NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS [Archive] - Page 13

Crawford

Feb 29, 2012, 6:04 PM

The diagram states that we are getting the shorter version.

I understand the diagram, but DOB filings are constantly subject to change. Most projects have multiple filings and revisions based on various zoning vagaries.

For example, when you plan a 50 floor tower, but only have the air rights for a 40 floor tower, you file to DOB for the 40 floor tower, and then can build a 50 floor tower, as long as you revise before certificate of occupany has been filed (so you would have to prove that you've assembled sufficient additional air rights to make up for the difference).

Or, to take the case of 432 Park, the first zoning documents were for a lowrise box. That doesn't mean that a lowrise box will be built, but it was (for whatever complex reason known only to the zoning lawyers) the first step in initiating the land use approvals process.

It's actually more the exception, rather than the rule, to have initial zoning documents match the final built structure.

That's why zoning documents are helpful, but far from definitive. They're more like individual clues to a larger mystery.

scalziand

Feb 29, 2012, 10:09 PM

Jeez, I go away for a day, and someone finds the DOB filing. Well done bbr!

sw5710

Feb 29, 2012, 11:02 PM

I understand the diagram, but DOB filings are constantly subject to change. Most projects have multiple filings and revisions based on various zoning vagaries.

For example, when you plan a 50 floor tower, but only have the air rights for a 40 floor tower, you file to DOB for the 40 floor tower, and then can build a 50 floor tower, as long as you revise before certificate of occupany has been filed (so you would have to prove that you've assembled sufficient additional air rights to make up for the difference).

Or, to take the case of 432 Park, the first zoning documents were for a lowrise box. That doesn't mean that a lowrise box will be built, but it was (for whatever complex reason known only to the zoning lawyers) the first step in initiating the land use approvals process.

It's actually more the exception, rather than the rule, to have initial zoning documents match the final built structure.

That's why zoning documents are helpful, but far from definitive. They're more like individual clues to a larger mystery.

I hope at some point we can get up to date DOB or zoning documents posted here to bring us up to date on any changes.

NYguy

Mar 1, 2012, 1:23 AM

I hope at some point we can get up to date DOB or zoning documents posted here to bring us up to date on any changes.

It has to do with the process of getting ready for construction. Keep in mind that a permit for construction of the full building hasn't been filed, and once it has, whatever that permit states will be the final guide for what the specifics will be.

Looking at those plans however, it's' clear that this tower won't be as "boxy" as percieved to be from the rendering. It's a little bit of a cross between 56 Leonard, 80 South Street, and Libeskind's old clock tower proposal.

So far, the only construction permits filed have been for the 6 story retail base...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/141819355/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/141819356/original.jpg

sw5710

Mar 1, 2012, 1:56 AM

I am waiting for the permit for construction of the tower to be filed

Zapatan

Mar 1, 2012, 1:59 AM

1380 feet is not bad, It will still be below 1WTC's crown though which is 1401 feet high.

599GTO

Mar 1, 2012, 4:06 AM

I don't understand the driveway, it seems so un-New York. I hope that doesn't count as their "publicly accessible open space".

How so? 15 CPW has a driveway.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8889/90926185.jpg

One Beacon Court has one too. It's beautiful.

599GTO

Mar 1, 2012, 4:09 AM

When will they release better renders of this building?

NYguy

Mar 1, 2012, 12:43 PM

They will probably release better renderings when they're ready to begin construction, but it might not happen until construction has already begun, as with the Beekman Tower and One57.

They're finally digging on the north side (today's cam shot)

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2182177-T1200800.jpg
www.432park.com

hunser

Mar 1, 2012, 4:12 PM

It has to do with the process of getting ready for construction. Keep in mind that a permit for construction of the full building hasn't been filed, and once it has, whatever that permit states will be the final guide for what the specifics will be.

Looking at those plans however, it's' clear that this tower won't be as "boxy" as percieved to be from the rendering. It's a little bit of a cross between 56 Leonard, 80 South Street, and Libeskind's old clock tower proposal.

So far, the only construction permits filed have been for the 6 story retail base...

Interesting. So the current DOB paper doesn't say anything about the final height... we have to wait for the important one which will be the contruction permit. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.

sbarn

Mar 1, 2012, 4:55 PM

How so? 15 CPW has a driveway.

I thought about that later after I wrote my comment. It is nice, as is Beacon's, but I don't think buildings like this should become the new norm in the city. I much prefer One57's or 56 Leonard's ground treatment - seems more urban to me by maintaining the street wall.

NYC GUY

Mar 1, 2012, 8:42 PM

Whats the north part going to be used for?

NYguy

Mar 1, 2012, 9:15 PM

Whats the north part going to be used for?

Retail...its what will give the project a presence on 57th Street, but the issue for retailers has been just how much of a presence. Nordstrom was rumored to be a potential tenant, but the space wasn't big enough, or to their liking.
http://www.retailnet.com/story.cfm?ID=40952

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/141803326/large.jpg

Interesting. So the current DOB paper doesn't say anything about the final height... we have to wait for the important one which will be the contruction permit.

Yeah, it's more of a formality at this point. The permit allows them to get underway with that, but another permit will be filed for the "90 story" tower, or however tall it will be at that point.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/141832506/original.jpg

hunser

Mar 2, 2012, 11:27 AM

We schould consider ourselves very lucky to watch a 420m+ tower rise in the current economy. And also remember that NY only builds out of demand. Just when 1WTC is T/O and on its way to being finished, we can enjoy this monster. And a short time after that, 2WTC will resume contruction and voila -another 400m+ tower in the making. Good times ahead! :cheers:

RobertWalpole

Mar 3, 2012, 6:06 PM

1380 feet is not bad, It will still be below 1WTC's crown though which is 1401 feet high.

The height remains to be seen. These documents were filed in connection with the six-story retail building. No Permits have been for the tower. As noted, it's called 432 Park for a reason.

Roadcruiser1

Mar 3, 2012, 6:43 PM

NYguy

Mar 6, 2012, 3:48 PM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/chic_moma_neighbor_on_way_WuATyJG6AXpk4IoVMB0kDK

By Steve Cuozzo
March 6, 2012

Substantial, visible progress may not come so quickly at CIM Group’s Drake Hotel project, its mammoth planned development with frontage on Park Avenue and on East 56th and 57th streets. In recent weeks, CIM quietly inked a $70 million mortgage on part of the L-shaped assemblage with iStar CP investors, and incorporated it into a $100 million mortgage-spreader agreement with iStar on the entire site. But there’s still no timetable, hotel or retail user or rendering for a tower that might soar to 1,300 feet.

Meanwhile, CIM and partner Harry Macklowe appear to be putting the squeeze on a retailer that won’t give up a valuable corner of the site. CIM recently finished demolishing five retail townhouses on East 57th Street, but jeweler Jacob & Co. continues to hang onto its five-story building at No. 48, the assemblage’s eastern end. (Jacob did sell air rights to CIM, a transaction that appears in the mortgage-spreader agreement.)

In recent weeks, earth-movers have been noisily active on the lot where the townhouses stood — right next to Jacob’s building. As we’ve reported, CIM would love to add the Jacob site to its existing 100 feet of retail frontage, although it can build without it. Even as CIM seeks construction financing as well as a hotel anchor, it’s also bought out owners and leaseholders of the other retail townhouses — most recently of Buccellati at No. 46, which moved to Madison Avenue. To get more frontage, it even bought Turnbull & Asser’s former home at 42 E. 57th St. and moved the menswear emporium into No. 50.

Retail sources told us CIM will first erect a two-story “jewel box” for a store tenant at the Park Avenue/56th Street corner with 2,700 square feet on each floor. (Go figure: it filed plans for a six-story building there last year.) Supposedly the structure would include a 12,000 square-foot concourse (basement) that would connect underground to the project’s 57th Street retail component. On 57th Street, we’re told, the first, double-height retail floor would have 7,600 square feet; the third floor, 8,000 square feet; and floors four-six, 9,500 square feet each.

1Boston

Mar 6, 2012, 6:01 PM

J. Will

Mar 6, 2012, 6:20 PM

Retail...its what will give the project a presence on 57th Street, but the issue for retailers has been just how much of a presence. Nordstrom was rumored to be a potential tenant, but the space wasn't big enough, or to their liking.

How much retail will there be? When it says 124,000 square feet commercial, is that all retail? Is that what they plan to build, or just how much they're allowed to build?

RobertWalpole

Mar 6, 2012, 6:33 PM

I believe that nos. 36 and 48 will become pArt of this site. Firstly, Madison in the 60s and 70s is the prime shopping district and is a preferable location for Jacob. Secondly, I can't imagine that very wealthy people want to peruse million dollar+ items in Jacob's while there's heavy construction occurring on the other side of a two-foot wall.

JACKinBeantown

Mar 6, 2012, 10:33 PM

uaarkson

Mar 6, 2012, 10:42 PM

Try this instead: in what world would a tower like this be underway if it was not structurally sound?

DesignerVoodoo

Mar 6, 2012, 10:54 PM

Try this instead: in what world would a tower like this be underway if it was not structurally sound?

I guess you never heard about this project.

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

NYguy

Mar 7, 2012, 12:04 AM

^Maybe if they put all the biggest and loudest equipment next to their building they'll want to leave. I'm surprised that someones holding on to any of those buildings since they don't look that amazing, and CIM would probably pay a ton to get them to leave.

Location is of most value in this case - for now and for years to come.

How much retail will there be? When it says 124,000 square feet commercial, is that all retail? Is that what they plan to build, or just how much they're allowed to build?

I believe that to be the retail and possibly hotel.

Retail sources told us CIM will first erect a two-story “jewel box” for a store tenant at the Park Avenue/56th Street corner with 2,700 square feet on each floor. Supposedly the structure would include a 12,000 square-foot concourse (basement) that would connect underground to the project’s 57th Street retail component. On 57th Street, we’re told, the first, double-height retail floor would have 7,600 square feet; the third floor, 8,000 square feet; and floors four-six, 9,500 square feet each.

Ongoing demo permit...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/WorkPermitDataServlet?allisn=0002353961&allisn2=0001850348&allbin=1088583&requestid=4

Crawford

Mar 7, 2012, 12:15 AM

I guess you never heard about this project.

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

That was 40 years ago, and the issue was resolved during construction.

If anything, that's an example of why it isn't an issue.

Stained

Mar 7, 2012, 2:10 AM

I guess you never heard about this project.

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

That is not directly comparable to to his question. That was a construction flaw, not a design fault. A building of these dimensions would be quite interesting to design.

Brian.

Mar 7, 2012, 2:31 AM

If this has already been discussed, I apologize and ask you to please direct me to it (I'm just starting to look at this project). But...

Will someone with engineering knowledge please give your informed opinion of the structural integrity of a 1400 foot tall building that is only about 100 feet wide?

Most people are seemingly making the same mistake about the engineering principles of structures. It is not necessarily the size of the building but the size of the members in the building that do the work. Buildings are designed like vertical cantilevered beams.

The wider the building the smaller the structural sections can be. In this case I can imagine the columns will be a healthy size to resist the wind load. I would also make a stab at the reason the “drum” sections were removed was due to the wind load. We see now in the design that the vertical columns extend through the “drum” sections. I am sure the load calculations failed without transferring the forces into the columns.

Simply, it is not the size of your foot print that counts but it is the size of your beams and columns.

JACKinBeantown

Mar 7, 2012, 5:03 AM

Thank you, Brian.

gramsjdg

Mar 7, 2012, 5:15 AM

12 Church street is somewhat similar in height to width ratio. I would really like to see a 1420 ft version of that design for 432 Park -something with stone and Art Deco style, with some subtle setbacks and inside corners. :tup:

NYguy

Mar 7, 2012, 2:32 PM

Simply, it is not the size of your foot print that counts but it is the size of your beams and columns.

That's what I always say...;)

Cam shot...(3/7/12)

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2196652-T1200800.jpg
www.432park.com

colemonkee

Mar 7, 2012, 6:08 PM

Looks like they're digging even deeper on the 56th St. side. It's pretty amazing how they do this with those other buildings sitting right there. Now, will they also be excavating the area at the top of the picture where the low rise buildings are now completely demolished?

NYguy

Mar 8, 2012, 1:46 AM

Now, will they also be excavating the area at the top of the picture where the low rise buildings are now completely demolished?

It's likely.

Zerton

Mar 8, 2012, 3:55 AM

I wonder what this is going to be clad in. I'm hoping white granite.

lakegz

Mar 8, 2012, 5:12 AM

Travertine or white granite would give this building a timeless quality for sure. I read somewhere that they will use travertine in some capacity.

QUEENSNYMAN

Mar 10, 2012, 11:26 PM

This building will be a definite skyline changer in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NYBOY75

RobertWalpole

Mar 11, 2012, 10:44 AM

I wonder what this is going to be clad in. I'm hoping white granite.

It's my understanding that the squares will be composed a a metal that looks like brushed nickel. The should contrast magnificently with shiny glass. Whatever one thinks of the shape, the facade will be quite sleek.

THE BIG APPLE

Mar 11, 2012, 3:30 PM

Tilt your head 90 degrees counterclockwise.

DarrylStrawberry (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13337&page=59)

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=14988&d=1331416902

sbarn

Mar 12, 2012, 1:35 PM

It's my understanding that the squares will be composed a a metal that looks like brushed nickel. The should contrast magnificently with shiny glass. Whatever one thinks of the shape, the facade will be quite sleek.

With a structure as visible as this one, let's hope this is true.

Guiltyspark

Mar 13, 2012, 1:52 PM

That was 40 years ago, and the issue was resolved during construction.

If anything, that's an example of why it isn't an issue.

We always think we are so much smarter than the people who came before us, which is why we often make the same mistakes. I am not saying this building will or will not be sound. But just assuming everything has been taken into consideration just because it is 2012 is a little naive.

uaarkson

Mar 13, 2012, 2:32 PM

What logical reason do you have to believe that this tower will be structurally unsound? It's not impossible, but it is completely outlandish.

UrbanImpact

Mar 13, 2012, 3:31 PM

We always think we are so much smarter than the people who came before us, which is why we often make the same mistakes. I am not saying this building will or will not be sound. But just assuming everything has been taken into consideration just because it is 2012 is a little naive.

No Structural Engineer or Architect would want that liability unless they are suicidal. This is a case that it wouldn't be naive to assume everything has been taken into consideration unless you are thinking along the lines of a 10.0 on the Richter scale, alien invasion, or meteor impact.

Brian.

Mar 13, 2012, 6:17 PM

...But just assuming everything has been taken into consideration just because it is 2012 is a little naive.

Registered professional engineers earn a living making sure that everything is accounted for. If they fail to accomplish that task, they face civil litigation and criminal investigation for oversights.

Before a single shovel hit the dirt, the design had been proven that it would be structurally feasible. Investors do not spend money on buildings that might hold up when the wind blows.

Why do you people think that modern engineering is a guessing game?

Busy Bee

Mar 14, 2012, 2:52 AM

Before a single shovel hit the dirt, the design had been proven that it would be structurally feasible. Investors do not spend money on buildings that might hold up when the wind blows.

Hmm... Citigroup Center?

scalziand

Mar 14, 2012, 4:14 AM

Hmm... Citigroup Center?

One more time: The design for Citigroup Center was fine; the contractor fucked up the joints, bolting them instead of welding them as specified in the design.

Did the architect and engineer drop the ball by not catching this mistake sooner? Yeah.

Was the design flawed? No.

plinko

Mar 14, 2012, 7:17 AM

Well I think this building is going to fall over. My only reasoning is that when you stack legos really tall, eventually they fall over. That and I have an itch on my butt when thinking about this building, which always makes me nervous.

Some forumers will nitpick anything (real or imagined) if they've already decided that they don't like something and decide that it'll be a total failure.

Let's just put it this way for those thinking this will just fall over: the people DESIGNING and ENGINEERING are smarter than you, know more about what they are doing, and would eat your lunch when discussing the technical aspects of the structure.

But go on, keep questioning.

This whole line of posts reminds me of the uproar of Libeskind's main tower proposal (the first one with the gardens in the sky) when it came out. Totally undeserved and unwarranted.

uaarkson

Mar 14, 2012, 12:39 PM

I don't know what it is. This website seems to attract an extra special breed of morons sometimes.

UrbanImpact

Mar 14, 2012, 2:31 PM

I don't know what it is. This website seems to attract an extra special breed of morons sometimes.

This website is full of scholars compared to skyscrapercity.com :cool:

Nowhereman1280

Mar 14, 2012, 2:33 PM

My question is not whether this will be structurally sound, which I'm sure it will be, but how the hell it's going to be profitable. The first half of the building is going to be nothing but elevators, utility runs, and concrete. How on earth are they going to make a profit on that? this is going to have to fetch some pretty fucking high prices to be in the black. They are basically building a concrete stick that people happen to be able to live in.

uaarkson

Mar 14, 2012, 2:56 PM

The top floors will go for $100,000,000+ each. This building is a home run revenue generator, at least in this market.

RommeDK

Mar 14, 2012, 6:04 PM

Looks like excavation has begun where the townhouses used to be :)

1Boston

Mar 14, 2012, 8:18 PM

I don't know what it is. This website seems to attract an extra special breed of morons sometimes.

I wish there was a like button

Nowhereman1280

Mar 14, 2012, 9:23 PM

The top floors will go for $100,000,000+ each. This building is a home run revenue generator, at least in this market.

Source? How big is the floor plate for this? How big is the floor plate total Usable SF? I have a hard time believing this will really make that much money considering everyone would be doing it right now if it were. This just reminds me of the kind of stuff that was starting to be built in 2006 and 2007.

Crawford

Mar 14, 2012, 11:38 PM

Source? How big is the floor plate for this? How big is the floor plate total Usable SF?

Obviously there are no listed prices yet, but inferior projects in worse locations already have higher asking prices.

Knowing this, it isn't hard to speculate general asking prices. If other projects sell at close to ask, $100 million for top floors sounds conservative.

A non-penthouse on CPW recently went for $90 million. One57 penthouses are well north of $100 million. A downtown loft conversion is asking $10,000/ft.

I have a hard time believing this will really make that much money considering everyone would be doing it right now if it were.

"Everyone" can't do it, because they aren't at Park & 57th. You obviously can't charge such prices in Secaucus or some other random location.

There probably isn't a better development site anywhere. I have no idea of the sales prices, but I bet you they'll be higher than pretty much anywhere else.

NYguy

Mar 15, 2012, 8:48 PM

Yeah, location is the prime factor here. It's the reason this site is considered among the most valuable pieces of real estate for development. It's a hot spot, even for New York which attracts high prices in other not so prime locations.

aquablue

Mar 15, 2012, 8:54 PM

If its so valuable, why is the design so mundane?

NYguy

Mar 15, 2012, 9:02 PM

If its so valuable, why is the design so mundane?

Location and design are two completly different things. You can put the most beautiful building in the worst part of the Bronx (for example) and it wouldn't matter much. On the other hand, you can put a piece of crap in one of the city's hottest neighborhoods, and watch it sell out. People don't live on the outside of a building, but they do live in neighborhoods.

1Boston

Mar 15, 2012, 9:51 PM

^Yea i cant even imagine being able to say i live on Park Avenue, let alone say that i live 1000ft above park avenue.

THE BIG APPLE

Mar 15, 2012, 11:00 PM

15 CPW sold out because of the DESIGN. Developer got lazy here because of the location. They could've told Vinoly to go back to the drawing boards, and come up with something GOOD, like Stephen Ross told KPF to go back to the drawing board for the Hudson Yards.

BTW this will be Park Ave first building over a thousand feet. Park Ave will join 8th Ave, 6th Ave, 5th Ave, and Lexington Ave as the only blocks with buildings over a thousand feet.

Crawford

Mar 15, 2012, 11:40 PM

If its so valuable, why is the design so mundane?

Design has nothing to do with relative value. It's not like you go to Beverly Hills or somewhere and automatically see all this profound architecture.

And there isn't anything released beyond some basic renderings (and even those aren't confirmed), so it's useless to make definitive statements about the quality of design.

RobertWalpole

Mar 15, 2012, 11:56 PM

If its so valuable, why is the design so mundane?

Are you really oblivious to the fact that a site on 57th and Park is not very valuable? Also, a 1,400 foot tower is not mundane.

aquablue

Mar 16, 2012, 12:29 AM

Are you really oblivious to the fact that a site on 57th and Park is not very valuable? Also, a 1,400 foot tower is not mundane.

No.. given its so valuable, I would have thought a better design could have happened. Then I realized, yes, the location is an excuse to NOT have a fancy design: I.e, you do not need to attract people to live here by using architecture as a selling point. Actually, perhaps a sedate design is more attractive to the target market.

Roadcruiser1

Mar 16, 2012, 2:53 AM

No.. given its so valuable, I would have thought a better design could have happened. Then I realized, yes, the location is an excuse to NOT have a fancy design: I.e, you do not need to attract people to live here by using architecture as a selling point. Actually, perhaps a sedate design is more attractive to the target market.

Again people I will point it out. There were successful boxes before this box.

http://1000mileproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/the-world-trade-center.jpg

Zapatan

Mar 16, 2012, 3:06 AM

crazy to think this buildings roof is going to be higher than those towers... even if its only by 10 feet or so, still, this thing is going to dominate.

Roadcruiser1

Mar 16, 2012, 3:09 AM

crazy to think this buildings roof is going to be higher than those towers... even if its only by 10 feet or so, still, this thing is going to dominate.

The only difference between 432 Park Avenue and the Twin Towers is the girth and width. 432 Park Avenue is half of the width and girth of the Twin Towers which is 100 feet by 100 feet while the Twins were 200 feet by 200 feet. So this building is extremely close to being comparable to the Twin Towers by itself.

Zapatan

Mar 16, 2012, 3:14 AM

The only difference between 432 Park Avenue and the Twin Towers is the girth and width. 432 Park Avenue is half of the width and girth of the Twin Towers which is 100 feet by 100 feet while the Twins were 200 feet by 200 feet. So this building is extremely close to being comparable to the Twin Towers by itself.

Yea it's basically just one of the twins after going on a diet for a while, but I was mostly talking heightwise.

Shouldn't the title be changed to 1,380 feet as well? :)

RobertWalpole

Mar 16, 2012, 3:22 AM

Yea it's basically just one of the twins after going on a diet for a while, but I was mostly talking heightwise.

Shouldn't the title be changed to 1,380 feet as well? :)

Why change the title to 1,380 when no permits have been filed for the tower that say it will be that height and the architect describes it as taller than that?

Zapatan

Mar 16, 2012, 3:53 AM

uuh yea so anyway, this building has air rights to 1420 feet but that doesnt mean it will end up exactly that tall. The official height listed in the media is now 1380, which is more than fine by anyone's standards. Not saying it's the final height, but for now that's all we know.

plinko

Mar 16, 2012, 4:30 AM

And there isn't anything released beyond some basic renderings (and even those aren't confirmed), so it's useless to make definitive statements about the quality of design.

This obviously needs to be re-iterated again and again for the learning impaired.

And this building is nothing like, and has few (if any) similarities to the old WTC, except that it has 4 sides and is really tall.

I for one can't wait to see Vinoly's final constructed design.

Zapatan

Mar 16, 2012, 4:32 AM

And this building is nothing like, and has few (if any) similarities to the old WTC, except that it has 4 sides and is really tall.
.

Yea I was just comparing the height

plinko

Mar 16, 2012, 4:34 AM

^I wasn't talking to you specifically...

Zapatan

Mar 16, 2012, 4:42 AM

I know, but some people only compare the two just due to the height and the fact that they are both boxes... it's kind of a defense against those who bash this tower I guess.

NYguy

Mar 16, 2012, 7:05 AM

15 CPW sold out because of the DESIGN.

Even if that were completely true (and it isn't, the name should give it away), it would have nothing to do with what's going on here. It should also be pointed out again that the site itself has limits designwise. Obviously they are reaching for height, another appeal to those looking for it. But there are very strict guidlines for building design in New York. What you have here is basically a tower designed to fit in "as of right", that is, without the need to go before planning to get a special permit (and risk having the height chopped down like the Tower Verre, which needed special permits for its unique design). As we've seen with the One57 building, the architect worked within the zoning for that site to achieve that design - no approvals needed. The only thing standing in the way here would seem to be the financing. And this thing could be under construction before they even have it. (Again, see One57).

RobertWalpole

Mar 16, 2012, 10:46 AM

Crawford

Mar 16, 2012, 2:56 PM

uuh yea so anyway, this building has air rights to 1420 feet but that doesnt mean it will end up exactly that tall.

There are no height limits based on air rights. They could build 2,000 ft. if they wanted.

The official height listed in the media is now 1380, which is more than fine by anyone's standards. Not saying it's the final height, but for now that's all we know.

The media have reported a ton of different heights, and your height figure isn't from the media, but from a DOB filing.

But DOB filings aren't definitive either, and you can't take a DOB filing for height as a proxy for building height.

Zapatan

Mar 16, 2012, 3:19 PM

There are no height limits based on air rights. They could build 2,000 ft. if they wanted.

The media have reported a ton of different heights, and your height figure isn't from the media, but from a DOB filing.

But DOB filings aren't definitive either, and you can't take a DOB filing for height as a proxy for building height.

Fair enough, wasn't there originally a 1700 footer planned here?

MrSlippery519

Mar 16, 2012, 6:42 PM

Fair enough, wasn't there originally a 1700 footer planned here?

It all comes down to what properties they acquire, if they wanted to or could get more yes it could very well end up that height.

Zapatan

Mar 16, 2012, 7:48 PM

It all comes down to what properties they acquire, if they wanted to or could get more yes it could very well end up that height.

If it did... that would be just awesome, or even if it just broke 1420 feet. Either way, this thing is gonna be huge.

NYguy

Mar 16, 2012, 10:18 PM

One thing for certain is that it'll be tall, probably the tallest in Midtown. No need to split hairs over exact numbers at this point.

Roadcruiser1

Mar 16, 2012, 10:28 PM

One thing for certain is that 432 Park Avenue will stand out. You can be anywhere in New York City and you will be able to see it because it will stick out.

NYguy

Mar 20, 2012, 2:10 PM

Cam shot from today (March 20, 2012)

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2240830-T1200800.jpg

The_Lite

Mar 20, 2012, 5:18 PM

It's my understanding that the squares will be composed a a metal that looks like brushed nickel. The should contrast magnificently with shiny glass. Whatever one thinks of the shape, the facade will be quite sleek.
The dark "squares" on the rendering are the windows which are 13x13 feet which will be glass but not shiny and the rest of the facade just fair-faced concrete.. definitely not marble..

RobertWalpole

Mar 20, 2012, 6:12 PM

I was told differently by someone with inside information.

The_Lite

Mar 20, 2012, 6:40 PM

my information suggests that the squares are the windows.. you think the white area is shiny glass?

RobertWalpole

Mar 20, 2012, 7:40 PM

I was told that the whitish areas will be metal in a brushed-nickel finish.

NYguy

Mar 21, 2012, 3:09 PM

(March 21, 2012)

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2245877-T1200800.jpg
www.432park.com

Nexis4Jersey

Mar 21, 2012, 4:25 PM

Isn't anybody concerned over what the wind will do to this building...it will sway violently....square buildings aren't exactly aerodynamic

aquablue

Mar 21, 2012, 4:27 PM

Isn't anybody concerned over what the wind will do to this building...it will sway violently....square buildings aren't exactly aerodynamic

Why would I waste our very short lifetimes with worrying about a building and stressing myself out about something I can't control? So, I wouldn't waste your time "worrying" about these kind of things and trust the engineering team.

MrSlippery519

Mar 21, 2012, 5:42 PM

Isn't anybody concerned over what the wind will do to this building...it will sway violently....square buildings aren't exactly aerodynamic

Are you an engineer and have you looked at the plans for the building? If one or more of those questions are answered no why in the world would you waste your time?

They would not design, build and sell 100 million dollar places in a building that was going to cause issues. The designers know a heck of a lot more about how the building will react to wind, etc than you or I could even dream of.

Nexis4Jersey

Mar 21, 2012, 6:09 PM

1Boston

Mar 21, 2012, 7:23 PM

Yikes...i was just raising a concern...all square buildings have wind issues....some engineers overlook this or ignore it. If i recall the original WTC swayed so violently that it made employees sick and uncomfortable... Why could they go with a round shaped building?

Theres ways of getting around sway, like tuned mass dampers, like in the John Hancock in Boston or Taipei 101, theres another way of doing it but i forget what its called

JayPro

Mar 21, 2012, 9:02 PM

IIRC I read on this thread that the exterior metal gridwork was supposed to help in countering wind swaying.

scalziand

Mar 22, 2012, 1:46 AM

IIRC I read on this thread that the exterior metal gridwork was supposed to help in countering wind swaying.

Yes. The gridwork will help reduce the shedding of vortices which cause swaying.

NYguy

Mar 22, 2012, 3:40 PM

(March 22, 2012)

Reminds me of toys I played with as a kid...

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2248624-T1200800.jpg

1Boston

Mar 22, 2012, 8:26 PM

(March 22, 2012)

Reminds me of toys I played with as a kid...

Haha that reminds me of some great memories. I had a whole set of different mini heavy equipment, that could be the reason i love watching things like this now.

NYguy

Mar 23, 2012, 6:11 AM

I had a whole set of different mini heavy equipment, that could be the reason i love watching things like this now.

I think you are right. Anyway, the site is changing very rapidly now. Construction seems almost imminent.

nyc_alex

Mar 23, 2012, 3:26 PM

Those excavators on site have enormous buckets. Much bigger than I was expecting.

gramsjdg

Mar 23, 2012, 4:12 PM

This puppy is going to be badass!:cool:

sbarn

Mar 23, 2012, 6:14 PM

I did a little photoshopping to show the impact this tower will have on the skyline (along with a few other proposals):

Current:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7058/7009241109_f7bfc28c43_b.jpg

Future:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7232/7009217443_fcb8ebdbee_b.jpg
Original Image Source (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=89119317&postcount=2276)

New Towers Highlighted:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7070/7009002157_cccdd64299_b.jpg
Original Image Source (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=89119317&postcount=2276)

aquablue

Mar 23, 2012, 7:48 PM

sbarn

Mar 23, 2012, 8:42 PM

Looks great. Now all we need is something very tall in the 40's (between the ESB cluster and the upper 50's) to balance it out a little. Is there any possibilities for tall towers in the 40s?

The skyline, if built like that, would be nice though. It's amazing how short Verre is now, pity!

Yeah the slimness of this tower is actually growing on me. I'm getting greedy, but I wish there were a few more ~1200+ foot to add in there. :cheers: