the construction at Riverside Center/Waterline Square. All those buildings are nice buildings, (except for 170 Amsterdam), and vast improvements to the architecturally stale, and aesthetically displeasing buildings that went up in the dark ages of construction, and this building is one of them. Honestly, I have to ask why you live in Manhattan at all, much less the Upper West Side? The city is going to grow, that’s inevitable. If this building doesn’t go to full height, I can bet you another one will. Like I said before, Manhattan can only grow upwards, and the first neighborhoods to go will be those closest to heavily urbanized areas. Change is going to happen, and it’s gonna be the vertical change. Give it 20, maybe 30 years at most, 200 Amsterdam Avenue and 50 West 66th Street will be amongst a larger crowd. A new building is gonna go up on 72nd street, I’m sure the short building across the street from Time Warner is coming down soon. If I were smart, I would develop above DSW and Zabars, put a 20 story building there. If Silverstein were smart, they would put a new 40 story tower at 125 West End, and more towers on the old ABC campus. This building is going to become amongst the crowd, even if they are somewhat taller. So will Billionaires Row. Hudson Yards is going to lose prominence very soon due to development. If Sunnyside Yards becomes more than a pipe dream, Long Island City would be amongst a crowd. Hell, look at Jersey City, Newark and Fort Lee. The Empire State Building is now amongst a crowd. If this new trend upsets you, then Manhattan is not really the climate for you, because if a skyline full of cranes doesn’t relay the message for you, the growth in New York isn’t going to stop, and for the sake of the city, it really cannot stop.

          • dannyboy says:

            Let me correct some of your statements, as you directed these false statements to me. I won’t attempt to correct them all however, as that isn’t worthwhile. But you’ll get the jist from just a sampling.

            “the buildings are going to get taller, that’s just the way it is.”
            C’mon “that’s just the way it is”??? There is room and a need for development in areas adjacent to Manhattan. The developers choose Manhattan because that’s where the get top dollar. Top dollar from people wanting to live with ‘people just like them’. Is that what you mean by “that’s just the way it is”?

            “Why isn’t this happening in other neighborhoods? Continuity.” It is not happening to much in areas with parcels freely available for development. Why? Because they have poorer and darker residents.

            “It’s a few sacrifices to make for a clearly beautiful building, a vast improvement to a stale neighborhood.”

            What stale neighborhood are you talking about here? The Upper West Side that I live in is a very vibrant neighborhood.

            “The Summer shadows statement is actually kind of a good thing.”

            Please borrow a book from the Public Library on the need for and benefits of sunlight FOR HUMANS. It is here that I choose to cut it short, because there is just too much to explain without you having basic knowledge for further discussion.

            • A.C. says:

              DannyBoy, I agree, building in Manhattan is certainly more profitable than other areas of the city, that is a well-known fact, and that’s why over half the most expensive zip codes in the country are in Manhattan, but that isn’t something I want to dwell on for a minute.

              Have you seen Queens or Brooklyn lately? Or the Bronx? I think you probably missed what I said about adjacent development to Manhattan. There is limitless construction from Astoria down to Brooklyn Heights. Have you been on the 7 train in Long Island City lately? Have you been in Atlantic Terminal lately? Brooklyn’s getting a supertall, (we can argue over that building’s aesthetics another time.) and no one seems to have any problem. Queens is getting taller too. And if you want to bring up New Jersey, we can do that. From a certain area in Manhattan, Jersey City and Lower Manhattan look one in the same, that’s how much Jersey City has grown, and it’s still growing, and then they just finished the Modern up in Fort Lee. There’s also the South and West Bronx, from Port Morris up to Fordham that’s also going through a massive construction boom, that may or may not include a Soccer Stadium. Did you miss that or no? They are building around Manhattan, and in areas of Manhattan are completely barren. Did you really think that the Upper West Side was going to be exempt from development? I say “That’s the way it is” because that is honestly, how it is. Would you really rather have a tall building be built out in Bayside or Bellrose Manor? That’s really stupid. The development trend in this city is going exactly as it should, with the established central areas expanding outwards, and the Upper West Side happens to be next to that expanding area. Now, if these buildings were being built further north, I would agree with you, because once you cross 72nd street, the vibe of the neighborhood completely changes, and so does the architecture, which brings me to my second point.

              When I said stale neighborhood, I meant architecturally stale. For better or worse, the buildings are a lot older north of 72nd street, and I mean, when you cross past Verdi Square, you are in another realm almost. The architecture up there isn’t bad (The new buildings not so much) But down below 72nd street, it’s horrendous. Except for Millenium Tower and Sterns Building, most of the buildings on Broadway south of 70th street are disgusting. This is a welcome change.

              And to your point about sunlight, yes, I understand the benefits of an influx of Vitamin D from Solar exposure, but do you really have any other ideas on how to combat the housing crisis? Aside from saying “Build somewhere else?” You can’t build outward, you can’t really build on the water, what other suggestions do you have? I am very serious about this. I am very seriously open to ideas and suggestions about alternative methods to supply adequate amounts of housing without building vertically. Preserve sunlight while maintaining adequate housing on the limited land. I know you’re going to mention the pricing and the number of the homes, and that is where I will agree with you. It’s too few units, for too much money. A building of that size, even given the allocated space for a synagogue should easily squeeze 270+ units in it, and still be nicely sized. And 200 Amsterdam Avenue should be able to get 200+ in. But see, instead of shrinking the building height, use the space more adequately. Your point about shadows is probably your most valid point, I will give you that though.

              But Danny, the last thing I would ask you to do is to humor me for a second. What would you want instead of this? Give me a unit count, floor count, height, etc. Everyone fighting these towers says, “Don’t build it!” “It has to be shorter!” What do you want instead? You can even include a commercial sector in your building since most buildings have those. But that’s a serious question. You don’t want a 69 story, 127 unit, 775-foot tall tower with a Synagogue at the base. (Frankly, I think it should be well over 200 units.) And from the looks of it, you weren’t happy with a 51 story, 112 unit, 669-foot tall tower, with a minimal commercial sector either (Also should be well over 200 units.). What should the alternative be? Seriously, I want to know what you think. Look at my comment on the ABC campus purchase, that’s kinda where I am going with this question.

            • dannyboy says:

              Again I will reply to some of this very long comment, but you will get the gist.

              “Have you seen Queens or Brooklyn lately? Or the Bronx?”

              Yes, my children live in two of those boroughs.

              “I am very seriously open to ideas and suggestions about alternative methods to supply adequate amounts of housing without building vertically.”

              This is a large country. You seem Manhattan-centric in your views. That traps you into your limited perspective solution.

              “That’s really stupid. The development trend in this city is going exactly as it should”

              Again, I am sorry that your narrow-view leads you directly to narrow solution. But that is not ‘exactly as it should be’. Incidentally, I don’t know anyone who would use that phrase, ever.

              “But Danny, the last thing I would ask you to do is to humor me for a second.”
              I’d take a a 51 story, 112 unit, 669-foot tall tower”, can you arrange for that? Or do you just gotta’, gotta’ have the “a 69 story, 127 unit, 775-foot tall tower”? Is it always MOAR that drives you?

            • Jay says:

              A.C. you are looking for logic where there is none.

    8. David Collins says:

      Who was the “irresponsible” entity who sold the developers the land and the air rights!?

      If there is something illegal going on then someone should go to jail. If not, let us all move on and worry about more important things in life than how tall or short a building is.

      • dannyboy says:

        Another stake in the heart of our neighborhood:

        If it ain’t illegal, SHUT UP, we got other things!


        • David Collins says:

          It’s called tolerance.

          If you are bothered by construction the last place you should live in is NYC.

          It’s convenient for the sale of the land and the air rights but not for the buyer to do as he or she pleases as long as it is within the law.

          The law must now be changed as it relates to the building code, but to not as it relates to the sale of the land of the air rights.

          Talk about biased!

          • dannyboy says:

            OK David, your Comment reminds me that I needed to indicate /sarc on that last line.

      • robert says:

        Just google the address near by.
        They are not being “irresponsible”, by selling their air rights the surrounding buildings ie small coops can pay down large parts of their debit and become much more financially secure
        Church’s, Temples etc have quietly done this across the UWS as a way to keep their over 100 year old buildings up and running when their congregations no longer can.

        The other option is rush to land mark them, then you end up with things like West Park on 86 @Amsterdam. The building needs millions of dollars of work, they can not afford it but our self appointed community leaders rushed to get it land marked. Now it sits with a scaffolding over it for years with no work being done. At some point its condition will get so bad that DOB will issue a vacate order. The same thing is happening with the Metro theater on 99 & B’Way

    9. Pedestrian says:

      Legislation should be passed to STOP the filing of phantom building plans. Once a community is pushed to file a legal challenge it has already lost. As the DOB stops doing its job and developers remain immune from regulations citizens will be forced to spend large sums of money they don’t have to do the jobs of well paid City bureaucrats.

      Our local.council member would do well to use her oversight power to get the DOB to do its job and legislate a prohibition of phantom building plans and any activity that seeks to do an end run around regulations that have been enacted to control development and protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

      The recent approval of the 200 Amsterdam project is a case in point. Citizens file a challenge; the DOB says in effect: yes, you are right. The permit was issued illegally. Yet, the BSA says never mind we’re going to let you do it anyway. And now the citizens are faced with anothe big bill to make the city enforce its own laws.

      • Bruce bernstein says:

        I’m becoming a fan of Pedestrian’s comments. He or she has an actual grasp of how things work… and some good policy ideas. Cracking down legislatively on phantom permits is an excellent idea… I hope Helen Rosenthal’s staff and /or Gale Brewer’s staff read this.

    10. robert says:

      If you think your local elected are really going to do anything, sorry. Here are the actual numbers for the public advocate. Her full time job is supposed to be an advocate for the citizens of NYC.

    11. amyknyc says:

      What about the ABC properties that Silverstein is buying from Disney? Bet those building will be even taller, or at least just as tall. New York City is always changing. You can’t count on properties staying the same, restaurants staying put, etc. The changes are what we CAN count on, this is a dynamic City!

      • dannyboy says:

        All change is good?

        Sorry to see that you have lost all discrimination between positive change and just any old change hoisted upon us.

    12. A.C. says:

      Dannyboy, I will try to interpret what you are trying to say in your reply.

      “You have a very Manhattan-centric view of things” Yes, I do. I am not denying that. But what other city do you suggest I take notes from when I try to come up with an alternative? Manhattan is an island. I will say this for the millionth time, you cannot build outwards. In reality, you can’t really build outwards anywhere in the city (maybe Queens technically.) But here on Manhattan, you absolutely cannot build outwards. That is something that makes New York unique, and why we build so tall. I can give you an explanation on why the outer boroughs and Manhattan above 59th street were comprised of short buildings for the longest time: Bedrock. Up until recently, building height was dictated by the hardness and the strength of the bedrock. The harder the bedrock, the taller the building. This explains why for so many years, the area between 34th street and Canal street was essentially a hole, but now, as construction techniques improve, that issue of bedrock is no longer such an urgent issue, as long as you build a little more downward, and harden the bedrock around you. It’s still something to consider definitely, but with better techniques, we can build upwards. 200 Amsterdam Avenue is a good example of this, look at how deep that hole is. 1 Manhattan Square is an example of these techniques not being properly executed. The building has sunk 14 inches into the ground already, and similar things are happening in San Francisco. Because of these new techniques, and along with rezoning laws, Long Island City has more than one skyscraper, Downtown Brooklyn isn’t so brown, and that hole that I mentioned earlier is closing, rapidly too. And I will say this again. Tall buildings are expanding outward in literally every direction, which I am sure your children can attest to if they live close to any of the neighborhoods I mentioned so many times. I will ask this again: What other alternatives to building upwards do you have? Having a Manhattan-centric viewpoint on this issue is kinda what you need, because who else are we going to model ourselves after? The other cities that have less extreme versions of this issue are doing what we should be: Building up, in and outside already established downtown areas.

      To respond with your answer, yes, I would be fine with the 51-story 112 unit building being built here, even though I know people would still be screaming and fretting about that one. You realize that what I suggested in my comment on Silverstein’s purchase was actually even shorter than that – 40 stories I think I said, but notice how I suggested something taller than what was previously there because that is the trend. Even the shortest buildings being built are still being built taller. And I will say this again. 112 units, 127 units, that should easily be 250 units and 300 units, even with the amenities and extra sectors included. Also, yes, I definitely agree that building this would be a transportational nightmare, which is why I’ve repeatedely advocated for bus exclusive lanes, but that’s really not important.

      And I will ask one more time: How should it be then? How should we expand or develop? Again, might I add the proceeding building is most often taller than the one demolished. You want examples on the West Side, look at literally every building that’s being built now. Seriously. I could even expand your search area down to 57th street and show you more. That whole north side of the 600 block on 57th street. Even that tiny black building on 58th street is taller than what was there beforehand, and by a lot still. Building outward is clearly not an options for several obvious reasons, and building down isn’t the safest method either, due to New York’s utterly massive underground network, so there’s really only one direction you can go, and that is up.

      Here’s a littlt advice: There’s a fight worth fighting, and it’s across the street. I said this before, make a sitdown, have Helen Rosenthal arrange a meeting with Danny Silverstein, and negotiate with him, and tell him what you want to see. You should be able to make a compromise. I will say this, the pushback, even though it wasn’t successful, still had an effect. Instead of trying to fight something that has already started, fight something that is just being conceived upon, or at least try to influence it.

      • A.C. says:

        And here’s the unnecessarily cheesy official site… although most websites like these are cheesy as well…

        Also, as a musician, I can tell you that the rehearsal room is going to become one of two things:

        1. An apartment if there’s only one instrumentalist in the entire building, which isn’t unheard of
        2. A warzone if there’s more than one instrumentalist. I can tell you, I’ve seen some pretty gruesome fights at Kaufman Center over practice rooms…

        If you’re going that far, you might as well build a couple of them. But sure, nice… The official rendering at the end of the unbearable video gives a good idea. It’s nice.

    13. Isthatso says:

      The tranquil architectural rendering cleverly reflects calming and unobtrusive Central Park on both sides. But that one side is facing West?