Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Investing in Real Estate - Creative Opportunities -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (2692)	1/4/2020 12:38:41 PM
From: renovator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2722

No, I think they just ran into a lot more issues than initially expected. I handled a couple of claims earlier in the reconstruction process. My wife worked in that building for several years as a legal secretary for Kaye Scholer LLP before a major downsizing purge when they reorganized a lot of low producing partners out and shipped a lot of back office work to Florida. That firm is now Arnold & Porter and has relocated to the West side. Meanwhile at 425 Park the building rebuild was complicated by new/old height allowance rules--very arcane in NYC--which dictated that when they demo'ed the existing building the lower 18 floors had to stay in order to allow all the new floors above to be added. However, the existing superstructure would not accommodate the load from the new added floors so there was a 5 floor deep excavation and installation of new interior superstructure sistered to the existing and then all the way up for the new floors. In addition, I suspect they had some approval issues with the three fin arrangement on top, which I think was not part of the original approved design.