NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,575 FT | 86 FLOORS

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea, hopefully it's not the final height and they go with the taller one, maybe they're scared of backlash? (They shouldn't be they could probably pull of a 1600er)

Tower is gorgeous either way, 1,486' is a good height too. I like that 1,393' is the last floor.

Hopefully, it's not a reduction. If it unfortunately is, NO MORE REDUCTIONS NOR VALUE ENGINNEERING, please!

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Hopefully, it's not a reduction. If it unfortunately is, NO MORE REDUCTIONS NOR VALUE ENGINNEERING, please!

The building still looks like a gem and doesn't look v'ed, which would bother me more than the height.

Kinda bummed about the height cut but you know you're spoiled when your city gets a beautiful near 1500 foot building and it's not even the tallest, just extra.

[pianowizard]

I just remembered my Feb 2, 2021, 2:22 PM post (#716), where I wrote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I just measured that drawing carefully. Assuming it's to scale, Grand Hyatt would be only 1556', in which case the article rounded it up to 1600'. Hopefully the drawing is inaccurate, scale wise.

So the height had already been reduced by early February, and 1486' is a further decrease. I hope this trend won't continue!

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

So the height had already been reduced by early February, and 1486' is a further decrease. I hope this trend won't continue!

They want to build a big tower, but maybe half a kilometer was overshooting it, it wouldn't think they'd make it shorter than 1V or Chase Tower so I'll be semi-optimistic and assume this is the final height.

Not sure why some people still think it'll be 1,650 though...

[Raysiri]

But what happened to Tower Fifth and what led to the height reduction of 175 Park Avenue skyscraper???

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Raysiri

But what happened to Tower Fifth and what led to the height reduction of 175 Park Avenue skyscraper???

Tower Fifth: Macklowe needs to acquire the Venezuela consulate / embassy on the site in order to build and it doesn't seem that will happen. Some say he may be able to build around it but I'm not sure how he'd go about that. We haven't heard anything about the tower moving forward recently. That's as far as I know, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can weigh in.

Height reduction on this: $$$ probably and the fact that it still dominates the area, it doesn't need to be 1650+ feet.

[Zapatan]

Proportionally it looks like the cutaway may be missing some of the top, maybe 1486' is the top of the roof slab but the building could still be ~1600? Just a thought.

[HomrQT]

What architectural style would we classify this under? And what sub elements?

[faridnyc]

I am disappointed , the height was reduced !!!!
I still dont know why new York city often cute the height in the final rendering.
I guessed that we will have Taipei 101 height in est rezonning
Unfortunately it will never be the case .
Therefor new York city will never have a building exceeding the tip of 1wtc stop dreaming a lot !!!

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by faridnyc

I am disappointed , the height was reduced !!!!
I still dont know why new York city often cute the height in the final rendering.
I guessed that we will have Taipei 101 height in est rezonning
Unfortunately it will never be the case .
Therefor new York city will never have a building exceeding the tip of 1wtc stop dreaming a lot !!!

hyperbolic much...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BK1985

hyperbolic much...

Feel free to ignore that guy, it's always the same thing.

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Why did this presentation say 1,486 ft? Seems like the height has indeed been reduced, no?

Originally Posted by Hudson11

a design like this deserves to at least be taller than Central Park Tower. I'd be bummed if it isn't.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea, hopefully it's not the final height and they go with the taller one, maybe they're scared of backlash? (They shouldn't be they could probably pull of a 1600er)

Tower is gorgeous either way, 1,486' is a good height too. I like that 1,393' is the last floor.

Originally Posted by Raysiri

Well, that sucks. Now Tower Fifth took back the crown... I hope there should be another rival of both Central Park Tower and Tower Fifth. Maybe the rival should be like 1,580’ or 1,690’. The taller the new skyscrapers gets, the brighter the future will be.

Originally Posted by DCReid

Hopefully, it's not a reduction. If it unfortunately is, NO MORE REDUCTIONS NOR VALUE ENGINNEERING, please!

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I just remembered my Feb 2, 2021, 2:22 PM post (#716), where I wrote:


So the height had already been reduced by early February, and 1486' is a further decrease. I hope this trend won't continue!

They specifically said in that earlier presentation that it was of a shorter version. They are still working on the floor heights, and will likely have a variety like most of the new towers going up today. The renderings in that presentation are a bit higher than that 1,486 figure given, but not of the 1,646 figure given.

But the number of floors has not been reduced. The difference is most likely in the floor heights, which again, was previously the reason given for the large height differences between the proposed and no action versions of the tower.

In this presentation, you see a uniform slab height of 14 ft in the office floors (above the larger base floors).







More than likely this tower will have varied heights like Vanderbilt, or just compare the 14' slab heights to the higher 17' to 19' slabs at 15 Penn.

[NYguy]

One of the best gifts this tower gives to the city, (arguably the best gift) is the amount of public space that surrounds the tower, more than double what is required.

And it is setting up to be one of the great public spaces or POPS, one you actually want to go to.























I can see myself sitting here in my elderly years....

[Sky88]

Originally Posted by NYguy

They specifically said in that earlier presentation that it was of a shorter version. They are still working on the floor heights, and will likely have a variety like most of the new towers going up today. The renderings in that presentation are a bit higher than that 1,486 figure given, but not of the 1,646 figure given.

But the number of floors has not been reduced. The difference is most likely in the floor heights, which again, was previously the reason given for the large height differences between the proposed and no action versions of the tower.

Yes, but the indication of the height of 1,646 ft had come from the builder and then reported in the press. If this indication was not correct, then why not expect the project to be well defined in its numbers, instead of going up and down with the heights? Too bad for this downsizing. I believe that for the foreseeable future only Tower Fifth will retain its record as the second tallest tower in New York. This Project will drop to fourth place.

[jackster99]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

The building still looks like a gem and doesn't look v'ed, which would bother me more than the height.

Kinda bummed about the height cut but you know you're spoiled when your city gets a beautiful near 1500 foot building and it's not even the tallest, just extra.

Exactly, we are spoiled, even if it is built to the 1486 ft height, it's still taller than the Sears/Willis tower, which was the tallest building in the USA for 40 years, and the tallest in the world for 24. So it's still an incredible height.

Also off topic, but not sure where else to put this. I noticed last week the Wikipedia page of the tallest buildings in NYC no longer goes all the way to 600 footers. It now stops at 650 foot tall buildings. Kind of a bummer, I remember when I first started following skyscraper construction in 2010, that list had 97 buildings in NYC taller than 600 feet. As of a few weeks ago it had grown to 144. Amazing

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Sky88

Yes, but the indication of the height of 1,646 ft had come from the builder and then reported in the press. If this indication was not correct, then why not expect the project to be well defined in its numbers, instead of going up and down with the heights? Too bad for this downsizing. I believe that for the foreseeable future only Tower Fifth will retain its record as the second tallest tower in New York. This Project will drop to fourth place.

Agreed, everything now points to a shorter tower if it's what they're leaking in the news.

Exactly, we are spoiled, even if it is built to the 1486 ft height, it's still taller than the Sears/Willis tower, which was the tallest building in the USA for 40 years, and the tallest in the world for 24. So it's still an incredible height.

Yup, more like 30 or so years by roof too. Still an impressive height.

They specifically said in that earlier presentation that it was of a shorter version. They are still working on the floor heights, and will likely have a variety like most of the new towers going up today. The renderings in that presentation are a bit higher than that 1,486 figure given, but not of the 1,646 figure given.

But the number of floors has not been reduced. The difference is most likely in the floor heights, which again, was previously the reason given for the large height differences between the proposed and no action versions of the tower.

In this presentation, you see a uniform slab height of 14 ft in the office floors (above the larger base floors).

The floor heights would have to tweaked a lot to get from 1,486 back to ~1650, though I suppose with 85 of them each one only needs a foot or two extra, I hope you're right.

The presentation does seem to show a ~1500+ building which why I said maybe 1,486' refers to a part that's not the absolute top like a slab without the crown.

[gramsjdg]

I had a feeling 1650' was too good to be true. Just a lot of bluster, as usual.

I've got a novel idea -and I know it sounds insane- but how about actually building a supertall that doesn't get a height cut? The height-cutting has become incessant, and not just in NYC, but Chicago too. Either that or stop releasing height information to the public until its actually firm.

Sure, take NYC or even the US in isolation, and we are spoiled if we complain about a cut from 1650 to 1485. But in the context of building heights in Asia, the middle east, etc., it just becomes a poor excuse to keep overpromising and under-delivering on height.

[Busy Bee]

The missing height added back into an elongated, slenderized and more refined crown would be the most ideal outcome IMO.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

I had a feeling 1650' was too good to be true. Just a lot of bluster, as usual.

I've got a novel idea -and I know it sounds insane- but how about actually building a supertall that doesn't get a height cut? The height-cutting has become incessant, and not just in NYC, but Chicago too. Either that or stop releasing height information to the public until its actually firm.

Sure, take NYC or even the US in isolation, and we are spoiled if we complain about a cut from 1650 to 1485. But in the context of building heights in Asia, the middle east, etc., it just becomes a poor excuse to keep overpromising and under-delivering on height.

I think NYC (or Chicago) could pull of a building like that in theory but I just worry about potential sites for such a tower being filled with modest buildings (i.e. wasted opportunities) then having no sites left to build said tower.

If the US doesn't build a 500 meter building (or two) in the near future I'll be disappointed. I would expect better from such a country.

That being said I'm not super upset at the current state of the tower, still pretty great IMO.

[khabah]

Those renderings make me wish this project was happening a lot sooner than 2030. Wow wow wow.

Does anybody know where this latest batch of renderings is from? If it's from a presentation or PDF, can a link please be shared?

khabah

[Submariner]

I dislike the loss in height, but I think the shorter version is better proportioned.