HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    432 Park Avenue in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5581  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2014, 10:37 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
I may have said it before but I'm not a fan of this building at all. We lost 495 hotel rooms in the pre-war Drake Hotel in exchange for 99 luxury condo units, the majority of which will sit empty most of the time because they're 2nd and 3rd homes for millionaires and billionaires.
I can see someone wanting to preserve the Drake, but not for this reason. Why would we block development based on keeping hotel rooms over condo units? It seems so random and unrelated to anything public policy oriented.

If you're making an economic utility argument, 432 Park will produce far more tax revenue than the Drake. And the Drake hotel rooms can be replicated anywhere else in the city; 432 Park can only be built in a few specific locations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eveningsong View Post

It should have replaced something like 650 Madison Ave.
650 Madison was recently sold, for a crazy amount, and will likely be redeveloped.

Would anyone be surprised if it were replaced by a residential superluxury supertall?

Last edited by NYguy; Apr 1, 2014 at 2:27 PM.
     
     
  #5582  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2014, 10:44 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I can see someone wanting to preserve the Drake, but not for this reason. Why would we block development based on keeping hotel rooms over condo units? It seems so random and unrelated to anything public policy oriented.

If you're making an economic utility argument, 432 Park will produce far more tax revenue than the Drake. And the Drake hotel rooms can be replicated anywhere else in the city; 432 Park can only be built in a few specific locations.
Not just this reason, but one of several. If this was a run of the mill Holiday Inn, I would agree with your argument, but I'm looking at the entire building. It was beautiful in my opinion and can't be replicated. Obvioulsy it's gone and in the past, but I wish that wasn't the case.

I'm all for development to the skies but not at the expense of a handsome historic building.

Just my two cents. I don't want to derail the discussion to much since the building is gone and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Last edited by NYguy; Apr 1, 2014 at 2:27 PM.
     
     
  #5583  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 12:09 AM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
The building sold for $400 million and we know the value of that was attributed to the airtight s since it underwent an expensive demolition. That would be more than enough for a handsome renovation of the building.

I agree it could have been worse, but that's a very low standard...

All for 99 ultra luxury condos. If it was benefiting more people, I could support. Housing is in desperate need in the city. This is 99 units with the majority of which will be unoccupied most of the time. I bet it will be easy to tell because the lights in the condo units will be off most of the time.
Less affordable housing would never fly on this site, chiefly due to it's expense.

There is no reason why high density housing needs to go up in midtown...there are plenty of areas in Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn where land prices are more agreeable with that type of housing.
     
     
  #5584  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 1:46 AM
ILNY ILNY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,748
From today.

     
     
  #5585  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 2:35 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
I may have said it before but I'm not a fan of this building at all. We lost 495 hotel rooms in the pre-war Drake Hotel in exchange for 99 luxury condo units, the majority of which will sit empty most of the time because they're 2nd and 3rd homes for millionaires and billionaires.

You don't know that for fact, at all. For one thing, they've already stated that's not the case with sales for this tower. For another, who gives a frick when the units are occupied or un occupied? Does anybody care that office buildings are mostly empty on weekends? Of course not. You can like or dislike a building based on the merits of design, but as far as who's in there? Please. It's like those morons who complain about luxury towers for billionaires rising above and casting shadows over Central Park. Does anyone really believe they would be happier with 100-story housing projects built instead?



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/ny...tate.html?_r=0

Ultraluxury Apartment Sales Drive Records in Manhattan Real Estate


By MICHELLE HIGGINS
APRIL 1, 2014


Quote:
The Manhattan real estate market got off to a robust start in the first three months of the year, as signed contracts for ultraluxury apartments in new developments began to close, many with multimillion-dollar price tags, according to reports to be released by major brokerages on Tuesday.

The flurry of activity at the top pushed the number of sales to a seven-year high for the quarter and sent the average price per square foot soaring to a record $1,363, according to a report by the Douglas Elliman brokerage firm. Low inventory, high demand and a shift toward larger units in new luxury developments contributed to higher prices.

While new developments represented less than 20 percent of market-wide closings, they drove some of the biggest price increases. The average price of a condo jumped 35 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year to set a record of $2,368,077, skewed largely by the sale of two penthouses, according to reports by Halstead and Brown Harris Stevens. In January, a $50.912 million penthouse closed at Walker Tower in Chelsea. And last month the media mogul Rupert Murdoch purchased a $43.01 million triplex penthouse atop One Madison on the southeast side of Madison Square Park.

The mega-sales are expected to continue as contracts for apartments exceeding $90 million apiece at premium developments like 432 Park Avenue and One57 turn into done deals.

Inventory was still a challenge, with the number of available apartments either flat or down by as much as 17 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, depending on the report.



www.432park.com






__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #5586  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 4:29 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
NYGUY, you assume we're all here for the same reason. I may like or dislike the design of a skyscraper, but there are many other factors at play:

1) I believe in reasonable historic preservation. The Drake Hotel had beautiful architecture of the pre war era along with a little bit of history. It should have been landmarked and preserved.

2) I support high density that adds to the vibrancy of a neighborhood. It may be subjective but the 495 hotel rooms squats to more diverse group of people in the neighborhood than 99 condo units. It's true what Crawford said that the hotel units can be replaced anywhere but they won't have the same character as the Drake Hotel. It's still a reduction in density in terms if the amount of people that will use or benefit from the building.

3) In the case of demolition, what is to be built should be better than what it replaced. I suppose this to can be subjective. Yes we gain a gleaming modern skyscraper that will add millions in tax revenue, but we lose an irreplaceable building. Is this a fair tradeoff?

Many cities in China right now are so gung ho to build skyscrapers that there is a rush to demolish anything seen as old and inefficient. It's simplistic to only look judge a building on height and design. If that's all most care about on here, I see I've joined the wrong forum.

I'm also a big proponent of mixed-use neighborhoods. Office buildings are mainly vacant during the weekend which leaves a deserted area in many CBDs. I believe in residential or hotel uses being allowed in CBDs so the area doesn't shut down after 6pm or on weekends. So in a way I do care that office buildings are vacant during the weekend, and find it more desirable when there are residences and other mixed-uses nearby. We may be getting too far off topic.

Lastly, I don't appreciate being referred to as a moron for sharing a difference of opinion. It was indirect, but disappointing language from a moderator. I thought was a good forum to discuss highrises and cities, but I see some issues I may have here.

Last edited by NYguy; Apr 3, 2014 at 1:02 PM.
     
     
  #5587  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 5:28 PM
CCs77 CCs77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILNY View Post
From today.

It looks pretty close to Citigroup right now, with four more jumps it will be only half feet shorter. Since 432 sits in a slightly higher ground and it is also slightly on the foreground from that angle, it gives more advantage in height over Citigroup on that picture, so with those 4 additional floors, it will look already taller than Citigroup as seen from there.


Anyway, by the end of the year (or the beggining of the next) we will see this view from that angle. It is taller than I expected.
(BTW, the last two floors of the building didn't fit on the frame of the original picture, so I had to add some sky in order for it to fit)

     
     
  #5588  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 5:37 PM
ILNY ILNY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,748
^It will not be that tall from that angle. Most likely you need to subtract “an inch” of height.
     
     
  #5589  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 7:30 PM
CCs77 CCs77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 601
Of course it isn't 100% accurate, but I think it would like pretty close to that. I stacked blocks of 6 floors of the building until I had the final number of floors to calculate the approximate height.
The place where the picture was taken is so distant, that the effect of the perspective lessens, so the picture "flattens"

Took for example Citygroup Vs Cityspire. The height difference between those buildings is 31 meters (248 vs 279) but due the ground elevation, the actual elevation difference of their tops reduces to about 22 meters, in the pictures they look about the same height because Citigroup is about 1 km farther.

Then look one57 vs 432 Park. If they were side to side, 432 would have about 25 and half floors above the top of one 57. If you took the ground elevation difference, it is reduced to 24 floors. in the picture, the apparent difference is 20 floors above the top of one57, or 19 meters less than it should be, that is similar to Citigroup looking 22 meters shorter than it should be compared to Cityspire. (the distance between one57 and 432 park is a bit shorter than between the other two buildings, about 800 meters)

Anyway, the only manner to truly determine that is taking the same picture when the building is topped out. Do you take that picture? would be pretty cool to have that picture in a year to compare
     
     
  #5590  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 8:54 PM
ILNY ILNY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCs77 View Post
Anyway, the only manner to truly determine that is taking the same picture when the building is topped out. Do you take that picture? would be pretty cool to have that picture in a year to compare
Yes, I am already taking pictures from exactly the same place to document building progress and will continue doing so.










     
     
  #5591  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 9:01 PM
CCs77 CCs77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILNY View Post
Yes, I am already taking pictures from exactly the same place to document building progress and will continue doing so.


Pretty cool then. Looking forward for those pictures
     
     
  #5592  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 9:07 PM
a very long weekend's Avatar
a very long weekend a very long weekend is offline
dazzle me
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 94109
Posts: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCs77 View Post
depressing

     
     
  #5593  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 11:35 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by a very long weekend View Post
depressing

Not depressing in the least. 432 Park is going to be one of most dramatic and expensive buildings of all time, certainly in New York City. It doesn't get much less depressing than that.
     
     
  #5594  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 1:30 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by a very long weekend View Post
depressing

How on earth is that depressing? We get a cool 1400 foot skyscraper instead of some >200 foot art deco building... I love art deco too but NY has so many they're basically dispensable.
     
     
  #5595  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 3:42 AM
Aqua_Chicago's Avatar
Aqua_Chicago Aqua_Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
How on earth is that depressing? We get a cool 1400 foot skyscraper instead of some >200 foot art deco building... I love art deco too but NY has so many they're basically dispensable.
That's right.

432 Park Avenue is cool. I love it¡¡¡
     
     
  #5596  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 4:47 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
How on earth is that depressing? We get a cool 1400 foot skyscraper instead of some >200 foot art deco building... I love art deco too but NY has so many they're basically dispensable.
Dont ever say historic buildings are dispensable, thats how they become rare, people think theres so many so lets keep tearing them down and before you know it, youve lost a huge amount of history. In this case however, I think the replacement far exceeds the original building on the site.
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
     
     
  #5597  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 6:19 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
Dont ever say historic buildings are dispensable, thats how they become rare, people think theres so many so lets keep tearing them down and before you know it, youve lost a huge amount of history. In this case however, I think the replacement far exceeds the original building on the site.
But New York City has like a million historic buildings already all over the city. I don't know who in their right mind would pick the Drake Hotel from the early 20th century over the 21st century 432 Park. Although keeping the past in mind is always important the city must continue to prosper.
     
     
  #5598  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 5:34 PM
M. Incandenza M. Incandenza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas/New York
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
You don't know that for fact, at all. For one thing, they've already stated that's not the case with sales for this tower. For another, who gives a frick when the units are occupied or un occupied? Does anybody care that office buildings are mostly empty on weekends? Of course not. You can like or dislike a building based on the merits of design, but as far as who's in there? Please. It's like those morons who complain about luxury towers for billionaires rising above and casting shadows over Central Park. Does anyone really believe they would be happier with 100-story housing projects built instead?
Yes - Midtown is super boring at night and on weekends! What if every office building had ten floors dedicated to residences? It would be a vibrant residential neighborhood in addition to being a CBD. I think that would be pretty cool.

And there is absolutely nothing "moronic" about worrying that this building, despite being a billion feet tall, actually reduces density: as the poster said, going from 495 units to 99 is harmful to the life of the street and local businesses in the neighborhood. Add in the fact that this building replaces an attractive pre-war building, breaks the street wall and is an awful, alienating design, and you have a building that is doing harm to its neighborhood on a number of fronts. I will not be surprised if public sentiment turns strongly against this thing when it is fully built, and that will only empower the NIMBYs when it comes to other, more worthwhile projects.
     
     
  #5599  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 6:19 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Incandenza View Post
And there is absolutely nothing "moronic" about worrying that this building, despite being a billion feet tall, actually reduces density: as the poster said, going from 495 units to 99 is harmful to the life of the street and local businesses in the neighborhood.
This isn't true, though. This building increases density, it doesn't reduce it. It's much bigger than the previous building, contains far more retail space, and will be much more of a destination and landmark.

And old hotels have tiny rooms. Obviously they will have more units than anything new, whether hotel, residential or whatever. Even every time an old hotel renovates, the room count drops.

Anyways, the whole discussion is silly. Why not have a debate on whether the Drake should have been built on the beautiful townhouses that used to dominate Midtown East. One could just as easily argue the Drake should have never been built in the first place.
     
     
  #5600  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2014, 6:49 PM
M. Incandenza M. Incandenza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas/New York
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This isn't true, though. This building increases density, it doesn't reduce it. It's much bigger than the previous building, contains far more retail space, and will be much more of a destination and landmark.

And old hotels have tiny rooms. Obviously they will have more units than anything new, whether hotel, residential or whatever. Even every time an old hotel renovates, the room count drops.

Anyways, the whole discussion is silly. Why not have a debate on whether the Drake should have been built on the beautiful townhouses that used to dominate Midtown East. One could just as easily argue the Drake should have never been built in the first place.
The "landmark destination" point is interesting: a case could be made that it does increase the "cultural density" of the neighborhood, if I can put it that way (though it would do so more effectively if it were actually a quality design). But I don't see how going from 500 hotel units to 100 residential units is going to do anything but reduce foot traffic and the vibrancy of the neighborhood.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.