NEW YORK | One57 (Carnegie 57) | 1,005 FT | 75 FLOORS

[SpawnOfVulcan]

As of the day before yesterday (Tuesday, March 26th)

[Sarpedon]

Originally Posted by NYguy

A building is a building. When I look at a skyline, I don't make the distinction between what's office and what's not. New York has a great skyline with a mixture of both,
but I can't tell you one is better than the other. Whenever I see a building, I see a building. I can't tell you how many people are in it, nor do I care.

Buildings of this type will have people who can afford to have homes around the world. It makes no difference to me when they are in it and when they are not.

I hear you, but my point wasn't whether one was "better" than the other, just that I'm a little queasy about a future New York where the majority of its largest and most beautiful new buildings belong to fabulously well-heeled transients. This is a new phenomenon which corresponds to economic changes in the wider world, and it will change the character of the city. How much, I don't know. For the better, I don't know. But it's not necessarily for the best.

Anyway, I think the building is gorgeous, and I've enjoyed watching its progress over the forum and on visits to the city. Thanks for all the updates.

[RoldanTTLB]

Not for nothing, but the last round of tallest buildings all belonged to well healed transients as well. They just happened to be gilded-age bank owners and such (office towers!), as opposed to oil moguls (apartments!). Almost none of those buildings have fallen into the public sphere either. You're not allowed in the Woolworth building, and the only reason there's decent access to the redone lobby of 40 Wall is because of the giant Duane Reade now there.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

I'm a little queasy about a future New York where the majority of its largest and most beautiful new buildings belong to fabulously well-heeled transients. This is a new phenomenon which corresponds to economic changes in the wider world, and it will change the character of the city.

I think your concerns are unwarranted. This is one building. Even if it were ten buildings your concern would be off base. People who have money to buy in this building are going to buy. And whatever amount of time they spend in the city will be the same, whether it is a penthouse apartment at the top of a skyscraper, or a townhouse at street level. The city remains the same.

[Sarpedon]

Respectfully, I don't think either of you are adequately addressing the point I was making.

Originally Posted by RoldanTTLB

Not for nothing, but the last round of tallest buildings all belonged to well healed transients as well. They just happened to be gilded-age bank owners and such (office towers!), as opposed to oil moguls (apartments!). Almost none of those buildings have fallen into the public sphere either. You're not allowed in the Woolworth building, and the only reason there's decent access to the redone lobby of 40 Wall is because of the giant Duane Reade now there.

There's a huge difference between office towers and residences. Those buildings, when they weren't vacant due to economic conditions, were full of businesses. When they fell quiet it was because people went home. And I wasn't talking about them falling into the public sphere either; I was talking about them being used. (I'd have no reason to complain if I was talking about public use, because we're getting 1 WTC and the Hudson Yards.)

Originally Posted by NYguy

I think your concerns are unwarranted. This is one building. Even if it were ten buildings your concern would be off base. People who have money to buy in this building are going to buy. And whatever amount of time they spend in the city will be the same, whether it is a penthouse apartment at the top of a skyscraper, or a townhouse at street level. The city remains the same.

I realize that it's one building. I said that in my first post. What I was saying is this looks like the start of a trend (432 Park, 105 and 225 57th, and more), wherein the richest people from around the world buy apartments in the tallest buildings in the city, and don't live in them. I don't know exactly where all this is going (no one else does either), but it's possible we're heading toward a future where nearly all of the tallest, most iconic new buildings in the city are largely vacant. I don't particularly like that idea, and I think it would change the character of the city. How could it not?

(And I seriously doubt these folks we're talking about would be buying as much New York real estate if they were townhouses. The whole point of these addresses are that they're prestigious and visible. That's why Mukesh Ambani built a skyscraper all for himself in Mumbai. These places exist to be seen.)

[MarshallKnight]

I've had a similar uneasiness about this phenomenon, although it's hard to articulate, and it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of this building or my excitement for the next wave of super-towers... although it does make me wonder about some people's priorities.

It's just that sense that some of our most spectacular places aren't being utilized; that the sensible business practice of snapping up investment properties is overriding the joy that someone would get out of actually using them. It makes enjoying the thing for the sake of enjoying it seem outmoded, which is just a little depressing.

Larry Ellison bought ten houses on Malibu's Carbon Beach, a prime stretch of beach, mostly contiguous. And they're going to sit empty. It just makes me think, that's too bad. Now no one is going to enjoy that fabulous stretch of sand -- except the enjoyment of owning a thing that other people covet, which is something I just don't totally relate to. Same goes for someone who buys a Jackson Pollock and puts it in a vault where no one can see it. Seems counter to the point of the thing's purpose.

Now, if these sheiks and oligarchs and hedge fund managers were putting up friends in their pied-á-terres while they were off in Moscow or wherever, and they were being lived in, I'd think "Oh good, at least somebody gets to."

But anyway. These buildings look great. As a skyscraper fan, I couldn't be happier with how they're transforming the skyline. I just think it would be that much nicer if the lights were going to be on.

[NYguy]

^ And who's to decide what our most "spectacular" places are? Most people probably wouldn't look up twice at this building if walking by, but there are some nice townhouses that people would salivate over. And how do we determine who's in the building at any given time. Will they advertise it on top of the lit crown?

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

Respectfully, I don't think either of you are adequately addressing the point I was making.

I realize that it's one building. I said that in my first post. What I was saying is this looks like the start of a trend (432 Park, 105 and 225 57th, and more

-Well, for one thing, 432 is not even in that trend, and 225 W.57th is not even developed yet. I don't know what others you are concerned about, but New York is and always has been a global city. As I've said, there are people around the world who can afford to buy homes around the world, no matter the costs. But that number, although growing, is still "finite". There just aren't enough for you to be concerned about. And when you consider the sheer number of skyscrapers and residential towers in Manhattan, its a non-issue. There may be other things going on in the city at large that you may find issue with, but you really have no grounds to be concerned here. Certainly not enough to waste your only posts on this forum. But it may be an issue better suited to City Discussions. Are the rich becoming too rich? Why do they get the best real estate? Why is the city such a magnate for the wealthy? All of that can be discussed there.

[MarshallKnight]

Yeah, it's more cultural commentary than anything, and "most people" probably won't think much about this stuff.

Anyway, back on topic: I'm really looking forward to that... I don't even know what to call it... The bright grille on the Park side of the crown. Do we know anything about the way it's going to be lit up? I assume a classy building like this won't be projecting a colorful light show, but I wouldn't cry too hard if it had some movement along the lines of the (low key parts of ) the Bay Lights in San Francisco.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MarshallKnight

The bright grille on the Park side of the crown. Do we know anything about the way it's going to be lit up?
I assume a classy building like this won't be projecting a colorful light show...

Yeah, the crown is supposed to be lit. Barnett is building a taller tower on the next block. Maybe something a little more "extravagant" can go on the crown of that one.






Compare to the crown of the Baccarat, another luxury tower going up...

[Hudson11]

the extell promo vid posted before shows the crown at night in better light.

[Don098]

I wish the crown had spotlights on it like the render shows... That looks fantastic.

[ThatOneGuy]

Curious to see how the art-deco pattern on the top turns out!

[babybackribs2314]

Wonder when it'll resume construction... looks good nonetheless. Just one photo from a walk-by.

57th Street March 2013 Update

[Sarpedon]

On topic: do we know anything about how they plan to light the crown, or is everything speculative at this point?

[NYCLuver]

March 29th, 2013

[TechTalkGuy]

Those setbacks are pretty awesome, much in the way the setbacks on the Empire State Building look.

We will be getting taller towers soon, but how many of those taller towers will have dramatic setbacks like this?

[NYguy]

I love it. And those pinstripes make it more dramatic.



whatmattdoes

[Ledzebedee]

So when are we with architecture exactly? Are we in the post-post-modernist era, or is it the pre-futurist or something like that?
:~\

http://www.panoramio.com/m/photo/12292710

A very interesting pic I found of 40 Wall Street, it seems to have some similarities with One57
:~}

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by Ledzebedee

http://www.panoramio.com/m/photo/12292710

A very interesting pic I found of 40 Wall Street, it seems to have some similarities with One57
:~}

One 57 has heavy art deco influences. Setbacks and the stripe pattern are prevalent in many art deco skyscrapers, including the king.


strmchsr77

[ThatOneGuy]

One57 is Art Deco with contemporary cladding, making it, by definition, postmodernist.