Rendering of Rainbow Room renovation. Image Courtesy: Gabellini Sheppard.

Approved plans would retain and restore remaining original elements of interior landmark, while replacing the dance floor and altering the wall, floor, and ceiling surfaces. The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to approve a renovation plan for the Rainbow Room on January 8, 2013. The interior landmark, on the 65th floor of Rockefeller Plaza, was designated by Landmarks on October 13, 2012 and approved by the City Council on December 18, 2012.

The Rainbow Room, which was first opened in 1934, was designed by the firm Associated Architects, under the supervision of architect Wallace K. Harrison and interior designer Elena Bachman-Schmidt. The historic nightclub and restaurant features double-height windows, opulent chandeliers and sconces, a circular dance floor, and a domed ceiling. The room underwent an extensive renovation in 1987, overseen by architect Hugh Hardy. The Rainbow Room has been closed since 2009. (read more…)

The Rainbow Room. Credit: LPC

This article was originally published on 8/17/2012 (see below for update).

Rockefeller Center-owner Tishman Speyer endorsed designation, but said it would continue with plans to “revitalize” the currently unused nightclub and restaurant space. On September 11, 2012 Landmarks held a public hearing on the potential designation of the Rainbow Room on the 65th Floor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza as an interior landmark. The Rainbow Room was designed by Associated Architects and opened in 1934. The iconic nightclub and restaurant space features 24 double-height windows, tiered seating around a dance floor, crystal chandeliers and sconces, and can accommodate 300 people. In 1987, architect Hugh Hardy oversaw the room’s renovation and restoration. The Rainbow Room has been closed to the public since 2009, when Tishman Speyer Properties evicted Cipriani Restaurants from the space. Landmarks calendared the space on August 14, 2012. (See CityLand‘s coverage here.)

(read more…)

The Rainbow Room. Credit: LPC

Currently shuttered nightclub and restaurant venue on top of Rockefeller Plaza calendared for public hearing in September 2012. On August 14, 2012, Landmarks took the first step to consider designating the Rainbow Room on the 65th floor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza as an interior landmark. The Rainbow Room has been closed since 2009, when Tishman Speyer Properties, the owner of the building, evicted Cipriani Restaurants from the space.

The Rainbow Room opened in 1934, one year after the repeal of Prohibition. Described by Landmarks’ staff as “streamline modern”, the Rainbow Room was designed by Associated Architects, the same firm responsible for Rockefeller Center. Wallace K. Harrison acted as the lead architect and Elena Bachman-Schmidt oversaw the nightclub’s interior design. The nightclub could accommodate 300 people for dining and dancing, and was known for its expansive views of (read more…)

$1.054 billion offer adds more affordable housing than Tishman’s plan. On March 26, 2008, the MTA selected Tishman Speyer to develop the John D. Caemmerer Rail Yards, also known as the Hudson Yards. 5 CityLand 46 (Apr. 15, 2008). But on May 13, 2008, Tishman withdrew its proposal, prompting the MTA to select a proposal submitted by a joint venture between the Related Companies and Goldman Sachs.

Related/Goldman’s proposal is equal in value to Tishman’s, but calls for more residential space, at 5.3 million sq.ft., less commercial space, at 5.5 million sq.ft., and more public space, at 15 acres. Moreover, 20 percent of all residential rental units, approximately 440 units, will be permanently affordable. The new proposal also seeks to retain the entire High Line; unlike Tishman’s proposal, which called for removing the 10th Avenue spur. (read more…)

A rendering of Tishman Speyer’s proposal for Hudson Yards. Image: Tishman Speyer Properties.

Proposal would create 13 million sq.ft. of developable space. On March 26, 2008, the MTA Board selected Tishman Speyer’s proposal to develop the western and eastern portions of the John D. Caemmerer Rail Yard, also known as Hudson Yards. At $1.004 billion, Tishman outbid four competing real estate developers for the right to transform the 26-acre site despite proposing the smallest number of residential units and the least amount of open space.

Tishman’s proposal, designed by architect Helmut Jahn, calls for more than eight million sq.ft. of total office space, 550,000 sq.ft. of retail space, 300,000 sq.ft. of residential space, and 13 acres of public open space. The western half of the site, located between West 30th and 33rd Streets from 11th to 12th Avenues, is currently zoned M2-3 and must be rezoned to accommodate Tishman’s proposed mixed-use development. However, the MTA will allow Tishman to terminate the contract if the developer is unable to obtain the necessary zoning changes. The eastern half of the site, located between 10th and 11th Avenues from West 30th to 33rd Streets, was rezoned in January 2005 as part of the Special Hudson Yards District. 2 CityLand 4 (Feb. 15, 2005); 1 CityLand 36 (Dec. 2004). (read more…)

Tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village claimed that owners covered by rent regulations. Tenants of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village sued property owner PCV ST Owner LP and general partner Tishman Speyer Properties, seeking damages for rent overcharges and a declaration that rent regulation should continue as long as the property owner received J-51 tax benefits. The tenants alleged that the owner had deregulated more than 25% of the units under the luxury decontrol law, but continued to receive J-51 benefits. The tenants further claimed that the luxury decontrol laws that allowed owners to deregulate high-income, high-rent apartments could not be applied as long as the building received the J-51 benefits.

Justice Richard B. Lowe III dismissed the tenants’ complaint, ruling that receipt of J-51 benefits did not preclude an owner from deregulating units under the luxury decontrol law. The court found that the luxury decontrol law, created in 1993, was not applicable to housing accommodations that became subject to rent regulation only because of their participation in the J-51 program. Because Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village had been subject to rent regulation since 1974 and had only begun participating in the J-51 program in 1992, the exclusion from the luxury decontrol laws did not apply to them. The court noted that J-51 benefits could be reduced in proportion to the number of units in the building that were deregulated through luxury decontrol. (read more…)