Those “new” renderings of the multi cantilevering are truly disturbing. This building from Broadway is fugly. Too bad since the rendering of the facade seems quite nice. Where were the Nimbys when this was proposed?
It may be as of right in which case it never generated a public hearing.
So a developer can cantilever over another building without some sort of review?
I think so if air rights are purchased. Others may correct me.
Yes, it’s as-of-right. Cantilevers are great for preserving the streetscape. Tons of older buildings would be demolished if not for cantilevers. Also, West Side NIMBYs put silly height limits on Broadway parcels on the UWS. If you relaxed height limits there would likely be fewer air rights transfers.
Crawdad is correct. Because of the 200 feet height limit on Broadway on the UWS, developers either buy air rights or merge plots so that they can build right up to that limit.
Right. 100 years ago, developers were putting up 300-350 ft. towers on Broadway. Now NIMBYs whine about 200-250 ft. towers. Everything is “too tall”, even though the century-old buildings are often taller than the buildings built now. It’s madness.
The non-landmarked portions of Broadway on the UWS could easily accommodate 400-500 ft. towers.
I love the UWS. It’s really beautiful.
I live one the UWS and it is a great neighborhood, both architecturally and as a place to live. But this building is, IMO, hideous, The facade treatment may be OK but the large cantilevers assault my sensibilities.
The cantilevers are definitely foreign to the UWS streetscape.
It looks ridiculous.
There are other cantilevers, but none I know of that are this intrusive. Compare the one on the Trader Joe’s building on the southwest corner of 72nd and Broadway that hangs over the low rise apartment/office building to the south. It’s out of place but not as jarring.
Awful building.
i love the idea of this building, but what a monstrosity lol
It’ll be fine. People always find buildings that are new and unusual to be jarring and ugly. It’s only with the benefit of hindsight a few decades down the road that the final verdict comes in. I’m always reminded of Guy de Maupassant, who ate lunch at the Eiffel Tower every day because it was the only place in Paris from which he couldn’t see it. And he wasn’t alone–300 of France’s leading architects and intellectuals wrote a letter decrying the tower for its size being grossly out of scale and the architecture out of character with Paris’s 6-story masonry buildings. They called it “a truly tragic street lamp,” “an ungainly skeleton,” and “the metal asparagus.” Now you’d be branded a lunatic for suggesting that it’s an eyesore.
I’m not saying this building is an Eiffel Tower, but I think the complaints about this being out of context with the UWS architecture are sorely lacking in perspective.
I don’t think the style is out of sync with the UWS. It’s the shape that bugs me. The proportions are just ridiculous. I understand the shape is written in dollar-bill-green, but that doesn’t make the architecture any better.
largest residential cantilever building in Manhattan? Am I missing something or are they not aware of Central Park Tower lol?