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

[faridnyc]

I hope that grand hyatt will have a crown massive same height of spire of 1wtc and then it can easly break 2000ft marke !!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by faridnyc

I hope that grand hyatt will have a crown massive same height of spire of 1wtc and then it can easly break 2000ft marke !!

The proposal says 1,646 ft. Why would you even be considering a 2,000 ft tower? Follow the facts, stay grounded in reality.

[jbermingham123]

^^^

Originally Posted by faridnyc

I hope that grand hyatt will have a crown massive same height of spire of 1wtc and then it can easly break 2000ft marke !!

I would love this to be the case, as would practically everyone on this forum, but the only information we have right now tells us that this building will be in the 500m range. There's nothing wrong with hoping, but it's not useful to us to predict anything other than what our current best theories predict (RIP Karl Popper ).


New York will eventually get a 600 metre (~2000 ft.) building, but it most likely won't be at 109 E. 42nd st. Perhaps check out the proposals for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment or the Port Authority Bus Terminal redevelopment

[Visionist]

1646' was Sci Fi territory 20 years ago. And after 9/11? Forget it.

A megatall will come eventually.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

There's nothing wrong with hoping

No, there is nothing wrong with hoping. Millions of kids hope Santa will make a visit on Christmas eve. However, for the purposes of information, we try to go with what we know. Before the project was revealed, the potential for a 2,000 ft tower was possible, though unlikely. Now that we have seen the proposal from the developers, we already know that not to be the case. (Just as adults, we know there's no Santa).

[NYguy]

One of the great things about these developments is the transit improvements they bring to the city. Regardless of whatever height they may be, the city benefits.

I personally love the way these buildings are directly tied into transit, which is really the lifeblood of the city and the surrounding area.



https://untappedcities.com/2020/12/1...ral-re-opened/

Long-Shuttered Tunnel to Grand Central Re-Opened





by Nicole Saraniero
12/15/2020

We love to discover secret tunnels and hidden passageways here at Untapped New York, so we were excited to hear of the re-opening of a long-shuttered tunnel connecting Grand Central Terminal to the Socony-Mobil Building at 150 E. 42nd Street. The re-opening and renovation of this subterranean pedestrian pathway is part of a $220 million transit improvement project completed in conjunction with the construction of the new skyscraper, One Vanderbilt. Designed by Stantec and funded by SL Green, all components of the massive transit project are now finished and open to the public.

The newly re-opened tunnel was constructed at the same time as the Socony-Mobil Building from which it originates. Now a New York City Landmark, 150 E. 42nd Street was built between 1954 and 1956. The tunnel was completed in 1955.

A New York Times article from the time describes the tunnel’s 215-foot route. Starting “twenty feet inside the new skyscraper,” the tunnel “bends northwest from the southeast corner of Lexington and 42nd Street to a point a little south of center in Forty Second.” It then continued west for 120 feet where it met the Chanin Building passageway then bent toward the Commodore Hotel, now the Grand Hyatt.

The tunnel was built to allow workers from the Socony-Mobil Building to avoid crossing the busy thoroughfares of Lexington Avenue and 42nd Street at street level.

Construction of this passageway was no easy feat. As described in the New York Times, work was complicated by the busy streets above and the mess of utilities underground. A water main that stretched directly across the tunnel’s path had to be looped over the passageway’s roof. Workers also had to carefully avoid telephone wires, mail tubes, gas mains, and power cables.

Tunnels have snaked through the streets surrounding Grand Central Terminal since the early 20th century when Terminal City was being constructed. Terminal City was a network of hotels and office buildings centered around the transit hub. Many of the buildings, such as the Roosevelt Hotel, the Biltmore Hotel, and more, had their own underground passageways that led directly into the terminal.

The reopening of this historic passageway comes with the addition of two street-level subway entrances and a new entrance to the 42nd Street subway station on the southeast corner of 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue. Stantec told Untapped New York that the re-opening has created 3,815-square-feet of added circulation space for commuters underground. This new space is greatly appreciated during a time when social distancing is of the utmost importance. The new space will help ease congestion when peak transit crowds return.

Additional improvements to the transit hub include enhanced finishes, additional turnstiles and gates, new stairways, escalators, and an ADA-accessible elevator.

Other noteworthy pieces of One Vanderbilt’s transit-oriented project are a 14,000 square foot pedestrian plaza on Vanderbilt Avenue between Grand Central and One Vanderbilt and a 4,000 square foot public transit hall inside the tower, now the second tallest office tower in New York City. Work will continue on increasing transit accessibility in the area into 2022 when the East Side Access project is expected to be complete. That project will extend the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) from Queens to Grand Central.

[Dylan Dude]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

^^^



I would love this to be the case, as would practically everyone on this forum, but the only information we have right now tells us that this building will be in the 500m range. There's nothing wrong with hoping, but it's not useful to us to predict anything other than what our current best theories predict (RIP Karl Popper ).


New York will eventually get a 600 metre (~2000 ft.) building, but it most likely won't be at 109 E. 42nd st. Perhaps check out the proposals for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment or the Port Authority Bus Terminal redevelopment

I saw a video from B1M on youtube, i don't know if youve seen their channel, but a few months ago they made a video saying they didn't think new york would EVER see a building 2,000 ft. tall. Made me so annoyed. I can't wait for new york to prove those idiots wrong hahaha

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by Dylan Dude

I saw a video from B1M on youtube, i don't know if youve seen their channel, but a few months ago they made a video saying they didn't think new york would EVER see a building 2,000 ft. tall. Made me so annoyed. I can't wait for new york to prove those idiots wrong hahaha

I love that channel! I saw that video too.. they have some good points; megatalls are currently just vanity projects, because their cost of materials and construction exceeds the value they provide in terms of occupiable floor space. But with future improvements in materials and construction tech, the building-height-profit-ceiling (a term i just invented) will probably surpass 600m eventually, and prove them wrong.


IMO, Im willing to wait until then...The time will come. Personally, I've always wanted to see the PanAm/MetLife building replaced with a megatall, but not unless it's profitable

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by NYguy

(Just as adults, we know there's no Santa)

Wait... wh.. what ??

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

I love that channel! I saw that video too.. they have some good points; megatalls are currently just vanity projects, because their cost of materials and construction exceeds the value they provide in terms of occupiable floor space. But with future improvements in materials and construction tech, the building-height-profit-ceiling (a term i just invented) will probably surpass 600m eventually, and prove them wrong.


IMO, Im willing to wait until then...The time will come. Personally, I've always wanted to see the PanAm/MetLife building replaced with a megatall, but not unless it's profitable

yeah it will come. and not to nit, but the new wtc building was necessary. just the spireantenna, cough, cough, was vanity.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Dylan Dude

I saw a video from B1M on youtube, i don't know if youve seen their channel, but a few months ago they made a video saying they didn't think new york would EVER see a building 2,000 ft. tall. Made me so annoyed. I can't wait for new york to prove those idiots wrong hahaha

I've seen that video, and what they are saying is the reason it hasn't happened, which is accurate enough, but no one knows. Developers in New York build what they think will make money - either what will get sold, or what will lease (both commercial and residential). Zoning plays a large part, but you don't need zoning alone to build tall. The Steinway tower is actually a very small development, yet it stands over 1,400 ft. Meanwhile, 50 Hudson and the Spiral are over 2.5 msf, and stand just over 1,000 ft. But the much smaller 1 Vanderbilt stands 1,400 ft. Either one of those towers could have reached 2,000 ft, as the Hyatt could have as well, but that's not why developers are building. In either case, those towers are all taller than they would have been 50 years ago.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

not to nit, but the new wtc building was necessary. just the spireantenna, cough, cough, was vanity.

I just did a little bit of reading and it looks like youre right.. I had always thought that 1wtc was built at a loss, due to the cultural importance of rebuilding the wtc.. which would have made it a sort of vanity project (although one i was in full support of, as i assume most americans were). I never knew it was already profitable!

[chris08876]

I think we have to look at the trends. The city as a whole has been building grander and taller. Midtown East and Penn Station district are probally the closest prospects to a 600m tower. Unless something magical happens at the Park Lane parcel, but we shall see.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I think we have to look at the trends. The city as a whole has been building grander and taller. Midtown East and Penn Station district are probally the closest prospects to a 600m tower. Unless something magical happens at the Park Lane parcel, but we shall see.

That Empire Station development is to closest to anything being built that tall by default. Most important factors being:

1. It is a state development. That means it overrides any limitations on bulk and zoning that would otherwise be in place by the city. That's why the buildings are going to be so large (and why the NIMBYs are afraid. It's the reason I knew the Grand Hyatt proposal would be larger than zoning permitted once governor Cuomo got involved.

2. That much office space in these towers, combined with the higher ceilings of today's new office construction, especially in the city, means increased heights. (That's one of the reasons a rebuilt Twin Towers wouldn't really be the same. They would have to build by today's standards).


But back on the Grand Hyatt proposal, in the earlier community board meetings, they touched on and seemed to be concerned about the fact that the "lot merger" was the factor in the increased density on site. But if you look at it that way, the tower is actually smaller than what would be allowed - under current or existing zoning.

The Hyatt site of 57,000 sf is enlarged to 204,000 sf with the merger (203,872 sf). So, the buildable floor area (minus mechanical space) would be as follows:

15 FAR - 3,058,080 zsf

27 FAR - 5,504,544 zsf

It's a little more complicated because of the mechanisms used to get to the higher FAR, meaning they would have to pay even more money (they're already being charged to use their own air rights). But as it stands now, the proposal in either case is less. They should leave that one alone.

Meanwhile for comparison, over at the Empire Station complex you also get some pretty hefty zoning on two blocks...

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That Empire Station development is to closest to anything being built that tall by default

What about the Roosevelt site?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

What about the Roosevelt site?

That will be the same size as 1 Vanderbilt. The height will depend on what they are building, and the design. The should follow the lead of the Hyatt, and rebuild the hotel on top of an office tower.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That will be the same size as 1 Vanderbilt. The height will depend on what they are building, and the design. The should follow the lead of the Hyatt, and rebuild the hotel on top of an office tower.

Ah gotcha, I guess if they're going for 100 floors it'll have to be pretty narrow with the square footage compared to Vanderbilt.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Here are the two community board 5 meetings again (Dec 2) and (Dec 10) to discuss the draft scope of work, basically going over...

The developers return at the scoping meeting on December 21.

A pre-Christmas present would be nice!

[gramsjdg]

All the talk about a crown rising above 1646' would give me reason to hope, if it weren't for the fact that none of the last batch of NYC supertalls had any height added to it because of a crown. If anything, we have seen reductions in height. Even CPT started at 1550 then went down to 1424, then up to 1775 with a spire, then back to 1550. A crown pushing this to 1680-1700' roof height would be nice, but I'm doubtful. We will see what happens with 270 PA's roof/crown height. Value engineering (in terms of final building height) seems to rule these days, perhaps with the exception of Steinway (although even Steinway was supposed to be 10' feet taller at 1435 (at some point, anyway).

[NYguy]

Well these towers are always in a state of refinement, especially early on in the design phase. Supertall towers especially are expensive to build, and more so in NY. A tower like 1 Vanderbilt has basically 300 ft of vanity height on top, specifically because the developer wanted to build a skyline icon. They could have very easily just built a 1,000 ft tower. On the other hand, you have Barnett removing a spire that he never wanted, and said he wouldn't have on his tower. But the big towers like 50 Hudson and the Spiral end up being a little higher than planned, but not for the sake of vanity height. Same with 9 Dekalb.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Ah gotcha, I guess if they're going for 100 floors it'll have to be pretty narrow with the square footage compared to Vanderbilt.

It all depends on design, but yeah.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

A pre-Christmas present would be nice!

I don't know if they will give a full tower reveal. But they might. They said they would be back at CB5 with the design early next year. That could be the first week of Jan or Feb when the Land Use committee meets.