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

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by FMIII

If I take the liberty to criticize 432 Park Av, it's because it will soon become the tallest tower in NY and, hence it will have a huge and long lasting impact on the skyline.

It will only be the third tallest building in NYC.

And that's assuming nothing else is ever built, which is silly. It will be a major building, to be sure, and probably a landmark, but will never be a contender for tallest.

The rest of your point isn't true, at all. In fact it's the opposite. NYC, like Paris, is covered with historic districts and height restrictions, and it's extremely difficult to get anything built in the city.

There's something crazy like 60 historic districts in Manhattan alone, as well as a number of new districts proposed. Then there are the "special districts" which are not historic, but they put extreme height and density limitations on a neighborhood. Special districts run in the dozens in Manhattan alone. Both historic districts and special districts basically freeze neighborhoods in-place.

The problem in NYC is too much regulation and anti-development bureaucracy. Again, it's extremely tough to build in NYC.

[Blaze23]

Sorry but the guy is somewhat correct in his statement. Indeed NYC is more regulated than one might think but take it from someone who is quite familiar with Western Europe, the way building in NYC is regulated is nowhere close to Paris and most other European cities.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's something crazy like 60 historic districts in Manhattan alone, as well as a number of new districts proposed. Then there are the "special districts" which are not historic, but they put extreme height and density limitations on a neighborhood. Special districts run in the dozens in Manhattan alone. Both historic districts and special districts basically freeze neighborhoods in-place.

The problem in NYC is too much regulation and anti-development bureaucracy. Again, it's extremely tough to build in NYC.

It's an old city, covered in old buildings. And to get something new built, something old is going to have to come down. I sometimes think these people haven't seen the city the protest about at all.

Originally Posted by MIII;64F16488

The first time I went to Time Square the Mariott Marquis was not even topped out and I almost got robbed. The last time I went there, I was surrounded by brand new towers and families taking pictures like if they were in a Zoo. So yes I know Time Square.
NYC is mostly old if you take into account low-rise buildings, but if you only take into account towers above 600 feet (towers that matter), there is a balanced mixture of old and new.

News flash, there is more to Manhattan than Times Square. And yes, you can get robbed there today. But truthfully, that can happen anywhere in Manhattan.

Originally Posted by MIII;64F16488

Let's say that I am just a foreigner nostalgic of one time in NYC when architects were a bit more inspired when they designed the city's tallest towers.

I'd say you were an old soul who has lived beyond your time. Because as much as you would like time to freeze in space for you (or travel back in time if you will), that can not and will not happen. Manhattan wasn't always covered in skyscrapers BTW.

Originally Posted by Blaze23

I share your feeling on that point. I like 432 Park, but when you look at the new "tallest towers" going up in the city, none of them really stand out the way the ESB, the Chrysler and the Woolworth did in their time.

It goes without saying, it was a different time. But do you know that the Empire State didn't just grow up out of the raw earth? Do you know what stood before that classic?



http://www.hotelchatter.com/story/20...nd_34th_Street


A building many times better than the Drake Hotel that stood here earlier, The Waldorf Astoria.

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

NY actually is faily obsessed with it's past. We have the Landmarks Commission which has designated TONS of buildings as landmarks, and we also have historic districts which prescribe requirements for renovations / new development to ensure the "feel" if the neighborhood isn't lost or altered through architecture.

As NY Guy stated, the original Drake was an unremarkable yet good looking building. In another city it might have been worth saving, but when you look around Manhattan you'll find dozens of buildings in the same style. The crown jewels are landmarked, the rest, no one will miss.

Manhattan is basically drenched in these older buildings - literally from the Battery to the tips of Upper Manhattan. Nobody can have walked the streets and not seen it. As a matter of fact, I can remember a time (not too long ago) when people complained that the New York skyline was too "brown" and "old", and some still do. Sure, there are a lot of new buildings under construction, but overall, just a drop in the bucket. I think part of the problem is just that, the realization of just how many buildings there are in Manhattan.

Basically what I'm getting at is the Drake Hotel is gone, it won't be the last old building to come down. Manhattan is covered in Landmarks and historic districts. A lot of the older buildings have already sold what remaining air rights they had, so there will be no incentive to redevelop those properties (and not all of them will age well, though some will be suitable for conversion).

And finally, as I mentioned in another thread, I think if any of you owned that hotel, and could make a billion or two in redevelopment, well.....




www.432park.com

[Blaze23]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It goes without saying, it was a different time. But do you know that the Empire State didn't just grow up out of the raw earth? Do you know what stood before that classic?



http://www.hotelchatter.com/story/20...nd_34th_Street

That should be a poster child of how baseless the argument that we're destroying historic buildings for the sake of progress is.

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by Blaze23

Sorry but the guy is somewhat correct in his statement. Indeed NYC is more regulated than one might think but take it from someone who is quite familiar with Western Europe, the way building in NYC is regulated is nowhere close to Paris and most other European cities.

Thanks. As you mentioned it is just a question of perspective.

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by NYguy

News flash, there is more to Manhattan than Times Square. And yes, you can get robbed there today. But truthfully, that can happen anywhere in Manhattan.

I was just answering your question by mentioning that I have witnessed the amazing transformation of this neighbourhood. I also know that developers had to fight for more than a decade against "nimbis" to achieve their goal.

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'd say you were an old soul who has lived beyond your time. Because as much as you would like time to freeze in space for you (or travel back in time if you will), that can not and will not happen. Manhattan wasn't always covered in skyscrapers BTW.

I am not an old soul and I do hope I have not lived beyond my time. I am just someone who is passionate about NYC and its evolution. I also think it is good to have different point of view about this rising monolith and its impact on the skyline. Thanks to this, we get the chance to see old beautiful pics of the city. Photos which prove, btw, that Manhattan wasn't always covered with skyscrapers.

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

One of the things I love most about NY is that on the same block you can see architecture representing many different styles built centuries apart. It's like a living active archeology site.

I strongly agree and you are really lucky to live in a city constantly in motion.

[Hypothalamus]

As of January 18th, 2014...


Manhattan Skyline View by FCY photography, on Flickr

[King DenCity]

^And boom right there is a great example of a mix of old and new. Oh how i love this building and this city.

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by King DenCity

^And boom right there is a great example of a mix of old and new. Oh how i love this building and this city.

Yes, that is truly a nice pic. NY as its best. Citicorp is also an amazing tower, built almost 40 years ago, it still looks extremely futuristic.

[mrnyc]

fmiii i hear your point nyc vs europe, but i think you are making too big a deal out of this bldg. its soo thin. it will have a presence for sure, but with all the other development of tall bldgs it will quickly stand out less and less. kind of like trumps black tower near the united nations does from a distance. as for up close, the trump stands out as its rather isolated in its place, but 432 park will not as its among the rest of the park ave structures. i guess my point is this will quickly become just another part of the skyline because the city is so dynamic and other tall bldgs are on the way right on its tail.

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

fmiii i hear your point nyc vs europe, but i think you are making too big a deal out of this bldg. its soo thin. it will have a presence for sure, but with all the other development of tall bldgs it will quickly stand out less and less. kind of like trumps black tower near the united nations does from a distance. as for up close, the trump stands out as its rather isolated in its place, but 432 park will not as its among the rest of the park ave structures. i guess my point is this will quickly become just another part of the skyline because the city is so dynamic and other tall bldgs are on the way right on its tail.

Yes, you are right. And yes, I am making too big a deal

And to be honest, thanks to all those conversations, I am starting to like it more and more and to realize that it's not always a good idea to look back in the past to find inspiration. This tower, although simple, is unique in itself.

Besides, I should be lucky just to watch it rise considering how difficult it is (also in NYC) to build whatever you want. At least, this tower didn't have to endure a height reduction like Tower verre and it is growing in the sky.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Blaze23

That should be a poster child of how baseless the argument that we're destroying historic buildings for the sake of progress is.

No, its the poster child for how sometimes what comes before is not always greater. That Waldorf was a nice looking building, especially for its time. But would I rather have had that still standing than the Empire State Building? Not at all.

Originally Posted by FMIII

I also think it is good to have different point of view about this rising monolith and its impact on the skyline.

It's always better to have differing points of view than to have everyone agree on everything. It brings more passion to the discussion.

We happen to be in what I think will be one of the great historical times in the city's building history. This building will be a part of that along with the other 57th Street towers, the rebuilding of the WTC, the Hudson Yards, and maybe whatever gets built around Grand Central. This tower is now at the point where it sets itself above the masses...




www.432park.com

[Blaze23]

Originally Posted by NYguy

No, its the poster child for how sometimes what comes before is not always greater. That Waldorf was a nice looking building, especially for its time. But would I rather have had that still standing than the Empire State Building? Not at all.

And that's exactly what I meant, perhaps I could've phrased it differently but bottom line is something better came out from what was a nice looking building so that defeats the argument that we shouldn't raze older buildings, even though they can look pretty decent for the sake of new ones, cause who knows what's coming next.
We still have an abundance of those classic buildings in the city and most of them are landmarked so I personally don't have a problem with knocking down those which aren't.

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by NYguy

We happen to be in what I think will be one of the great historical times in the city's building history. This building will be a part of that along with the other 57th Street towers, the rebuilding of the WTC, the Hudson Yards, and maybe whatever gets built around Grand Central. This tower is now at the point where it sets itself above the masses...

That is quite remarkable and, as of today, I am pretty sure that no other cities in the world has so many planned supertall.

Although I have a problem with that, personally. How long should I wait to come back to visit the city of cities?

Nice update, as usual, and yes this picture clearly shows that 432 Park is now really starting its ascent toward the height.

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by FMIII

Although I have a problem with that, personally. How long should I wait to come back to visit the city of cities?

You should visit every year for best experience. You will then see three 1,400ft towers growing plus HY complex and few more supertalls.
There are really exciting times coming for NYC . It’s easy to get spoiled and forget that NYC had years without even one supertall build.

From therealdeal.com
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/01/...r-skyscrapers/

Despite all of the media attention surrounding One World Trade Center and its spire, only one building over 650 feet was completed in the United States in 2013, New York’s 1717 Broadway. Europe, on the other hand, debuted two of the year’s 10 tallest buildings for the first time since 1953, including the controversial Shard building in London.

[King DenCity]

Originally Posted by ILNY

You should visit every year for best experience. You will then see three 14,000ft towers growing plus HY complex and few more supertalls.
There are really exciting times coming for NYC . It’s easy to get spoiled and forget that NYC had years without even one supertall build.

From therealdeal.com
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/01/...r-skyscrapers/

14,000 feet! holy cow are we in the future!?

[ILNY]

^Oops, one zero too many.

[Submariner]

Buildings over 900 feet currently going up or undergoing site prep:

1WTC: 1776 feet
3WTC: 1080 feet
4WTC: 977 feet
432 Park: 1392 feet
111w 57th: 1350 feet
Tower Verre: 1050 feet
225w 57th: 1423 feet
One57: 1005 feet
Hudson Yards North: 1223 feet
10 Hudson Yards: 895 feet (it's close enough, damnit! )
Equinox Tower: 1000 feet (Is this confirmed?)
425 Park Ave: 905 feet
99 Chruch: 937 feet
220 CPS: 950 feet
The Corset: 910 feet

Buildings that are proposed or have the potential to break the 900 foot floor:

31w 57th: 900 feet+ (It will almost certainly be taller than 900 feet)
Hudson Spire: 1800 feet+ (possibly)
50 Hudson Yards: 1000 feet+
3 Hudson Boulevard: 1060 feet
2WTC: 1350 feet
80 South Street: 1018 feet (though not much has been heard from them)
Manhattan West: (possibly one or more towers will be 900 feet tall, but nothing official yet)

Other noteworthy towers:

56 Leonard: 821 feet
610 Lexington Ave: 712 feet
50 West Street: 783 feet
90-94 Fulton: 75 stories (proposed)
55 Hudson Yards: 47 stories (proposed)
625w 57th (pyramid): 467 feet
22 Thames: 882 feet
112-120 Fulton: 59 stories (proposed)
Baccarat tower: 606 feet
2392 57th: 59 stories (proposed)

So, there are 15 towers currently underway that are at least 900 feet tall. There are at least five others proposed, and it's fair to say that given the market, at least a few will rise. Look at the comments coming out of the landowners of the potential HU spire site: "the most confidentiality agreements we've ever signed" and I think they're being honest too. This is one of the most transformative periods in NYC history.

Are there any I am forgetting?

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by ILNY

You should visit every year for best experience. You will then see three 1,400ft towers growing plus HY complex and few more supertalls.
There are really exciting times coming for NYC . It’s easy to get spoiled and forget that NYC had years without even one supertall build.

You are right, from now on, I should come back every year to enjoy this new "Renaissance".

But I might have to wait until early 2015 to do that. As the song says, "Love don't pay the rent", (well the Hotel room in my case) and now that 432 Park has grown on me, I want to see it topped out in flesh and bone next time I come.