NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS - Page 27

yankeesfan1000 · #**521** Posted **Sep 26, 2011, 4:55 PM**

Wow. Eventhough we were told to expect this sort of height, it's nonetheless impressive.

RW, can we expect renders soon or was this the big September announcement?

RobertWalpole · #**522** Posted **Sep 26, 2011, 6:01 PM**

I have no idea when renderings will be released. I only know what it looks like. Macklowe said Sept. but he might delay the release for a few months.

manchester united · #**523** Posted **Sep 26, 2011, 6:34 PM**

To change the height in the title and to eliminate the number of floores.

Zapatan · #**524** Posted **Sep 27, 2011, 2:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manchester united

To change the height in the title and to eliminate the number of floores.

Yea if it's around 1350 feet it should have well more than 70 floors, especially for a condo tower, at least 100 would be my guess.

NYguy · #**525** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/309259972

By Theresa Agovino
September 25, 2011 5:59 a.m.

Nothing illustrates Mr. Macklowe's rebound better than his involvement at the Park Avenue plot that was once home to the Drake Hotel. Mr. Macklowe spent years assembling the site, only to default on its $510 million loan. The loan was purchased by the CIM Group, which went on to secure control of the site but joined forces with Mr. Macklowe, who is helping develop the project. Sources say it will include a 1,350-foot tower with condominiums and a small hotel, as well as a 60,000-square-foot glass-cube retail space on tony East 57th Street

I'll take it.

manchester united · #**526** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'll take it.

To eliminate the written " 70 floors ". I also think that this building, that will be above all a condo, will have AT LEAST 100 floors !!!!

NYguy · #**527** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manchester united

To eliminate the written " 70 floors ". I also think that this building, that will be above all a condo, will have AT LEAST 100 floors !!!!

We don't have any specific floor counts yet, 70 floors is the last figure we had.

manchester united · #**528** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 1:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

We don't have any specific floor counts yet, 70 floors is the last figure we had.

Yes, but when the height of this building was 1000 ft .............

THE BIG APPLE · #**529** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 2:55 AM**

If this building is getting built it will forever alter the NYC skyline in a big and bad way. This monstrosity shouldn't get built. I was expecting something like a Shard design here, and if I was the architect I would do so. A building that would slope from the footprint upward until all the points met at 1350 feet. Is there nothing more creative than a box.

babybackribs2314 · #**530** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

If this building is getting built it will forever alter the NYC skyline in a big and bad way. This monstrosity shouldn't get built. I was expecting something like a Shard design here, and if I was the architect I would do so. A building that would slope from the footprint upward until all the points met at 1350 feet. Is there nothing more creative than a box.

I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over this.

If/when this gets built, competition will see to it that several other 1200-1500' residential buildings go up nearby (possibility already exists with 225 W57th). If anything, this could encourage better and taller architecture to rise in the neighborhood.

This isn't like the ESB or WTC, the first being built to show off and the second (new complex) also built as a show-piece. There is legitimate demand for 1,000'+ residential buildings in Midtown now, and there is no reason newer and better proposals won't be coming (barring another recession--that would still only be temporary).

Guiltyspark · #**531** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 2:42 PM**

A Chrysler style spire on the top of this building would do a lot for the overall shape. Even if that meant eliminating some floors to keep it at the same height as the current proposal. But then again, I am a fan of elegant spires, not just spires sticking out of the top of a box which seems to be the current trend (see 1 WTC, Trump Tower and countless others recently).

RobertWalpole · #**532** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 3:10 PM**

There will not be a spire or a crown. Envision a very tall version of 1 Madison Park.

jigglysquishy · #**533** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 4:36 PM**

Elegant spires ala Woolworth, ESB, Chrysler, American International and 40 Wall Street are probably the most aesthetically pleasing thing a building can have skyline wise. Hell, I'll even throw BoA into the mix.

Imagine looking towards Midtown from 1 WTC in ten years to see a sea of supertall spires.

It would finally bring back the Lower Manhattan skyline we lost 50 years ago.

RobertWalpole · #**534** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Elegant spires ala Woolworth, ESB, Chrysler, American International and 40 Wall Street are probably the most aesthetically pleasing thing a building can have skyline wise. Hell, I'll even throw BoA into the mix.

Imagine looking towards Midtown from 1 WTC in ten years to see a sea of supertall spires.

It would finally bring back the Lower Manhattan skyline we lost 50 years ago.

The overwhelming bulk of towers that existed in the downtown skyline 50 years ago are still there.

NYguy · #**535** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

The overwhelming bulk of towers that existed in the downtown skyline 50 years ago are still there.

They are, but they don't define the skyline like they once did, pre-WTC and the other massive boxes that crowd them out.

This one will be tall, but slender enough to appear "elegant" on the skyline, as opposed to the original WTC towers which were basically the same height, but larger and bulkier.

Guiltyspark · #**536** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 10:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

The overwhelming bulk of towers that existed in the downtown skyline 50 years ago are still there.

Its true that they are there, but the affect is gone because there are so many big boxes blocking them out.

401PAS · #**537** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

There will not be a spire or a crown. Envision a very tall version of 1 Madison Park.

Love that vision! I think 1 Madison Park is one of the most beautiful residential buildings ever constructed in NY. To have one that is twice the size would be radical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Madison_Park

RobertWalpole · #**538** Posted **Sep 29, 2011, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

Its true that they are there, but the affect is gone because there are so many big boxes blocking them out.

There are relatively few big boxes in lower Manhattan.

gramsjdg · #**539** Posted **Sep 29, 2011, 1:57 AM**

Dang. I was kinda hoping this thing would break NYC's apparent taboo on buildings with a roof height that break the 1400 ft barrier. Maybe Jersey City will step up to the plate. A 1400 ft plus (roof height) supertall there would complement the new WTC nicely, and maybe encourage a little friendly height competition like in the old days with the Chrysler and ESB.

STR · #**540** Posted **Sep 29, 2011, 3:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 401PAS

Love that vision! I think 1 Madison Park is one of the most beautiful residential buildings ever constructed in NY. To have one that is twice the size would be radical.

I like the idea of a 7 South Dearborn, without the taper, better.