NEW YORK | Tower Fifth | 1,556 FT | 96 FLOORS

[gramsjdg]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

"216 feet shy of 1 WTC's roofline"

Now I've heard it all.

Sorry-

[gramsjdg]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

The article says: "The proposed building will be 216 feet taller than One World Trade Center..."

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news...medium=Browser

You must mean a different article then.

"The project, poised to be a coda to Macklowe’s career, would be 216 feet shy of One World Trade Center’s roofline (and 1 foot taller than Gary Barnett’s forthcoming Central Park Tower)."

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

You must mean a different article then.

"The project, poised to be a coda to Macklowe’s career, would be 216 feet shy of One World Trade Center’s roofline (and 1 foot taller than Gary Barnett’s forthcoming Central Park Tower)."

The Bisnow article says 216 feet taller, but in any event, whatever article you're referring to is erroneous since this is clearly a lot taller than 1 WTC's roof. That being said, it is about 216 feet shorter than the 1776' pinnacle of 1 WTC's spire.

[JMKeynes]

This tower appears to be aimed at small, very high-end financial firms. I expect that Macklowe will seek $125-$150/sf for lower floors and $200+/sf for upper floors. Even upscale law firms won't pay that, though maybe Macklowe can attract Cravath for the lower floors.

To my knowledge, Ken Griffen's firm is the only tenant at 425 Park, a tower which will have much better amenities and lacks a shlocky observation deck that will attract the hoi polloi from Sheboygan.

Also, 425 Park is in a much better location. Sadly, Fifth Avenue's allure is long-gone, and hyper-wealthy hedge fund guys would have to fight not only the crowds from Sheboygan but also illegal immigrants pedaling fake Gucci bags on the street.

If 425 Park isn't setting the world on fire, I don't see how this tower will, particularly since the financial services industry seems poised for some lean years.

[gramsjdg]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

This tower appears to be aimed at small, very high-end financial firms. I expect that Macklowe will seek $125-$150/sf for lower floors and $200+/sf for upper floors. Even upscale law firms won't pay that, though maybe Macklowe can attract Cravath for the lower floors.

To my knowledge, Ken Griffen's firm is the only tenant at 425 Park, a tower which will have much better amenities and lacks a shlocky observation deck that will attract the hoi polloi from Sheboygan.

Also, 425 Park is in a much better location. Sadly, Fifth Avenue's allure is long-gone, and hyper-wealthy hedge fund guys would have to fight not only the crowds from Sheboygan but also illegal immigrants pedaling fake Gucci bags on the street.

If 425 Park isn't setting the world on fire, I don't see how this tower will, particularly since the financial services industry seems poised for some lean years.

Agreed. The location for this particular design (preliminary as it is) is less than ideal. Now, if the design were to taper more at the top, say like the proposed Met Life North tower...

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Agreed. The location for this particular design (preliminary as it is) is less than ideal. Now, if the design were to taper more at the top, say like the proposed Met Life North tower...

Honestly, even if it were the most beautiful tower conceivable, the mega-rich tenants will not want to battle the crowds on Fifth. 425 Park is in a relative oasis.

[NYguy]

The man (Macklowe) hasn't survived in business (through ups and downs) this long because he doesn't know what he's doing. This reminds me of the criticisms of Larry Silverstein.

I think I'll stick with the plan of the man who gets things built.

Originally Posted by jsbrook

The latest renderings look better. It’s really only the top of this that looks bad, and that will hopefully be tweaked.

I imagine things will be tweaked some. But really, the way the top is designed looks to be primarily for the decks up top and everything else that goes with it. I know in New York we have become spoiled, especially with the variety of observation decks the city will be getting. But it's like I said earlier, tourism is one of the city's biggest industries, and the city set a new tourism record the past year. It only makes sense to draw off of that, and Macklowe sees the oppurtunity to fit one up there and he's taking it. Being New York, there are always naysayers, or people with opinions of why things won't work. But the people who know how to get things done just roll up their sleeves and do it, critics be damned.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The man (Macklowe) hasn't survived in business (through ups and downs) this long because he doesn't know what he's doing. This reminds me of the criticisms of Larry Silverstein.

I think I'll stick with the plan of the man who gets things built.






I imagine things will be tweaked some. But really, the way the top is designed looks to be primarily for the decks up top and everything else that goes with it. I know in New York we have become spoiled, especially with the variety of observation decks the city will be getting. But it's like I said earlier, tourism is one of the city's biggest industries, and the city set a new tourism record the past year. It only makes sense to draw off of that, and Macklowe sees the oppurtunity to fit one up there and he's taking it. Being New York, there are always naysayers, or people with opinions of why things won't work. But the people who know how to get things done just roll up their sleeves and do it, critics be damned.

Yes, they get things done. But bad buildings are also built, and they last a very long time. I oppose undue red tape, but I endorse full-throated and vociferous criticism always. I'd like to think it facilitates better architecture at some level. Aesthetics can impact the bottom line too. Moreso for residential than commercial, but I think One57 is an example (though I would not call it an actual bad building). It has struggled somewhat. I think that is partially because it was the first of its kind and better offerings have come along, but its also because it's the ugly step sister. All in all, I think the design of this tower we are talking about will turn out acceptable.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

If 425 Park isn't setting the world on fire, I don't see how this tower will, particularly since the financial services industry seems poised for some lean years.

425 Park is already 50% leased, at the highest rents in NYC history.

Tower Fifth has a better location, and much better views and amenities. Also much better nearby restaurants. A public observation deck obviously would have separate entrance and wouldn't disturb tenants.

Financial services just had one of their most profitable years in history, BTW.

And while this location is indeed busy, all of Midtown is busy, including around 425 Park.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

Yes, they get things done. But bad buildings are also built, and they last a very long time.

And you know how long that's been going on? Since mankind has been able to build. This building won't make or break that. No amount of zoning laws or design committees will change that. Because one man's bad building is another man's work of art.


Now, in other matters, when all else fails, reach for the shadows on the park argument...


https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...uilding-in-nyc

Where NYC's Second Tallest Building May Soon Rise

By Lydia Hu Manhattan
Jan. 24, 2019

Next to St. Patrick’s Cathedral, another “supertall” skyscraper might rise to tower 1,551 feet above Midtown.

“We have concerns about the total height of the building because we believe it is going to cast shadows onto Central Park, which is really problematic,” said Layla Law-Gisiko, Chairwoman of the Land Use Committee for Manhattan Community Board 5.

The proposed building, which would be located across from St. Patrick’s Cathedral, just east of Fifth Avenue, would be called Tower Fifth. Layla Law-Gisiko, the head of Community Board 5’s Land Use Committee, has been briefed on the project, but the board has not yet taken a position on it. She says she already has concerns including how the building's cantilever design would extend some upper floors over neighboring landmarks, including the Look Building and John Peirce Building.

“Across from a very beautiful cathedral that we very much cherish. Just imagine all of a sudden, you’re going to have an enormous glass tower that is going to be perched over there,” Law-Gisiko said.

Tower Fifth's developer, Macklowe Properties, declined to comment. If approved, it would be the 18th supertall skyscraper, defined as over 984 feet in height, completed or started in the city within 10 years.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

425 Park is already 50% leased, at the highest rents in NYC history.

Tower Fifth has a better location, and much better views and amenities. A public observation deck obviously would have separate entrance and wouldn't disturb tenants.

Financial services just had one of their most profitable years in history, BTW.

Banks had one of their most profitable years. Hedge funds are getting squeezed, and they're the ones who will rent this space.

Which firms, other than Citadel, has signed on?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Banks had one of their most profitable years. Hedge funds are getting squeezed, and they're the ones who will rent this space.

Which firms, other than Citadel, has signed on?

You can find out more about that here...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=558

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

This tower appears to be aimed at small, very high-end financial firms. I expect that Macklowe will seek $125-$150/sf for lower floors and $200+/sf for upper floors. Even upscale law firms won't pay that, though maybe Macklowe can attract Cravath for the lower floors.

To my knowledge, Ken Griffen's firm is the only tenant at 425 Park, a tower which will have much better amenities and lacks a shlocky observation deck that will attract the hoi polloi from Sheboygan.

Also, 425 Park is in a much better location. Sadly, Fifth Avenue's allure is long-gone, and hyper-wealthy hedge fund guys would have to fight not only the crowds from Sheboygan but also illegal immigrants pedaling fake Gucci bags on the street.

If 425 Park isn't setting the world on fire, I don't see how this tower will, particularly since the financial services industry seems poised for some lean years.

425 Park is not struggling at all. Citadel just picked up another 125K feet, and that is GOOD for the developer as they will pay more than most other tenants would. Other tenants will come as construction nears a finish. Top firms have tolerated "hoi polloi from Shevoygan," as you call them, for years. I see nothing about Tower Fifth's location that will cause problems.

[JMKeynes]

I know that Citadel added more space, but who else has signed on?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a New Yorker who thinks that this is the best city in America by a very wide margin. I just think that 1m sf of hyper-expensive space will be a tough sell. I wonder if the lower floors will even be as cheap as $125/sf.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I know that Citadel added more space, but who else has signed on?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a New Yorker who thinks that this is the best city in America by a very wide margin. I just think that 1m sf of hyper-expensive space will be a tough sell. I wonder if the lower floors will even be as cheap as $125/sf.

So far, it's the only tenant (taking a very healthy chunk of the building). You could be right, but I don't think you are. It's early days yet. Others will sign on. As to Tower Fifth, I don't think rents will be as high as 425 Park.

[Sky88]

But Macklowe can't avoid all this unnecessary bureaucracy (NO-action condition) and start building the tower. I am afraid that too many useless opinions can cancel the project.

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

...if the design were to taper more at the top, say like the proposed Met Life North tower...

Are you talking about a new proposal or the cancelled tower from the 1920s?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Sky88

But Macklowe can't avoid all this unnecessary bureaucracy (NO-action condition) and start building the tower. I am afraid that too many useless opinions can cancel the project.

Why?

[Prezrezc]

The very last thing that could even by the remotest inkling of possibility derail the progress of a potentially super-opulent, time-honored structure such as this that dares shriek at the skies for its due presence is ignorant, uninformed or simply half-baked public opinion.

Amen: Let sun, moon and fatuous NIMBYs alike shrink from the presence of what we are about to see on this tract of land.

[JMKeynes]

We’ve seen the south and east facades. I wonder if the north and west facades are the same.