NEW YORK | One Seaport Residences | 670 FT | 60 FLOORS (ON HOLD)

There is a spring running under Maiden Lane roughly from Broadway or near there going east. I know the hotel at the corner of Nassau St. had issues during construction dealing with the water seepage, I don’t know where it goes from there, but I wonder if it is part of the problem. Just pondering. Historical note. Maiden Lane got it’s name because it’s where women went to wash clothes way back.

1 Like

If you go to a higher resolution you can zoom in and see the stream -

1 Like

Love the map, But I don’t recognize a stream. Guess it was already covered. Looking around, I see no evidence of the one that’s under what is now 32 Ave of the Americas either so maybe I’m not reading the marking properly.

Look at the highest resolution. Maiden Lane is listed, it runs in dead center of the stream which looks more like an inlet on this map. He has 32 Ave of Americas listed as marshland so there could be a stream in that.

1 Like

Thanks. So it looks like the stream could have contributed to the problem.

1 Like


Credit: (June 20, 2023) - The NYC Walking Show

6 Likes

My conjecture is they used the wrong method - “unique foundation system” - for the foundation. The foundation footings are not drilled into the ‘bedrock’ beneath the ground/water; they used a different type of method.

There is a lot of detailed information on that subject posed on this thread. I surmise it is the ‘type’ of foundation that was done that is the root cause of the leaning: not the ground water.

1 Like

Any news here? I’m hearing rumors that this is coming down.

2 Likes

Yes, so far only rumors - but that outcome seems quite plausible. I guess we need to wait till these decisions have been officially released to the public.

Unless, we have a ‘mole’ out there willing to post something a bit more solid… :crazy_face:

I will not hold my breath on that hope…

I can’t imagine anything other than demo for this project. Given the soil conditions and the depth of the foundation it’s hard to conjure up a way to reinforce it. And straightening the thing out seems out of the question. I suspect the delay in a public announcement is because of the need for all the involved parties to settle up on who is going to pay what. While insurance companies will probably have to cover some of the cost, they may have viable legal cases against the architects, engineers and/or contractors. The negotiating table is probably fairly large.

4 Likes

All true. I was also thinking demo the only possible outcome because this structure is now both ‘unbuildable’ and ‘uninsurable’.

I say unbuildable because there was a previous claim that the tilt was not significant enough to warrant concern, and the foundation was “stable”. Even if the above were true, the facade contractor had to stop work mid-way up because the panels were not perfectly aligned with the superstructure; among other issues with attaching the ‘hangers’ for each facade panel. This tower is now ‘unbuildable’ , ‘un-insurable’ and unfeasible in every way possible.

So, yes - demolition seems the likely outcome here. I like “rumors” cause they so often turn out to be TRUE… :star_struck:

Enjoy the video, just for the fun of similarity -

7 Likes

Shouldn’t this be listed as being on hold?

4 Likes
3 Likes

Nobody wants to take this building to the prom.

1 Like

From Real Deal -

After years of tortuous litigation, Valley Bank can foreclose on a $120 million loan for Fortis Property Group’s Seaport Residences, a luxury condo tower that has sat unfinished and exposed to the elements for three years.

Judge Barry Ostrager on Thursday granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment at 161 Maiden Lane, allowing the bank to move forward with its foreclosure on the loan, of which $90 million has been funded.

The decision marks a new chapter for the disastrous Financial District project, which has been repeatedly delayed by lawsuits, notably over alleged design defects that have left the tower leaning a few inches to the north.

The bank can now move toward an eventual sale of the property, but it is unclear what someone might pay. Whether the tower can be salvaged is not certain, although an engineer hired by Fortis estimated in January that it would cost $106 million to complete it.

Ostrager left the door open for the parties to work out a deal, despite the bank and Fortis having repeatedly failed to do so during mediation. The decision in Valley’s favor gives the bank more leverage in any negotiations.

A referee will now be appointed to decide what is owed to the bank and whether the site should be sold as one parcel. A status conference is slated for Dec. 6.

Fortis has filed a separate lawsuit against Valley Bank, and some of the developer’s counterclaims in the foreclosure action will be consolidated with it. In his order, the judge noted that the lawsuit does not bar foreclosure on the mortgage, but could entitle Fortis to monetary damages.

The developer could also appeal Thursday’s decision. A spokesperson for Fortis said the developer is “evaluating all options.”

“The court has validated our lender liability claims by preserving our lawsuit for breach of contract and fraud, for which the court previously stated the lender has significant potential liability,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

A representative for Valley declined to comment. An attorney for the bank did not immediately return messages.

Bank Leumi USA, which was acquired by Valley last year, filed its foreclosure action in December 2020. The lawsuit accused Fortis of violating the terms of its loan agreement by failing to get a temporary certificate of occupancy by June 2020 and then failing to repay the loan when it matured in December of that year.

Fortis [sued the bank in October, alleging that it violated their agreement by failing to issue payments on the loan since March 2019. The project’s contractors went months without being paid, and in July 2020, workers walked off the site.

During a hearing on the motion, the judge referred to the case as “an endless war of attrition” and lamented that the project is likely worth considerably less than it was three years ago.

“The never-ending stream of discovery disputes, motions and appeals has resulted in an exponential devaluation of the collateral during the multi-year period in which construction financing was available at extremely reasonable rates,” the judge wrote in his decision.

3 Likes







My shots of the tower, back in August 2019

3 Likes

Good article; but the article states a “design defect”. I would think this was a “construction defect” that caused the building foundation to fail.

My limited understanding is that there is legal distinction between ‘design defects’ and ‘construction defects’.

‘Design defects’ often result from the design professional’s failure to produce an accurate set of construction documents. A design omission results from an incorrect design item or a scope of work that the design professional missed in the construction document.

A ‘Construction defect’ is the contractor’s failure to build a structure or component part of a structure per the construction documents. Such defects may include items such as an improperly installed weatherproofing system, soils that were not properly compacted, or improperly installed flashing.

Whatever the case, I don’t know for sure, given my limited understanding of the legal matters - regardless, this is one fascinating story in the annals of Design/Construction boondoggles. :pensive:

1 Like

I don’t think the label will make much difference on the legal side. The serious issue is which parties were responsible for what apparently was a flawed foundation. But I suspect the architects, typically required to regularly inspect the project and approve change orders, are on the hook for what reports say was an inadequate support structure. Others, such as a foundation contractor suggesting a change or a geologist saying the soil was good for what was installed, and who knows who else, may also be liable. This litigation will probably drag on forever. Meanwhile the city will have a decaying hulk on its hands. There must be other similarly disastrous projects but I don’t. Know what they were.

2 Likes

Strictly speaking, the contractor follows the architect/engineer drawings. Any deviation from the drawings is a construction defect.

1 Like