NEW YORK | 1303-1309 Third Avenue | FT | FLOORS

4 Likes

"Segal told Patch that his firm doesn’t yet have definitive plans for the site, “but wanted to move forward with the demolition of the vacant buildings in the interim.”

1 Like

Awesome! We lose quintessential NYC fine-grained urbanity in exchange for a site that will sit empty for god-knows-how-long

1 Like

Wait, some people prefer crappy vacant tenements to classic UES limestone buildings with modern layouts? I thought this was the YIMBY forums, not the NIMBY forums.

This whole block is coming down, BTW. And if you believe that quote from the Patch, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that’s for sale.

I guess I don’t see them as crappy. I appreciate buildings on small lots for creating fine-grained urbanity, the greater the density of shops, stores, and buildings, the better the visual appeal and more exciting city you have. And you can’t remove all of those and replace them with luxury Stern buildings (but hopefully it’s a Stern or other classical-inspired design) and have the same bustling city neighborhood. Those tenements with their classic red brick, the metal awnings, and dangling fire escapes (every foreigner and visitor deeply associates these with NY) give the Avenues of the UES their charm and function.

I would much rather these two right across the street go down and replaced

1 Like

especially considering these “tenements” tend to have ground level restaurants/local businesses that cater to the remnant middle class around the neighborhood. These are disappearing at an alarming rate. Madison, Park, Fifth, that’s the realm of the upper class, but Third, Second, Lexington and First? That’s still home to those who grind it our every day. And the night life is lively.

2 Likes
2 Likes

I hope every tenement on the UES is leveled. This is supposed to be the wealthiest urban neighborhood on earth, but the eastern half of the neighborhood still has all these crap tenements, built for destitute turn-of-century immigrants.

And they add little to street life. In fact the newer buildings have more retail and activity-generating uses. And they’re obviously higher density, which is a good thing.

I can’t believe people really prefer tenement slum buildings over limestone towers. But I guess you’ll always find some contrarians.

1 Like

Considering that those “limestone towers” aren’t built for the regular people I wonder why they wouldn’t want to be displaced. Hmmm. Wow can you be anymore tone deaf?

1 Like

Crawdad–These buildings are not slum buildings. Nor are all such buildings remnants of the late nineteenth poverty of the lower east side immigrant districts, now largely remodeled for more modern use.These apartments add texture, history, first floor commercial space, and living quarters for those not in elite of the UES. They need housing more than anyone else and should be allowed a way to find it. Towers are not the answer to all of the city’s housing needs.

3 Likes

They also don’t sit nearly empty for months at a time.

3 Likes

It should be interesting to see what the Second ave. subway is going to do to Spanish Harlem.

This might be part of the same project:

Hopefully it produces a sea of limestone towers by Stern.

1 Like

EJS is responsible for Stern’s 150 E. 78th. Maybe they’ll follow up with something as good here.