New York: Projects & Construction

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/nyregion/02crane.html
Where Crane Fell, Foreclosure Looms

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: August 2, 2008


Richard Perry/The New York Times

The tower at 303 East 51st Street where a crane fell in March.

The developer of a high-rise apartment house on the East Side of Manhattan where a construction crane collapsed in March, killing seven people, now faces foreclosure and the loss of the entire property.

All work on the concrete hulk of what would have been a sleek 43-story tower at 303 East 51st Street ceased after the accident more than four months ago. City officials rejected the developer’s revised construction plans in June and revoked his building permit.

On July 25, the developer’s lender, Arbor Realty Funding L.L.C., began a foreclosure action in State Supreme Court in Manhattan against the developer, James P. Kennelly, for failure to repay $70.4 million in overdue project loans. Arbor is seeking to sell the property to satisfy the loans.

It could be sometime next year before the fate of the project is resolved. In the meantime, it casts a pall over the neighborhood and serves as a constant reminder of the Saturday afternoon that the 22-story tower crane crashed to the street, killing seven and forcing 17 nearby buildings and hundreds of residents to be evacuated. The unfinished building, which rises 18 stories above Second Avenue, is shrouded in orange safety netting and is illuminated at night.

If he obtained new financing, Mr. Kennelly could still repay the loans. But in the current economy, real estate executives and bankers say, it has become increasingly difficult for developers to obtain loans for real estate projects, particularly one as troubled as Mr. Kennelly’s. The litigation could go on for months, and any new owner would have to get approval from the Buildings Department to resume construction.

Calls to Mr. Kennelly, a firefighter turned developer, were referred to his spokesman, Michael McKeon. Mr. McKeon declined to comment.

“We are exercising our right to foreclose the mortgages on the property,” said Raymond N. Hannigan of Herrick, Feinstein, a lawyer for Arbor Realty.

Jessica S. Lappin, a member of the City Council who lives nearby, said she was disheartened to learn that the site would remain in limbo. Many residents, she said, were apprehensive about it because they continued to worry about its safety.

After what happened, she said, “People in the community want something to come back to the community, whether it’s a school or open space.”

“We need both in this area, desperately,” she said.

Local residents had been raising questions about safety on the construction site for months before the accident. And a community group, the Turtle Bay Association, said the city’s Buildings Department had largely ignored its complaints about the building’s 43-story height, as well as its balconies.

The March 15 accident, the first of two major crane accidents in Manhattan this year, highlighted a rising tide of construction accidents amid the current building boom and embarrassed the Bloomberg administration. Since then, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and City Council members have called for new safety standards and stricter training and enforcement.

But it was not until after the accident that Patricia J. Lancaster, then the buildings commissioner, revealed that the city had had serious reservations about Mr. Kennelly’s project, which, she said, did not conform to zoning regulations and whose design never should have been approved.

Ms. Lancaster was later forced to resign.

For Mr. Kennelly, the 43-story apartment tower was to have been the high point of his career as a developer. He had been involved with about two dozen smaller renovation projects since the mid-1980’s. But the building on East 51st Street, with 180 condominiums, was the largest by far. He bought a series of adjacent parcels on Second Avenue and East 51st Street for the project and obtained approval for a 43-story tower.

But in February, when the tower was already up to the eighth floor, the Buildings Department began reviewing the local zoning and the project’s building permits, not because of community complaints, but because one of the developer’s prospective lenders asked for a letter reaffirming city approvals.

In an interview earlier this year, Phyllis Arnold, the Buildings Department’s deputy commissioner for legal affairs, said officials determined that the site permitted a 33-story tower atop a broad base, not the sheer tower the developer had designed.

The department also found that the building was too close to an adjoining four-story building and that its balconies jutted over other properties.

The two sides were working out a compromise when the accident occurred. It is now the subject of a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, as well as separate inquiries by the Buildings Department and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Hoping to resume construction, Mr. Kennelly submitted revised building plans.

But the city sent him a letter in May outlining its continuing objections to his plans and revoked his building permit altogether in June.

In the meantime, about two dozen contractors and unions filed liens against the property, according to the lawsuit filed by Arbor Realty.

Lot still vacant where Pearl St. artists lost homes
Volume 21, Number 12 | The Newspaper of Lower Manhattan | August 1 - 7, 2008

Lot still vacant where Pearl St. artists lost homes

By Laura Latzko


Photo courtesy of Colette

Artist Colette Justine in her 213 Pearl St. apartment, which was part of her work. She and her neighbor were fighting with their landlord and were forced to leave last summer because of damage to the building. Her home was demolished in November to build a hotel, but a year after being forced out the lot is still vacant.

Crumpled pink satin covered the walls and hung from the ceiling of the bedroom of an apartment that was a piece of artwork. The 4th floor loft on 213 Pearl St. belonged to artist Colette Justine and had been her home for more than three decades. She had accumulated wigs, costumes, portraits, done by her and others, antique furniture, molds, fabrics, and other odds and ends that made up her studio home Colette Maison Lumiere, or house of light.

“It had a feeling of a sanctuary or temple,” Colette said. “It had an energy that was accumulated from years of love. It was a sacred space.”

Alanna Heiss, the director of P.S. 1’s Contemporary Art Center, said that Colette’s apartment was a special work of art. She only went there once, when the artist was doing a portrait of her granddaughter, but she was impressed by the ambiance of Colette’s space.

“I loved it…Her bed was full of silks and satins, all ready for her to perform,” Alanna said. “She created this wonderful fantasy world.”

Colette, as she is known in the art world, was one of the tenants who was displaced after 213 Pearl St. was demolished.

When her home was torn down, many of Colette’s belongings were still in her apartment. She was forced to leave in August 2007, when the Department of Buildings found it to be tipping to the south and unsafe for occupancy. The remaining tenants, Colette and Jim Teschner, a photo studio manager for Martha Stuart Living and landscape artist, were only able to get back into the apartment one time, a month later, to get their belongings.

Then the landlord, Diane Karch, and her partners sold the building to the Lam Group, which also bought two adjacent lots. The developer planned to build a 660-room Sheraton hotel on the site, but almost a year later the lot is still empty.

John Lam, the chairperson of the Lam Group, said that the project is over budget, and it would cost over $200 million to build a large hotel. With the credit crunch, Lam has been unable to get a loan to build.

“Today’s situation is not good for one big project,” Lam said in a phone interview.

Instead, the developer now hopes to build two smaller hotels on its lot, including a 200-room Sheraton. Lam hopes construction on the project will begin at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. A Sheraton spokesperson could not confirm its continued involvement in the project by press time.

A year later, Colette and Teschner are wondering why their homes were demolished so quickly. Teschner and Colette both reluctantly left their homes on August 13, 2007.

They were the last two people in the building because as rent stabilized tenants, they were the only ones legally allowed to stay in the building after it was temporarily vacated in October 2006 because of a crack in the building’s façade from nearby construction.

Colette remembers that the night of the final vacate in August 2007, she was woken up by six police officers ringing her bell, who told her to “come down for her street performance.” They rung the bell for over an hour non-stop.

“A feeling of overwhelming fear overcame me,” Colette said.

Earlier that day, engineers from the Lam Group had come into her place and looked around, and then her landlord wanted to talk to her after that. She said that when she called the landlord back, Karch said it was “too late.”

When Colette went back to the site this week, she was shocked that the lot sat empty, save for a pile of bricks and concrete columns. Colette, who believes her apartment should have been preserved, wonders why she and Teschner were not given more time to collect their belongings.

“I am shocked and sad to see the building down and the lot vacant,” Colette said. “I can’t help but wonder many things: Was it necessary and what was the big hurry for tearing down the building? It is an unresolved mystery.”

Some of Colette’s apartment was salvaged, but the artist said she was only able to “scrach the surface” during her last re-entry into the building. Colette said that when she was allowed back into her building for one day in September, she grabbed her hats, portraits, clothes, and molds, all part of her artwork, but she had to leave many of her belongings, including her bed, statues, a 8 ½ ft. cabinet-like light box she created, her wigs and almost everything in her closet.

During this move, Colette and Teschner worked for eight hours, in minimal light provided by city officials, who shined flashlights in the hallways. Colette and Teschner were not allowed to bring items down that were heavier than one person could carry, and they threw their belongings onto the sidewalks, in boxes and shopping bags.

“I felt like a thief robbing my own possessions, grabbing whatever,” Colette said. “It was very hot outside, which made running up and down those stairs even more exhausting.”

Teschner was more prepared for the move, although he still left a great deal of his belongings in his 800 ft. loft. Before he went back, he made a list of what he wanted to take, which included his paintings and slides of his work. There were also personal items that he took with him, such as an antique bowl from Korea that his former partner had given him.

Although he wasn’t concerned with big items such as his TV and stereo, Teschner did have to leave personal belongings such as bowls his mother had brought him from Budapest, a dresser bureau and drafting table he had since he was 16 years old.

“I constantly had to make decisions as to what to keep and what to leave behind. It was horrible,” Teschner said. “Everything that was materially valuable to me had been put in jeopardy ... my paintings, my archives, my family heirlooms, and many personal treasures with intimate stories and memories associated with them. I felt as if I were leaving souls behind, not just things.”

Before they were vacated, Teschner and Colette tried to save their building, meeting with the Lam Group before the developer bought the property

Teschner said that he and his lawyer along with Colette and hers met with the Lam Group about 6 to 8 months before the demolition, and he told the developer that he wanted to remain at 213. He said that a representative from Lam Group told him that they would be willing to build around the property. He also said that when the developer offered him money, he turned it down, calling it “cab fare out of New York.”

“It was my home and studio of 23 years, which I loved. Also, my entire economic life as a single, middle class person was based on the affordability of my rent,” Teschner said in an email from his home in France. “Where in New York City could I have gone that could have provided reasonable rent and enough space to live and work as an artist? I had a tremendous amount to lose and I wasn’t going to give up easily.”

Teschner said that after this meeting, he and his lawyer submitted an offer to the Lam Group, but they never heard from the developer again. He and Colette received a settlement, through their landlord, Diane Karch. Neither the tenants nor Lam would disclose the amount.

“I do not believe that the Lam Group had any interest in saving our building despite their assertions that they were prepared to build their hotel with or without the purchase of 213 Pearl St.,” Teschner said.

Lam said he met with the tenants and their lawyers, and they said that they wanted to move out because their apartment building was damaged.

“The building was unsafe. They were happy to move out,” Lam said. “They were begging for me to pay them and move out.”

One other solution that Teschner attempted was getting the building fixed up. Karch had initially said she would make repairs in the spring or early summer. When the building wasn’t fixed in June, Teschner took his landlord to court, and a court order was issued, asking the landlord to repair the building. Teschner said that Karch had also received five D.O.B. violations for failing to repair the building.

Teschner believes that his landlord had no intention of fixing the building and that she was going to let the building go until it was condemned, under which case the rent stabilized tenants would have to leave.

“It seemed quite clear to me that she did not want to fix the building as she wanted to sell it,” Teschner said. “Although I am certain she did not want us to be harmed in any way, she played a very dangerous game by not repairing the building while we were living in it.”

Karch did not respond to several phone messages.

The tenants weren’t the only ones who fought to preserve this 1831 building. Alan Solomon, a historian, and others tried to get landmark status for 213 Pearl St. because it was the last example of Greek Revival architecture left on the street, which had once been a bustling commercial district. After the Erie Canal was built, dry goods would be shipped from Pearl St. warehouses into cities in the Midwest, including Baltimore and Chicago.

“It was a piece of architectural and cultural history. I was hoping they would come up with another solution to maintain more of the historical context,” Solomon said. “The building was more deserving of preservation because of its age, how it stayed in tack.”

Solomon is currently working on getting the facade of 213 Pearl St. rebuilt as well as bricks and columns from the building incorporated into the design of the hotel.

Teschner, whose apartment did not have a bathroom when he moved in, also admired the architecture of the building and his own space. In his loft, he had a 17 ft. sloped ceiling, a balcony that overlooked the apartment, and a five by six ft. skylight, and he paid $651 a month for this loft. Teschner also remembers the wooden staircase that led up to his fifth floor apartment, which he watched being demolished.

A year later, Teschner is living in France, and Colette in Chelsea. Teschner said that he would still be living in New York if his building hadn’t been demolished, but he depended on rent stabilization. He said that what he misses most about the space is its close proximity to the East and Hudson Rivers, which he used to paint by after work.

Colette, who said she is trying to move on and draw something positive from the situation, has not yet re-created the environment that existed in her apartment, which she put up after 9/11. She said she has had an offer from a museum in Berlin, Germany, but she turned it down. She said that she hopes to create it somewhere in New York, but she wants it to be permanent, in a museum exhibit or public works project. She said that in the future, she hopes that the city is more supportive of artists like her.

“Successful and recognized self made artists, like myself, who have already made their contribution to the city’s culture suddenly find themselves in this horrible situation,” Colette said. “They are the heart of the city, and it seems they are not being honored but being forced to leave by not being given the necessary support or respect. It is like a mother devouring her own children.”

Developer hopes to add windows and life to Verizon tower
Volume 21, Number 12 | The Newspaper of Lower Manhattan | August 1 - 7, 2008

Developer hopes to add windows and life to Verizon tower

By James S. Woodman


The Verizon building at 375 Pearl St. would get
windows under a design by Cook + Fox Architects, who were commisioned by the building’s new owner.

Since its completion in 1975, New Yorkers have openly scoffed at the virtually windowless skyscraper at 375 Pearl St.

Neither exterior beauty nor interior comfort were much considered in planning the monolithic structure near the Brooklyn Bridge. The building’s hulking presence has been said to overpower the bridge from afar, and, even worse to many bloggers, its towering Verizon logo can appear as the bridge’s unasked-for corporate sponsor.

With the digitization of telecom, 375 Pearl St.— which has become almost an icon of 1970s dull architecture — can no longer be excused as an infrastructural necessity; computers have rendered obsolete the bulky switchboards that the building once furnished. Faced with a dwindling need for large-scale switchboard storage space, Verizon sold 375 Pearl last year for the shockingly low price of $173 million, which amounts to no more than the cost of the bare land on which the building stands.

The buyer, Taconic Investment, plans on transforming the looming symbol of impersonality into one of the most human-oriented, not to mention environmentally sound, skyscrapers in Manhattan. Taconic hopes to strip the building to its “bare bones” and convert it to office space by 2011.

Verizon is still using the building, but workers said they are aware of plans to relocate to the Verizon building on Vesey St. across from the W.T.C. The telecommunications company will keep three stories of the 375 Pearl St. building for its own operations.

The project’s architect, Cook + Fox Architects, the same firm that designed the new Bank of America Tower opposite Bryant Park, embraces what they call “biophelia,” the belief that people have an innate connection to nature. For skyscrapers, this philosophy entails providing an interior with maximum space and sunlight in order to create a more natural atmosphere. With this goal in mind, 375 Pearl St. would seem an unlikely candidate for Cook + Fox.

But Rick Cook, founder and partner of Cook + Fox Architects, believes 375 Pearl, with its 17-to-23-foot-high ceilings, is one of his most exciting projects yet, going as far as calling its completion a “moral mandate.”

“Because 375 Pearl St. was purposefully built as a telephone switchboard, it will actually be much better suited as an office building that most office buildings are,” Cook said in a phone interview. “It’s like buildings in Tribeca that were originally butter and cheese factories that now make for some of the best office space in the city because of their high ceilings.”

“When people look at 375 Pearl St. from the Brooklyn Bridge, they see a dead, lifeless building — you just don’t see anything there,” Cook added. “We want to turn it into a building that’s alive again.”

Taconic’s Doug Winshall said that renovation work will start as soon as the firm finds an anchor tenant ready to lease 200,000 square feet of space. He said he is not worried about the economy or the commercial office market because demand is still high Downtown and he expects his project to be finished long before the World Trade Center towers. Winshall hopes to attract arts, media and literary agency tenants.

With abundant natural light a top priority, Cook + Fox plans to have construction crews envelop the entire Pearl St. building with scaffolding, remove the limestone facade and replace it with “high performance, extremely clear” glass frontage.

Stripping away the limestone panels will reveal a network of crisscrossed steel trusses that the architects have utilized to create a main theme of the building’s facade, reminiscent of the Sears Tower in Chicago.

The clear glass that will clad these trusses conveys far more light than mirrored or tinted glass, which is more commonly used on glass-only buildings. This will allow views both out of and into the building. The purpose of the clear glass is not only for providing its occupants better sunlight and panoramas, but for the building’s exterior aesthetics as well.

By allowing people to see through into the cavernous floors of 375 Pearl St., the clear glass will be more than a mere front wall; it will allow visual infiltration into all sides of the building, creating a dynamic, somewhat frenzied facade.

Though it is possible to convert the building’s four 23-foot-high floors into multiple stories, Cook says that, to create a more desirable atmosphere, they will keep the tall ceilings for office space.

Mirrored or tinted facades are, however, more energy efficient because they reflect sunlight that would otherwise drive up cooling expenses. But Cook + Fox thinks it may have found a way to curb the energy inefficiency of its much-lauded clear glass. Using sensors to gauge the amount of natural light filling different parts of the building, a central computer will dim the building’s electric lights accordingly. The architects say this will reduce energy costs enough so as to compensate for the added cooling cost associated with non-mirrored or tinted glass.

In addition to these efforts to reduce sunray heat, Cook + Fox says the building has several other green features.

The fact that the skyscraper’s entire superstructure will be reused makes it an important example of recycling that New York could benefit from. Retaining the structure, Cook + Fox says, will save as much as 18,000 tons of steel and 40,000 cubic yards of concrete. All of the limestone stripped off in this process can be recycled into other construction jobs.

The building also may have a rainwater collection device installed on its roof that will supplement the building’s water supply for toilet flushing.

The key to making the city greener, says Gilbert, is in renovating existing buildings, like 375 Pearl St. This, he hopes, will set a standard for the rest of the city, especially as 375 Pearl St. is located only blocks from City Hall.

Though its proximity to the Civic Center adds to the value of 325 Pearl St., it is just north of the Brooklyn Bridge, in an area that’s largely forgotten about. While some consider it part of the Seaport, others aren’t aware of its existence or its name.

Winshall hopes the renovation will help to revitalize the enclave by creating dramatically more foot traffic between the Civic Center and 375 Pearl St. Its lobby, not more than a cramped waiting room, Cook hopes to transform into a much grander area, which will create the effect of “walking into a gallery.”

The lobby will be flanked, Cook hopes, with a ground-level plaza open to the public.

“For once the building will really engage the neighborhood,” Cook said.