NEW YORK | 220 Central Park So.| 952 FT | 70 FLOORS - Page 46

streetscaper · #**901** Posted **Jan 20, 2017, 12:24 AM**

Are we sure it's not the height above sea-level?

The same thing happened a few weeks ago when we thought Verre got some extra height, turned out to be the height above sea-level, not structural height.

chris08876 · #**902** Posted **Jan 20, 2017, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by streetscaper

Are we sure it's not the height above sea-level?

The same thing happened a few weeks ago when we though Verre got some extra height, turned out to be the height above sea-level, not structural height.

Thats what I'm trying to figure out. I think based on the height of the shorter component and the "el" abberivation, it might be, but then look how the tower is indicated in terms of height along with the brackets showing what the height is for "X" component.

I mean, if they included elevation, it wouldn't be accurate in terms of dimensions. IDK though 100%. Want to verify.

Isn't it proper protocol to use ASL or AMSL for above mean sea level.

colemonkee · #**903** Posted **Jan 20, 2017, 12:58 AM**

^ No, the 1033.3 is the elevation at the peak. The building height of 952' is listed on the vertical line in that diagram, so not a supertall.

sbarn · #**904** Posted **Jan 20, 2017, 1:00 AM**

No the building height looks like 952', the top elevation is above 1,000'.

NYguy · #**905** Posted **Jan 29, 2017, 6:13 AM**

JANUARY 28, 2017

chris08876 · #**906** Posted **Feb 4, 2017, 1:26 AM**

Untitled by Alexander Kasatkin, on Flickr

photoLith · #**907** Posted **Feb 4, 2017, 5:55 AM**

This looks to be almost TOd

Lecom · #**908** Posted **Feb 5, 2017, 7:39 PM**

• Video Link

NYguy · #**909** Posted **Feb 6, 2017, 2:36 AM**

freenycpics

NYguy · #**910** Posted **Feb 7, 2017, 3:32 PM**

Steve Nogar

ILNY · #**911** Posted **Feb 8, 2017, 4:58 AM**

Almost topped out.

NYguy · #**912** Posted **Feb 9, 2017, 2:07 AM**

David Maldonado

Dac150 · #**913** Posted **Feb 9, 2017, 2:26 PM**

I can start to see the makings of the crown in that last shot.

chris08876 · #**914** Posted **Feb 12, 2017, 6:18 PM**

Credit: Brooklyn

Busy Bee · #**915** Posted **Feb 12, 2017, 7:06 PM**

^Since they insisted on that unnecessary setback, I sure as hell hope they're going to do something with that exposed wall of the neighboring building.

Crawford · #**916** Posted **Feb 12, 2017, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Since they insisted on that unnecessary setback, I sure as hell hope they're going to do something with that exposed wall of the neighboring building.

I would bet that setback is a zoning requirement. No clue if they'll do something about the wall, but won't matter in terms of building sales.

NYguy · #**917** Posted **Feb 13, 2017, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Since they insisted on that unnecessary setback, I sure as hell hope they're going to do something with that exposed wall of the neighboring building.

That building is a landmark. Whatever they decide will have to get approval.

From a distance...

Jeffrey Liu

Jack Bricker

NYguy · #**918** Posted **Feb 14, 2017, 7:20 PM**

360THz Images

artspook · #**919** Posted **Feb 14, 2017, 11:42 PM**

the limestone at the base on CPS, looks dark & dirty . .
like that of an older weathered building . . looks kinda cool . .
(Chris's Feb 12th post picture above) . .

wow, the fenestration (window pattern) subtly changes . .
even on the building's South facade . . that's covering that huge blank wall . .
that's going the extra mile . .
(see 4th & 5th pictures of NYguy's Feb 12th post above)

NYguy · #**920** Posted **Feb 15, 2017, 12:33 AM**

Danny Daly