HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    Central Park Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #981  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 1:03 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILNY View Post
I just hope they will not shorten this tower, they were thinking about it after Sandy hit NYC.
No, they weren't.

What does a hurricane have to do with relative building heights? That doesn't even make any sense.
     
     
  #982  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 3:54 AM
ILNY ILNY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
No, they weren't.

What does a hurricane have to do with relative building heights? That doesn't even make any sense.

Well, it actually does. Look what happened to One57.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/re...ewanted=2&_r=1

Looking Down on the Empire State

By JULIE SATOW
June 7, 2013

Quote:
Still, deciding a building’s height is a judgment call, and “there have been times that I had air rights but I didn’t end up using them,” he said. Extreme height adds time and uncertainty to a project, as well as construction costs. One57, for instance, was waylaid when Hurricane Sandy snapped off a crane boom and left it dangling far above the street. Mr. Barnett is weighing these considerations for his Nordstrom property, he said, and said he may choose to forego the full 1,550 feet.
     
     
  #983  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 4:44 AM
JayPro JayPro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,047
The above citation is no more than a 50-50 split of somewhat decontextualized journalism and sheer conjecture whose combined main points have been argued ad nauseam here.
We get what we get with final height figures; and come the next superstorm that barrels through MidTown Manhattan, we get what we get if any damage occurs.
Now someone help me get this overbludgeoned horse corpse out of the way.
     
     
  #984  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 5:00 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILNY View Post
Well, it actually does. Look what happened to One57.
I don't understand how you come to that strange conclusion based on that quote.

Extell said the height for 225 W57th has not been finalized. They never said that hurricanes will determine the height of 225 W 57.

And hurricanes had nothing to do with One57's height.

Are you referring to the dangling crane following the hurricane? That is the only relevant link between One57 and Sandy. What I'm wondering, though, is why you think hurricanes would impact building height.
     
     
  #985  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 3:55 AM
ILNY ILNY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I don't understand how you come to that strange conclusion based on that quote.

Extell said the height for 225 W57th has not been finalized. They never said that hurricanes will determine the height of 225 W 57.

And hurricanes had nothing to do with One57's height.

Are you referring to the dangling crane following the hurricane? That is the only relevant link between One57 and Sandy. What I'm wondering, though, is why you think hurricanes would impact building height.

I am not saying hurricanes determine height of the building. I was referring to NY Times article and the damaged crane on One57 after Sandy. The article states that Mr. Barnett might take this incident into consideration when determining final height of the tower. That's it.

I just hope they will not make this building shorter, whatever the reason.
     
     
  #986  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 1:01 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILNY View Post
I am not saying hurricanes determine height of the building. I was referring to NY Times article and the damaged crane on One57 after Sandy. The article states that Mr. Barnett might take this incident into consideration when determining final height of the tower. That's it.

I just hope they will not make this building shorter, whatever the reason.
Relax. The article said Barnett was taking those things (time and uncertainty added by height) into consideration. Barnett says there were times when he had development rights, and didn't use all of them. So what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Fun fact: Barnett could use less air rights and build taller than planned. But I'm sure Barnett will build every developable square foot he can. This is prime Manhattan, those air rights aren't just going to be lying around. (Besides, they've recently expanded the lot a little, adding size). As far as a hurricane cutting the height of the tower, if you think One57 - at 1,005 ft was affected by one, what makes you think a tower of 1,400 - 1,300 - or even 1,100 ft wouldn't be?

Let's just say that the design isn't final, and we'll get more specifics when the design is revealed. For now, it is what it is.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #987  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 2:35 PM
McSky's Avatar
McSky McSky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
One thing you will notice from looking at this image, One57 shifts mostly to the 57th street side. If this tower is shifted in a similar way to the north, 58th street, it could save at least a portion of the views from both towers.



It won't matter that much for the east-west views, as the buildings are not that wide. Look at the sample views from 432 Park (at the building website) of various elevations to see what I mean. And wherever the tower of 225 W 57th is placed on its plot, neither building would block the other's view of the Park, which is paramount.

But I do think that Extell will try to place the tower portion of 225 W 57th more towards 58th Street, as this would somewhat alleviate the loss of Park views due to the construction of 220 CPS, which is currently listed as 577 feet.

Barnett knows that 220 CPS is coming eventually, so this is a reason for him to go for maximum height on 225 W 57. Right now, if the 1,550-foot figure turns out to be indeed be the height of the highest occupied floor, Extell would have 973 feet of occupy-able space above the 577-foot height of 220 CPS (minus any part of 220 CPS above the listed height, such as mechanical floors or an architectural cap).

Last edited by McSky; Aug 18, 2013 at 3:41 PM.
     
     
  #988  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 4:43 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by McSky View Post
ItBut I do think that Extell will try to place the tower portion of 225 W 57th more towards 58th Street, as this would somewhat alleviate the loss of Park views due to the construction of 220 CPS, which is currently listed as 577 feet.
We don't know the height of 220 CPS, though, because the old height was from a previous design from 5-6 years ago, and they have long since added significant additional air rights and changed architects.

My guess is that 220 CPS will be very tall and thin, since that's what all the towers are doing in that part of Manhattan. I would expect it to be comparable in height to the other towers.
     
     
  #989  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 5:35 PM
nsg nsg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6
How tall?

I read an article in Icon magazine about Adrian Smith, who said that the height of 225 West 57th Street would be 366m, not the original 472m.

Have any official rendering actually been released yet?
     
     
  #990  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 6:14 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsg View Post
I read an article in Icon magazine about Adrian Smith, who said that the height of 225 West 57th Street would be 366m, not the original 472m.

Have any official rendering actually been released yet?
You are confusing this tower with 111 West 57th Street, which will be at least 1,200ft / 366m tall.
     
     
  #991  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 11:38 PM
ILNY ILNY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,748
























     
     
  #992  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 1:32 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
^ Nice update...


Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
You are confusing this tower with 111 West 57th Street, which will be at least 1,200ft / 366m tall.
He's talking about this piece from back in March...

Quote:
http://www.iconeye.com/news/architec...ering-ambition

The US could once finance high-rise marvels that were symbols of its economic and political ambition and success; as both demonstrations of power and the solution to the densification of urban centres. But could the gargantuan architectural gestures of the east make an re-appearance in the post 9/11 west? Smith is unsure, but sees an opportunity in two cities: “London and New York, because they are such international cities, could build towers of this size. There are deep pockets that want to be in those locations if you have the right site,” he says. “In New York, there is a re-emergence of super-tall towers, but they have a very small footplate. There is one we are working on that is 1,200ft (366m). They aren’t as tall as the ones we are making in Asia at the moment, but people are seeing the value in higher density point structures.”


Meanwhile, demo permit has been filed for the final piece, the Beethoven Pianos building...

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:
FULL DEMOLITION OF TWO STORY STRUCTURE, USING MECHANICAL MEANS.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #993  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 1:13 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 8,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILNY View Post
Nobody knows the plans yet, of course. But I would imagine that the base (Nordstroms, etc.) would go as high as the old building that they're tearing down (as high as the cross bracing on the building next door). Then there might be an indentation to allow some space for the windows of the building next door to retain some amount of view. It's possible that the actual tower could be back from the street, similar to 432 Park Avenue.
__________________
Hi.
     
     
  #994  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 1:39 PM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
^ Nice update...




He's talking about this piece from back in March...





Meanwhile, demo permit has been filed for the final piece, the Beethoven Pianos building...

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01
I see, but I still wonder why Smith is referring to the 1200ft figure ...

Quote:
“In New York, there is a re-emergence of super-tall towers, but they have a very small footplate. There is one we are working on that is 1,200ft (366m).
Thank you for all the updates ILNY, they are very much appreciated.
     
     
  #995  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 1:57 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
Nobody knows the plans yet, of course. But I would imagine that the base (Nordstroms, etc.) would go as high as the old building that they're tearing down (as high as the cross bracing on the building next door).
It should be a pretty good size. Didn't they say it would be the "tallest" Nordstrom?

Anyway, here are the plans again for a Nordstrom that could have been built, of similar size and layout...



http://massforma.com/arch/nordstrom-tower/



Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
I see, but I still wonder why Smith is referring to the 1200ft figure ...
Who knows, it could very well have been the height at the time (remember, the designs are in flux) or it could be a different tower altogether. It could even be the height of the tower now. We'll know for certain when plans are adjusted, or renderings are revealed, which probably won't be any time soon.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #996  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 5:18 PM
MarshallKnight MarshallKnight is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Who knows, it could very well have been the height at the time (remember, the designs are in flux) or it could be a different tower altogether. It could even be the height of the tower now. We'll know for certain when plans are adjusted, or renderings are revealed, which probably won't be any time soon.
It's definitely possible that it is referring to 111 w57th isn't it, though? Even though SHOP is the architect of record on that, AS+GG could be the design architect. Although, if that article came out in March, then I don't really know how that jives with the timeline for that building.
     
     
  #997  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 5:59 PM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
It's definitely possible that it is referring to 111 w57th isn't it, though? Even though SHOP is the architect of record on that, AS+GG could be the design architect. Although, if that article came out in March, then I don't really know how that jives with the timeline for that building.
I don't think SHoP would be the architect of record on 111 w57th - I don't think they would want to be anything other than the design architect.

Anyway, it would be a shame if this building is reduced from 1,550 to 1,200 ft. However, at this point, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
     
     
  #998  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 6:31 PM
babybackribs2314 babybackribs2314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UWS, Manhattan
Posts: 1,728
The actual Nordstrom store will be 280'+ tall, so it will be about the same size as the adjacent building; I'd be surprised if there were setbacks for the store itself. It's going to be enormous.
     
     
  #999  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 7:42 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
I always had a sneaking suspicion 1550 was too tall for NYC.
     
     
  #1000  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2013, 8:24 PM
ILNY ILNY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I always had a sneaking suspicion 1550 was too tall for NYC.

That would be first 1500+ footer in NYC, almost too good to be true.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.