Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Provides Comprehensive Legal Services For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Provides Comprehensive Legal Services For

ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C. 733 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10017 PRESS CONTACT: Shea Communications, LLC George Shea, Mark Faris (212) 627-5766 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C. PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL SERVICES FOR RENOVATION OF FORD FOUNDATION BUILDING Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. is providing comprehensive legal services for the renovation of the Ford Foundation Building, the landmark 12-story office tower encircling a 170-foot atrium at 320 East 43rd Street. Designed by renowned architects Eamonn Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo and completed in 1968, the building features an extraordinary greenhouse atrium with open- air balconies. The atrium and the exterior of the building were designated as landmarks in 1997. The two-year renovation will reposition the building to provide open workspaces while updating all building systems to current code. Robert M. Kessler, member of Rosenberg & Estis, with the assistance of other firm attorneys, drafted, negotiated and/or advised on a wide variety of contracts that the Ford Foundation has entered into or may enter into with the architect, engineers, construction manager, real estate brokers, a property manager, an owner's representative and other consultants. Separately, Chris Nicosia, Of Counsel to Rosenberg & Estis, negotiated the foundation’s lease at 1440 Broadway for temporary space during the renovation. In addition, Frank Chaney, Of Counsel, provided advice on necessary approvals from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. “This is a complex, multi-tiered project that requires a host of different contracts, approvals and legal support,” Kessler said. “By tapping into its full scope of services Rosenberg & Estis was able to help the Ford Foundation advance the renovation.” About Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Founded in 1975, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. is widely recognized as one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. represents clients in all aspects of real estate development, transactions, financing, litigation, rent regulation and governmental affairs. ### .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Chapter 7: Urban Design and Visual Resources
Chapter 7: Urban Design and Visual Resources 7.1 Introduction This chapter assesses the Proposed Action’s potential effects on urban design and visual resources. Per the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual, the urban design and visual resources assessment is undertaken to determine whether and how a project or action may change the visual experience of a pedestrian, focusing on the components of the project or action that may have the potential to affect the arrangement, appearance, and functionality of the built and natural environment. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, urban design is defined as the totality of components—including streets, buildings, open spaces, wind, natural resources, and visual resources—that may affect a pedestrian’s experience of public space. A visual resource is defined as the connection from the public realm to significant natural or built features, including views of the waterfront, public parks, landmark structures or districts, otherwise distinct buildings or groups of buildings, and natural resources. As described in Chapter 1, “Project Description,” the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) is proposing zoning map and zoning text amendments that would collectively affect approximately 78 blocks in Greater East Midtown, in Manhattan Community Districts 5 and 6 (collectively, the “Proposed Action”). The Proposed Action is intended to reinforce the area’s standing as a one of the City’s premiere business districts, support the preservation of landmarks, and provide for above- and below-grade public realm improvements as contained in the Public Realm Improvement Concept Plan (the “Concept Plan”) described in Chapter 1, “Project Description.” Many aspects of urban design are controlled by zoning, and because the Proposed Action would entail changes to zoning and related development-control mechanisms, the Proposed Action therefore may have the potential to result in changes to urban design.
[Show full text]
New York Citytm
The Internationalist ® The Top 10 Guide to New York The Top 10 Guide to New York CityTM The Internationalist 96 Walter Street/Suite 200 Boston, MA 02131 USA The Internationalist • www.internationalist.com • 617-354-7755 1 The Internationalist ® The Top 10 Guide to New York The Internationalist® International Business, Investment and Travel Published by: The Internationalist Publishing Company 96 Walter Street/Suite 200 Boston, MA 02131, USA Tel: 617-354-7722 [email protected] Author: Patrick W. Nee Copyright © 2001 by PWN The Internationalist is a Registered Trademark. The Top 10 Guide to New York City, The Top 10 Travel Guides, The Top 10 Guides are Trademarks of the Internationalist Publishing Company. All right are reserved under International, Pan-American and Pan-Asian Conventions. No part of this book, no lists, no maps or illustration may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. All rights vigorously enforced. ISBN: 1-891382-21-7 Special Sales: Books of the Internationalist Publishing Company are available for bulk purchases at special discounts for sales promotions, corporate identity programs or premiums. The Internationalist Publishing Company publishes books on international business, investment and travel. For further information contact the Special Sales department at: Special Sales, The Internationalist, 96 Walter Street/Suite 200, Boston, MA 02131. The Internationalist Publishing Company 96 Walter Street/Suite 200 Boston, MA 02131 USA Tel: 617-354-7722 [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] web site: http://www.internationalist.com The Internationalist • www.internationalist.com • 617-354-7755 2 The Internationalist ® The Top 10 Guide to New York Welcome to New York City.
[Show full text]
Ford Foundation Building
Landmarks Preservation Commission October 21, 1997, Designation List 285 LP-1970 FORD FOUNDATION BUILDING, East 42nd Street interior consisting of the revolving door vestibule; East 43rd Street interior consisting of the entrance vestibule; A level through eleventh story interiors consisting of the atrium with its terraced garden and pool, extending to the outer surfaces of the glass office walls aild glass dining room walls, the outside surfaces of the balcony parapet walls (tenth and eleventh stories) surmounted by railings, the inside surfaces of the window walls at the east and south, and up to and including the inner surface of the skylight; and the fixtures and interior components of these spaces including, but not limited to , wall surfaces, floor surfaces, ceiling surfaces, steps, railings, interior columns, doors, and revolving doors; 321 East 42nd Street and 320 East 43rd Street, aka 309-325 East 42nd Street and 306-326 East 43rd Street, Manhattan. Built 1963-67; architects Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo Associates (the successor firm to Eero Saarinen Associates). Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1335, Lot 5. On September 16, 1997, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as an Interior Landmark of the Ford Foundation Building, and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 6). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law . Six witnesses spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of the Ford Foundation. There were no speakers in opposition to designation. A resolution supporting the designation has been received from Manhattan Community Board No.
[Show full text]
Ford Foundation Building. Here
FORD FOUNDATION BUILDING. HERE. LOCATION Midtown East's iconic Ford Foundation building is set to receive a major facelift while still retaining its structural integrity. The foundation announced plans Wednesday to bring the building, which occupies almost an entire block between East 42nd and 43rd Streets along Second Avenue FORD FOUNDATION BUILDING. GROUP: JOSE L. CABRERA IBRAHIM BARRIE GASSENDY MOLIERE ALBERTO CRUZ BUILDINGTECH III PROF. PAUL KING FORD FOUNDATION BUILDING. HISTORY THAT’S HAPPEN NOW….. The Ford Foundation Building is an In October 2016, the Ford office building in Midtown Manhattan Foundation Building began a designed by architect Kevin Roche major renovation and restoration and his engineering partner, John project that will reinvigorate the Dinkeloo.[2] Designed in 1963 and completed in 1968 on the former site of building’s mission—ensuring that it the Hospital for Special Surgery,its works for far more people, is open large tree-filled atrium was the first of its to the public, and serves as an kind in Manhattan, and it is widely uplifting and energizing space for credited as setting the precedent for change.[5]] indoor public spaces in Manhattan office buildings. [3][4] The building was one of the first that Roche-Dinkeloo produced after they became heads of Eero Saarinen's firm, following his death in 1961. It won the AIA Twenty-five Year Award in 1995. DISTRIBUTION AND FORM. The twelve-story box represents an evolutionary approach to expanding the limits of International Style modern architecture by exploring new architectural vocabulary, new materials, and new environmental controls. The architects aimed to restore the social function of modernism, furthering the goal of human community through facilitation of effective charity by the Ford Foundation.
[Show full text]
Final Draft-New Haven
Tomorrow is Here: New Haven and the Modern Movement The New Haven Preservation Trust Report prepared by Rachel D. Carley June 2008 Funded with support from the Tomorrow is Here: New Haven and the Modern Movement Published by The New Haven Preservation Trust Copyright © State of Connecticut, 2008 Project Committee Katharine Learned, President, New Haven Preservation Trust John Herzan, Preservation Services Officer, New Haven Preservation Trust Bruce Clouette Robert Grzywacz Charlotte Hitchcock Alek Juskevice Alan Plattus Christopher Wigren Author: Rachel D. Carley Editor: Penny Welbourne Rachel D. Carley is a writer, historian, and preservation consultant based in Litchfield, Connecticut. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Rights to images in the collection of the New Haven Museum and Historical Society are granted for one- time use only. All photographs by Rachel Carley unless otherwise credited. Introduction Supported by a survey and planning grant from the History Division of the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism, this overview of modern architecture and planning in New Haven is the first phase of a comprehensive project sponsored by the New Haven Preservation Trust. The intent is to investigate how and why the city became the center for one of the country’s most aggressive modern building programs of the post-World War II era, attracting a roster of internationally recognized architects and firms considered to be among the greatest leaders of the modernist movement. Although the architectural heritage of this city includes fine examples of early 20th- century contemporary design predating the war, the New Haven story relates most directly to the urban renewal years of the 1950s to 1970s and their dramatic reshaping of the city skyline during that period.
[Show full text]
LCSH Section O
O, Inspector (Fictitious character) O-erh-kʾun Ho (Mongolia) O-wee-kay-no Indians USE Inspector O (Fictitious character) USE Orhon River (Mongolia) USE Oowekeeno Indians O,O-dimethyl S-phthalimidomethyl phosphorodithioate O-erh-kʾun River (Mongolia) O-wen-kʻo (Tribe) USE Phosmet USE Orhon River (Mongolia) USE Evenki (Asian people) O., Ophelia (Fictitious character) O-erh-to-ssu Basin (China) O-wen-kʻo language USE Ophelia O. (Fictitious character) USE Ordos Desert (China) USE Evenki language O/100 (Bomber) O-erh-to-ssu Desert (China) Ō-yama (Kanagawa-ken, Japan) USE Handley Page Type O (Bomber) USE Ordos Desert (China) USE Ōyama (Kanagawa-ken, Japan) O/400 (Bomber) O family (Not Subd Geog) O2 Arena (London, England) USE Handley Page Type O (Bomber) Ó Flannabhra family UF North Greenwich Arena (London, England) O and M instructors USE Flannery family BT Arenas—England USE Orientation and mobility instructors O.H. Ivie Reservoir (Tex.) O2 Ranch (Tex.) Ó Briain family UF Ivie Reservoir (Tex.) BT Ranches—Texas USE O'Brien family Stacy Reservoir (Tex.) OA (Disease) Ó Broin family BT Reservoirs—Texas USE Osteoarthritis USE Burns family O Hine Hukatere (N.Z.) OA-14 (Amphibian plane) O.C. Fisher Dam (Tex.) USE Franz Josef Glacier/Kā Roimata o Hine USE Grumman Widgeon (Amphibian plane) BT Dams—Texas Hukatere (N.Z.) Oa language O.C. Fisher Lake (Tex.) O-kee-pa (Religious ceremony) USE Pamoa language UF Culbertson Deal Reservoir (Tex.) BT Mandan dance Oab Luang National Park (Thailand) San Angelo Lake (Tex.) Mandan Indians—Rites and ceremonies USE ʻUtthayān hǣng Chāt ʻŌ̜p Lūang (Thailand) San Angelo Reservoir (Tex.) O.L.
[Show full text]
Toward a New Approach to Evaluating Significance in Recent-Past Preservation Planning with a Case Study of 1960S Properties in Philadelphia County
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2011 Toward a New Approach to Evaluating Significance in Recent-Past Preservation Planning with a Case Study of 1960s Properties in Philadelphia County Kristin M. Hagar University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Hagar, Kristin M., "Toward a New Approach to Evaluating Significance in Recent-Past Preservation Planning with a Case Study of 1960s Properties in Philadelphia County" (2011). Theses (Historic Preservation). 171. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/171 Suggested Citation: Hagar, Kristin M. (2011). Toward a New Approach to Evaluating Significance in Recent-Past Preservation Planning with a Case Study of 1960s Properties in Philadelphia County. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/171 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Toward a New Approach to Evaluating Significance in Recent-Past Preservation Planning with a Case Study of 1960s Properties in Philadelphia County Abstract In evaluating a stock of recent-past buildings, it is important to stay alert to the ways in which recent-past heritage is more difficulto t assess, and what we might be prone to do to make it easier to assess. It is not enough to involve numerous people in the process and to articulate our method of analysis. We as preservation professionals must also consciously strive to avoid cognitive shortcuts. We must set evaluative standards and choose priorities, without simply dismissing a great portion of the built environment as “crap” or accepting self-evidence as a measure of significance.
[Show full text]
Allaback National Historic Landmark Final Report
ESSAYS ON MODERN ARCHITECTURE For the National Historic Landmark Program Introduction Chronology Essays 1. The Skyscraper 2. The Modern House 3. Modern Religious Architecture 4. The Modern College Campus and Modern Buildings on Campus 5. Modern Art Museums Architect Lists Sarah Allaback, Ph.D. Amherst, Massachusetts April 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION The following essays and lists of architects are intended to further the study of modern buildings that may qualify as National Historic Landmarks. The buildings are organized by type and evaluated in terms of architectural significance. American architects began to experiment with styles beyond the traditional neoclassical in the early nineteenth century. Styles were chosen for their historical associations and the buildings were considered architecturally pure versions of the past. By the end of the century, architects felt free to combine styles in an “eclectic” manner, without such concern for stylistic origins. New technologies and building materials encouraged this emerging experimentation. If this was all modern, however, it was certainly not “modernism.” When European modernism arrived in the United States in the 1920s no one could mistake it for anything that went before. Historians quickly labeled this early phase of modern architecture the International Style. It was short-lived. The white, geometric forms were too bleak for Americans, especially since they came without the social meaning of their European counterparts. The International Style was imported to the United States, but its early development was not without American influence. As European architects began experimenting in wild new forms of architecture, materials and forms, they studied the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright, whose work had been published in portfolios by 1910.
[Show full text]
The Ford Foundation 320 East 43Rd Street Building Envelope Surveys and Rehabilitation New York, New York
The Ford Foundation 320 East 43rd Street Building Envelope Surveys and Rehabilitation New York, New York Designed by architect Kevin Roche with engineer John Dinkeloo, the Ford Foundation Building in midtown Manhattan is distinguished by its spacious, verdant atrium, which influenced later urban build- ings in the incorporation of indoor public space. Completed in 1968, the headquarters of the philanthropic Ford Foundation was awarded the American Institute of Architects Twenty-five Year Award, and it has been designated a city landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The twelve-story box-shaped building is composed of an L-shaped office block wrapped around a garden atrium, forming a square plan. Clad in rose granite panels, concrete pillars are interspersed with glass curtain walls with weathering steel supports. The building design was intended to facilitate the social justice mission of the Foundation in its open plan, which encourages visual interaction among staff, administration, donors, and the general public. Since 1981, Hoffmann Architects has provided building envelope consultation, investigation, design, and construction administration services for a number of projects at the architecturally significant building. Our architects and engineers have conducted facade investigations pursuant to New York City Local Law 10 of 1980 and Local Law 11 of 1998, for which we prepared and filed the relevant documentation with the Department of Buildings. We have conducted surveys of roofs, walls, plazas, interior stone cladding, and Cor-Ten (weathering) structural steel, and we provided investigation through design services for water infiltration remediation, plaza waterproofing and rehabilitation, gate pier recladding, and roof replacements.
[Show full text]
Appendix E.1 Social and Economic Conditions
APPENDIX E.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Appendix E.1: Social and Economic Conditions OVERVIEW This appendix supports Chapter 6, “Social and Economic Conditions,” of the FEIS, with additional information on the small study areas, on methods of analysis, and on overall zoning and public policy in the entire study area, as follows. E.1: Station and Shaft Site Study Areas E.2: Maps and Photographs of Station and Shaft Site Study Areas E.3: Zoning Background E.4: Zoning Maps for Neighborhood Zones E.5: Methodologies E.1. STATION AND SHAFT SITE STUDY AREAS INTRODUCTION Section E.1 of the appendix focuses on the existing social and economic conditions in the smaller “station study areas,” which comprise those blocks surrounding a proposed construction site that could be most directly affected by construction activities (as well as the specific activities associated with new stations once the project is operational). Station study areas generally extend one avenue east and west of the subway alignment, and one block north and south of the station excavation area except where “superblocks” (combined city blocks) exist, in which case the station study areas may extend an extra block. If a shaft site or staging area is proposed within a station study area, one combined study area is used for both activities. In certain cases, a proposed station is located at the border of two neighborhood zones, with a portion of the station study area falling within each zone. In these instances, the station is analyzed within the northern of the two neighborhood zones where a portion of the station is located and this analysis is referenced in the southern neighborhood zone that also contains a portion of the station area.
[Show full text]
Downloaded by [Central Uni Library Bucharest] at 03:22 26 September 2013 Concrete Slab
Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture 428 Hopkins’s Patera system, is also exoskeletal but, in contrast with the central spine, is more restrained. Anthony Hunt Associates designed the steel structure, and the lightweight structures unit of Ove Arup and Partners designed the fabric roof. A zoned servicing strategy supports the contrasting spatial and structural characters of the central spine and flanking wings. The winter garden and test station, although weather tight, are conceived as quasi-external spaces; the labs are sealed spaces in which tightly controlled environmental conditions for research can be maintained; and the offices have opening windows and sunshading that can be adjusted by the occupants. The building works as an icon in the heroic modernist tradition and, by addressing human needs, significantly advances the idea of the workplace. Transparency—with fully glazed walls between winter garden, test station, and labs and a glazed external envelope—creates a high degree of visual interaction both within the building and between the building and the outside world. An egalitarian workplace laced together by open meeting spaces and the generosity of the winter garden integrates disparate functions—clean and dirty, quiet and noisy, front and back of house. This social and programmatic integration is reiterated in the marriage of orthogonal and curvilinear geometries, of compressive and tensile structures, and of rational Miesian discipline with more exuberant expressionism. This building for Schlumberger was Michael Hopkins’s first use of a tensile fabric structure and the first large-scale architectural use of Teflon-coated fabric in the United Kingdom. Hopkins would further explore fabric structures in subsequent projects including the Mound Stand at Lord’s Cricket Ground (1987), the amenity building and ventilation towers at Inland Revenue (1995), and the Younger Universe Pavilion in Edinburgh (1998).
[Show full text]
Assessment of the Future Office Needs of the International Community
University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Open Access Master's Theses 2002 ASSESSMENT OF THE FUTURE OFFICE NEEDS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY Lisa K. Ohmann University of Rhode Island Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses Recommended Citation Ohmann, Lisa K., "ASSESSMENT OF THE FUTURE OFFICE NEEDS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" (2002). Open Access Master's Theses. Paper 415. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/415 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ASSESSMENT OF THE FUTURE OFFICE NEEDS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BY LISA K. OHMANN A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND . 2002 MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING RESEARCH PROJECT OF LISA K. OHMANN Approved: Major Professor Acknowledged: Director ~Farhad Atash FOREWARD Client: There are 59 Community Boards in New York City, each one representing a specific local district (or community) within one of the five boroughs of Manhattan. Each Board is comprised of up to 50 volunteer members, who serve as a local review board for proposed projects within their respective district and make recommendations on a wide range of land use, zoning, budget, and local planning issues. In addition, a Community Board monitors traffic and transportation issues, capital projects in parks, the concerns of seniors and youth, economic development, and public safety. Essentially, a Community Board serves as a liaison between residents within the area, City, State and federal elected officials, community groups, and other City agencies on numerous issues.
[Show full text]