NEW YORK | Tower Fifth | 1,556 FT | 96 FLOORS

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Tower 5th.


Credit: skyscraperengineering

IMO the top looks much worse here than in the drawings we've seen so far. I was on the fence after seeing the drawings, but upon seeing this pseudo-photo I am really against this design. But then again it's not an official rendering, and this may not be the final design, so there's still hope I suppose.

[mrnyc]

for a supertall vinoly i would say this looks a lot more like the nordstrom central park tower so far, not 432 park.

i love that rad entrance view facing st pats, that was a gimmee and they wisely took it.

and it engages the people with a cool observation deck.

whats not to like here?

so who wants to guess ---- what are the odds macklowe can pull this off in the time he has left on this earth?

excellent? pretty good? fiddy-fiddy? less?

i say less just because hes 81 not because he cant do it.

[NYguy]

That view is great, but they need to put Chase in there as well to get a real feel...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtOd6PGAClj/

...render of the tower fifth and how our skyline will be changing with it , sure the tower isn't bad. By the time how i done this I've got that the shapes of the tower seem pretty and i assume that the tower pretty fit the area there this has to sit
beautiful shot by @thomas_william_koloski

[Zerton]

To the Editor:

Re “Another Giant May Soon Scrape the Midtown Sky” (news article, Jan. 19):

I don’t live in New York anymore, but I love New York City — its energy, its vibrancy and diversity.

But I am not impressed with tall and taller buildings. Beauty is the river, the parks, the brownstones. Those glass sticks in the air are impressive but cold and unimaginative.

I’d much rather that someone (a city/state/private/federal collaboration) return Penn Station to the beauty and elegance it once had. Since I visit often by train, the first thing I see of Manhattan is this eyesore — a rundown, ugly, uncomfortable domain of plastic, dirt and escalators.

Can’t we combine utility and beauty for all as opposed to the ho-hum oversize glass towers that are a homage to nothing but glitz?

Nancy Gerson
South Dennis, Mass.

Why do people think this is a zero sum game? Beautiful tall towers don't make beautiful public buildings impossible. In fact the taxes will provide for beautiful public buildings and renovations.

It would be one thing if these ultra-lux towers were rising while the city let all it's public buildings rot but that's not the case. Some of the most beautiful train stations and parks have been built within the past 15 years.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zerton

Why do people think this is a zero sum game? Beautiful tall towers don't make beautiful public buildings impossible. In fact the taxes will provide for beautiful public buildings and renovations.

It would be one thing if these ultra-lux towers were rising while the city let all it's public buildings rot but that's not the case. Some of the most beautiful train stations and parks have been built within the past 15 years.

They don't care. What's more amazing to me is the fact that these people think there are already too many skyscrapers in the city, and the skyline should be finished already. Wrong on both fronts. There's an entire country of wide open spaces and average sized skylines to appreciate. If there's anywhere you should be able to build and build taller, it's in Manhattan.

[Crawford]

Is that lady aware that Penn Station platform levels are the same as ever? When Penn was demolished, they took out the beautiful headhouse, but the station "guts" are the same (since expanded).

What she's saying is that Penn needs a grand hall, and it's getting that. Moynihan Train Hall opens in 2021. But arrivals at Penn in the "good old days" were the same as today.

Also, what does one thing have to do with the other? Why can't you have brownstones and grand train halls and soaring skyscrapers?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, what does one thing have to do with the other? Why can't you have brownstones and grand train halls and soaring skyscrapers?

I think some people just can't handle the changes to the skyline. I don't know how they could be so "shocked" that tall buildings continue to rise in Manhattan. They better buckle up for the ride!

[chris08876]

Unless one woke up recently from a hidden cryogenic lab somewhere that was secretly built in 1898 underneath Grants tomb, only to discover that the city that they once knew turned into bizarre landscape of towers, ONLY than... can they act surprised.

But if you are consciously living in the city, with eyes that work, and a left and right brain hemisphere that is not decaying or in-tact or with a brain stem that can adequately control breathing or doesn't fall prey to neuron death, than what is the suprise that there are skyscrapers in NYC?

And you can't even say drugs either, because even those on drugs will know that there are skyscrapers in NYC, because the skyscrapers will expand and breath under psychedelics or look blocky and cubist under dissociatives.

....

So there is no excuse for "acting surprised" that there are skyscrapers in this city!

NIMBY's are living in the past. Either that, or the Men in Black erase their memory every night.

[Shwayze1994]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtYJBuXg...=1v2wiqrz3yhjw

[Shwayze1994]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtWoKNQA...d=4lz0c7dyo1k1

[NYguy]

The scaling is a little off on that last one, but if he could get the image in these photos...



https://www.instagram.com/p/BtZ1_koApmK/





https://www.instagram.com/p/BtZwS01lruP/

[chris08876]

I wonder if this will have a transparent effect. Somewhat like 432 Park when light goes right through it and when viewing from a North/South perspective from a far.

[Zapatan]

That is insane...

Who thinks they'll end up going even higher?

[ATLksuGUY]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That is insane...

Who thinks they'll end up going even higher?

It's weird to think, that the true age of NYC supertalls is here. The only question is, when will the 2000'+ come. I've been away from this forum for a long while since a career change (on different forums for that), but I've always been viewing.

Long live NYC.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That is insane...

Who thinks they'll end up going even higher?

Macklowe will have his hands full just getting it built as is.

Originally Posted by ATLksuGUY

It's weird to think, that the true age of NYC supertalls is here. The only question is, when will the 2000'+ come. I've been away from this forum for a long while since a career change (on different forums for that), but I've always been viewing.

Long live NYC.

I feel like the stage is being set for a megatall, with so many towers of similar height starting to take over the skyline. Something like that would certainly be a mixed-use tower.
I'm not expecting it next week, but the stage is being set.

Meanwhile, I think that if Macklowe doesn't get this through approvals (meaning the special permits), he would likely just build a residential tower. It's in a heavily landmarked area,
so Landmarks will have a weigh in as well on the transfer of air rights.






















https://www.instagram.com/p/BtASvOilWDU/

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Macklowe will have his hands full just getting it built as is.

I'd imagine, Barnett may try and go taller though, thus Macklowe may want to retaliate.

I hope getting this approved wouldn't be impossible though... though you sound doubtful.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I'd imagine, Barnett may try and go taller though, thus Macklowe may want to retaliate.

Well, Barnett is selling condos, Macklowe isn't in direct competition from that point of view. But if Barnett still wants that crown in Midtown, he could always build that spire on CPT.

I hope getting this approved wouldn't be impossible though... though you sound doubtful.

It's not impossible, it just won't be easy sailing. Nothing ever is in New York. It's true that one of the most vocal critics of these supertall towers (the Municipal Arts Society) already made a statement of support (somewhat). They're the one's who pumped up the whole "shadows in the park" argument. But with nothing else to go on, the Community Board already issued a statement about - the shadows on the park.

This really isn't a large building, especially by NYC standards. We're looking at about 1 msf of office space. Typically that would get you about 700 ft, not even getting a second look in Midtown. But you double that height, and all eyes are on it. They'll come out with different excuses about whey they don't want it, and say it's not necessarily about the height, but it's always about the height. Look at the towers on billionaire's row. You could take Steinway, triple the number of units, and make it 600 ft. Nobody would care about any billionaires there. That's just a convenient way of trying to disparage those towers. But with this one, they won't get that option. So they'll go for other things - the buildings it will replace, the disruption of construction, the proximity to St. Patrick's Cathedral. This tower will sit on a pedestal, they will complain about that. It's all to be expected.

Either City Planning or Landmarks could suggests design changes before approval is given. It's still more than likely to get approved, but I wouldn't be surprised if something other that what is being proposed came out of it.

[Sky88]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well, Barnett is selling condos, Macklowe isn't in direct competition from that point of view. But if Barnett still wants that crown in Midtown, he could always build that spire on CPT.




It's not impossible, it just won't be easy sailing. Nothing ever is in New York. It's true that one of the most vocal critics of these supertall towers (the Municipal Arts Society) already made a statement of support (somewhat). They're the one's who pumped up the whole "shadows in the park" argument. But with nothing else to go on, the Community Board already issued a statement about - the shadows on the park.

This really isn't a large building, especially by NYC standards. We're looking at about 1 msf of office space. Typically that would get you about 700 ft, not even getting a second look in Midtown. But you double that height, and all eyes are on it. They'll come out with different excuses about whey they don't want it, and say it's not necessarily about the height, but it's always about the height. Look at the towers on billionaire's row. You could take Steinway, triple the number of units, and make it 600 ft. Nobody would care about any billionaires there. That's just a convenient way of trying to disparage those towers. But with this one, they won't get that option. So they'll go for other things - the buildings it will replace, the disruption of construction, the proximity to St. Patrick's Cathedral. This tower will sit on a pedestal, they will complain about that. It's all to be expected.

Either City Planning or Landmarks could suggests design changes before approval is given. It's still more than likely to get approved, but I wouldn't be surprised if something other that what is being proposed came out of it.

Do you think the tower can be lower?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Sky88

Do you think the tower can be lower?

Anything could be lower, but this tower is suspended above its neighbors.



Here's that video from the article with some great NIMBYism on shadows over the park...
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/manhattan/ne...ilding-in-nyc#



Designed by Gensler, the architect of record has worked on some familiar supertall skyscrapers...

[NYguy]

This tower seems very similarly programmed at the street level to neighboring Olympic Tower. I think that bodes well for the approvals process in that it will fit in with the existing landscape.








https://nyrej.com/oxford-properties-...-olympic-tower


Oxford Properties Group reopens Olympic Tower interior public plaza; Following $30 million redevelopment; Designed by MdeAS Architects

February 05, 2019

Oxford Properties Group, the global real estate arm of OMERS, has reopened the interior public plaza at Olympic Tower — a new, architecturally distinct retreat in East Midtown. Located at 645 Fifth Ave., Olympic Tower is a office and retail destination. In addition to the renovated public space, the $30 million redevelopment of Olympic Tower brings a modern private lobby and new amenities for the building’s customers. The fully-occupied tower is home to the headquarters offices of the National Basketball Association as well as MSD Capital and Richemont North America.

Originally constructed in 1974 by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), Olympic Tower was the first mixed-use building to open on Fifth Ave. The new interior public plaza reflects the building’s history and provides tenants and visitors enhanced public and private gathering space, anchored by Grano New York – a new café concept by Iganazio Cipriani – and Triangulated Passage, a new site-specific artwork by international artist Liam Gillick.

The new design by MdeAS Architects for the Olympic Tower interior public plaza creates an open, welcoming environment by bringing to life previously underutilized areas.

“The newly redesigned public space creates a much-needed respite for the East Midtown community. Oxford Properties expressed the vision necessary to create a meaningful public space that complements St. Patrick’s Cathedral and Rockefeller Center — two of New York City’s most recognizable landmarks,” said Dan Shannon, principal, MdeAS Architects.

Also, the cantilever over a landmark is very similar to the Central Park Tower approval...