NEW YORK | 10 West 57th Street | 672 FT | 52 FLOORS

I’m not happy about this. This schmuck will raze some beautiful buildings. Further, from This putz, I expect an 800’ glass box.


this is the assemblage focused around 16 w 57th, right?

That’s correct.

1 Like

Solow is a shmuck. “So low” is a fitting name for him.

1 Like

Robert, how close is this to 31 West 57th? Who owns that site again?

Hi, Lion. It’s across the street and a little to the east of 31 W 57th.


I wish they’d integrate this with the new building

Me too


1 Like

That is such a beautiful building! It looks like something you’d find in Belgravia!

I agree. Maybe the shmuck will die before he tears it down.

prefiled NB permit 4/17

52 floors, 672’, 80 units


1 Like

So low.

This should not be permitted in NY.



Sadly, the shmuck So Low owns the buildings on either side of No. 10. All of these gorgeous, old buildings will be razed and replaced by a lame, glass box. Between Related’s razing of the beautiful townhouses at 29-31 W57th and this travesty, 57th is rapidly losing its allure and will look like a street in Houston.

Related’s lot will remain vacant for years, like this shoddy lot which constantly has homeless people and has been vacant for around ten years and will remain vacant for many more. This, together with the planned homeless shelter nearby, will really detract from this street.

Nice work, Soloviev.

1 Like

I love how the press calls Solow “patient” – a euphemism for an ass-dragger who razes beautiful buildings to replace them with empty lots for an indefinite period of time.


Why would you put a homeless shelter in your tourism areas? Seriously, who makes these decisions?

Homeless shelters are crucial, but there are also better places to put them. In San Francisco, the tourism industry is now on their hands and knees begging the city to clean up the trash and the streets, because it’s starting to really impact their business. And of course San Francisco is gonna start losing tax revenue if its tourism industry begins to decline.
And none of this mentions that you’re buying real estate to house the homeless on one of the most expensive streets in the world. A nine year contract for $63 million to house the homeless? Why not just start buying actual condos in One57 to house them permanently?


Why would you NOT put a homeless shelter in a tourist center? I don’t get it. Shelters should be distributed around the city, not concentrated in a single location, and that is exactly what the city is doing.

There are already homeless shelters scattered around the city, BTW. It’s a normal part of life in a big city, and the neighbors likely won’t even notice (these locations are heavily screened and monitored).

1 Like