NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by ATLksuGUY

www.432parkavenue.com

I like this tower a lot, but the sad part is that the Drake Hotel wasn't demolished for the tower itself, but rather for the lowrise podium/retail component - essentially for the Park Avenue address and the associated zoning bonuses.

[NYC GUY]

The site looks very clean for a construction site. When will we see vertical progress?

[JACKinBeantown]

The diagram for this building bothers me. Not the craftsmanship, it's nice, but the scale... it's too skinny. I propose that the one by Sebastian K on this link be used until someone creates one that more closely exemplifies the final product.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=94370


On a related note, I did a very rough comparison using Google Maps, and it seems that this building will be about 1.5 times as wide as the top portion of One57.

[ThatOneGuy]

I like the one by STR because the horizontal strips on this tower kinda bother me.

[-Filipe-]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

The diagram for this building bothers me. Not the craftsmanship, it's nice, but the scale... it's too skinny. I propose that the one by Sebastian K on this link be used until someone creates one that more closely exemplifies the final product.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=94370


On a related note, I did a very rough comparison using Google Maps, and it seems that this building will be about 1.5 times as wide as the top portion of One57.

they need to change the height from 1379 feet to 1398 feet on those diagrams

[Ed007Toronto]

Small footprint for such a tall building. Looking forward to it.

[Guiltyspark]

[QUOTE=Towersteve;5827240]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

I'm sorry I don't follow. If the antenna is not counted as a spire 1 WTC will have a foor height of 1,373 feet. Lower than 432 Park.

Yeah, that is what I said... 432 Park will be the 2nd tallest in the USA and the tallest in New York.

What I "personally believe" has nothing to do with it. There is an origination that determines the height of buildings and if antenna count and 1WTC has an antenna, not a spire. It will be ruled as such upon completion.

Anyway, the height is nice, and maybe the materials and detailing will blow us away. I am not holding my breath, but maybe...

[chris123678]

Am I the only one who finds it disrespectful to steal the height from 1wtc?

It won't even be open for 2 years before this pencil stick of tower steals the height away, I find it disrespectful.

It's just a boring way to thin tower.

[Lecom]

New York has over a century's worth of tradition of pushing skyscraper heights to their limits. If anything, it would be disrespectful to the city if 1 WTC somehow put a halt to that.

[-Filipe-]

Originally Posted by chris123678

Am I the only one who finds it disrespectful to steal the height from 1wtc?

It won't even be open for 2 years before this pencil stick of tower steals the height away, I find it disrespectful.

It's just a boring way to thin tower.

how is it disrespectful? If they wanted 1wtc to be taller and be the tallest in the city for a while, they would have made it taller, yes im sure if it were designed today it would be much taller, but it is what it is

[koops65]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

The diagram for this building bothers me. Not the craftsmanship, it's nice, but the scale... it's too skinny. I propose that the one by Sebastian K on this link be used until someone creates one that more closely exemplifies the final product.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=94370


On a related note, I did a very rough comparison using Google Maps, and it seems that this building will be about 1.5 times as wide as the top portion of One57.

I guess I need to give you a math lesson. The tower has a height to width ratio of 19:1. So, at 420 meters tall (the height of the drawing illustrators can upload, ask an editor why that number is used, I have no idea) that will make it approximately 22 meters wide. I made my drawing at an exact 45 degree angle. A square turned at a 45 degree angle increases the width by approximately 40%. The APPARENT width would therefore be approximately 31 meters. In the diagrams each meter is represented by 1 pixel. My drawing is of course 420 pixels high, and in fact it is 38 pixels wide, so if anything it is still TOO WIDE to be entirely realistic. The other drawings are even wider still.

To summarize, your statement about the drawing being too skinny is just plain wrong. It is actually too fat! Any truly accurate drawing would have to be even more skinny than mine is. Good luck to all the illustrators out there... Additionally, a drawing 432 pixels tall (which it should be) will cause a slight increase in the width, 32 pixels wide at the absolute maximum, or a minimum of 23 pixels if you make you drawing face-on to one of the sides.

A side note to the editors - If the height truly is 432 meters, why is the height of the drawing we can upload only 420 meters?

[TechTalkGuy]

Please stop hijacking this thread about a spire on another tower.

I seriously hope that 432 Park Avenue will not have a spire.

[jd3189]

Agreed. I would like to see updates on 432 Park.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by koops65

I guess I need to give you a math lesson. The tower has a height to width ratio of 19:1. So, at 420 meters tall (the height of the drawing illustrators can upload, ask an editor why that number is used, I have no idea) that will make it approximately 22 meters wide. I made my drawing at an exact 45 degree angle. A square turned at a 45 degree angle increases the width by approximately 40%. The APPARENT width would therefore be approximately 31 meters. In the diagrams each meter is represented by 1 pixel. My drawing is of course 420 pixels high, and in fact it is 38 pixels wide, so if anything it is still TOO WIDE to be entirely realistic. The other drawings are even wider still.

To summarize, your statement about the drawing being too skinny is just plain wrong. It is actually too fat! Any truly accurate drawing would have to be even more skinny than mine is. Good luck to all the illustrators out there... Additionally, a drawing 432 pixels tall (which it should be) will cause a slight increase in the width, 32 pixels wide at the absolute maximum, or a minimum of 23 pixels if you make you drawing face-on to one of the sides.

A side note to the editors - If the height truly is 432 meters, why is the height of the drawing we can upload only 420 meters?

Thanks for the math lesson.

Here's mine: 1398 / 93.5 = 14.95

[CarlosV]

today 9/16/2012 8:00 am


Untitled-1 copy by Ceva321, on Flickr

[fleonzo]

I don't want to burst everyones' bubble here but if we don't see a crane being set up within the next 30 days my guess is that this project will be stalled, like many others have, due to lack of "financing". I've seen this trend too many times...you only need to compare this site to those buidlings that ARE constructed (regardless of height) to see how fast cranes go up once the foundations are cleard like this project. No crane in 30 days = stalled indefinitely!

[CarlosV]

You might be right......it looks almost deserted.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by fleonzo

I don't want to burst everyones' bubble here but if we don't see a crane being set up within the next 30 days my guess is that this project will be stalled, like many others have, due to lack of "financing". I've seen this trend too many times...you only need to compare this site to those buidlings that ARE constructed (regardless of height) to see how fast cranes go up once the foundations are cleard like this project. No crane in 30 days = stalled indefinitely!

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Financing all lined up. I'll post the article later.

[NYguy]

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/309169970

Slim supply gives condo prices new pop
Record rents, low interest rates help pump up market.


By Amanda Fung
September 16, 2012

Late last month, the developers of what will be the city's tallest residential spire, now rising on Park Avenue, submitted a plan to increase asking prices for its 128 condominiums to an average of $5,800 per square foot. Not only is that a double-digit hike from the original price set just two months earlier, it comes three years before the 1,398-foot tower is scheduled to be completed.

According to the filing with the state attorney general's office, a one-bedroom apartment will start at $4.96 million and a six-bedroom at $64.4 million. Experts say that such hikes of already astronomical prices for high-end housing are symptomatic of a phenomenon that is beginning to be felt across much of Manhattan. It is being driven by everything from people being priced out of the red-hot rental market to a lack of new building in recent years.

"Prices will be pushed higher if there is no relief in terms of supply," said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of appraisal firm Miller Samuel Inc. "It's the basic law of economics."

So far this year, 432 Park Ave. is one of just 15 new condo projects whose offering plans were submitted to the attorney general's office, which must approve them before sales can begin. Although several stalled condo projects have been revived this past year and new developments are in the works as construction lending loosens, the number of units projected to enter the market in the next few years is still likely to fall short of demand.

[fleonzo]

For those of us who live in NYC (me its been 17 years now) its always about what people "DO" versus what they "say" (especially in the press and media). Again....if in 30 days there's no crane = trouble getting this thing done!!