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

[sw5710]

Does anyone know when the 1st vertical steel will go above grade?

[RobertWalpole]

A permit was filed on 14 May 2012, which showed a height of 1,397 feet.

[599GTO]

A permit was filed on 14 May 2012, which showed a height of 1,397 feet.

Occupied height or total height?

I hope this is taller.

[NYYskyline]

I wounder what the news will be like when this surpass' 1WTC

[sw5710]

Occupied height or total height?

I hope this is taller.

Total above ground.

[Zapatan]

A permit was filed on 14 May 2012, which showed a height of 1,397 feet.

weren't you the one who always said that it was called 432 park ave. because it was 432 meters?

Anyway, while a 1397 foot roof is beyond tall, it would be cool if it could break the 1400 mark, I guess we can (maybe) leave that to the new tower down the street.

[1Boston]

Oh yea i forgot, thanks to durst this might end up being the tallest in NY

[MrSlippery519]

Occupied height or total height?

I hope this is taller.

It does not actually specifically say...so worst case it looks like this will be 1397ft/426m. That said I cannot imagine them leaving it 3 feet from 1400 come on now, so am hoping that is the top occupied floor.

[NYguy]

The heights given at this point are :

1,398 ft - top of parapet
1,381 ft - top of bulkhead (roof height)
1,366 ft - top of roof

All subject to modification of course.


Meanwhile, a look at what small floorplates can hold, from a facility approved for the lower floors of the tower...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143328650/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143328653/original.jpg

[gramsjdg]

The fact that the current listed height is only 2 feet shy of 1400 makes me think that this is intentional- either to see how Barnett will respond or for some other reason...

[photoLith]

Holy freaking balls, this is tall. NYC will once again be the king of the supertall! I'm glad the NIMBY scum didn't get their grubby little fingers all over this project. Can you imagine how much a condo at the top of this thing will cost but the view from up there would be freakin unparalleled. It will probably be owned by some Chinese investor that will never be there though.

[Onn]

The fact that the current listed height is only 2 feet shy of 1400 makes me think that this is intentional- either to see how Barnett will respond or for some other reason...

Well I don't think any developer ever plans to cap off a building at a specific height. That would be hard when so much goes into a structure, each part has varying heights. They can get the height close to what they settled on but its never going to be exact.

Another issue to take into consideration is how the planning commision might react to a skyscraper 1,400 ft+. No doubt they would do a double take at such a propsal, if they haven't already. This already would be the tallest building in New York City and second in the country.

[plinko]

Well I don't think any developer ever plans to cap off a building at a specific height. That would be hard when so much goes into a structure, each part has varying heights. They can get the height close to what they settled on but its never going to be exact.

It's amazing to me how many forumers still can't seem to understand this.

[hunser]

Holy freaking balls, this is tall. NYC will once again be the king of the supertall! I'm glad the NIMBY scum didn't get their grubby little fingers all over this project. Can you imagine how much a condo at the top of this thing will cost but the view from up there would be freakin unparalleled. It will probably be owned by some Chinese investor that will never be there though.

NIMBYs have no say in this, it's an as-of-right project. Also, there are still no official renders, meaning they want to keep a low profile.

[NOPA]

I'm so glad to see this project start construction!

Just out of curiosity, is there a thread that breaks down the different NYC zoning and procedural regulations?

[Ed007Toronto]

Does anyone know when the 1st vertical steel will go above grade?

As a residential building wouldn't this be concrete rather than steel construction?

[marshall]

So has the City Planning Commission given the go-ahead for the intended height of 1398 feet? Is the final height already decided upon and approved by all relevant parties?

[tdawg]

It's really exciting to see this moved from proposed to u/c.

[Crawford]

So has the City Planning Commission given the go-ahead for the intended height of 1398 feet? Is the final height already decided upon and approved by all relevant parties?

Please read the last few pages of the thread.

First, we don't know the exact height, though the DOB submissions give a good sense of the general height. The DOB doesn't measure exact building height.

Second, there is no approvals process. The tower is as-of-right.

[Roadcruiser1]

As a residential building wouldn't this be concrete rather than steel construction?

Concrete not steel...

[marshall]

I take some comfort in the fact that this tower will be handled privately and not have to be burdened with the bullcrap of the Port Authority....Any idea when we might see renderings? This may be the first 1400 footer!

[Totojuice]

I take some comfort in the fact that this tower will be handled privately and not have to be burdened with the bullcrap of the Port Authority....Any idea when we might see renderings? This may be the first 1400 footer!

Maybe we can coax STR to swing by for a visit to this page :)

[Roadcruiser1]

I take some comfort in the fact that this tower will be handled privately and not have to be burdened with the bullcrap of the Port Authority....Any idea when we might see renderings? This may be the first 1400 footer!

The only rendering DCM released was published in the Wall Street Journal a few months back. This is it.

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/MI-BL781_CIM_G_20111018184232.jpg

Maybe we can coax STR to swing by for a visit to this page :)

STR did make a rendering of this building. Photobucket removed it during their website updates along with his other renderings. He might upload it again later on.

Edit: I managed to find STR's rendering on another website that isn't using it for commercial purposes. Credits goes to STR.

http://i52.tinypic.com/15cftrd.jpg

[RobertWalpole]

STR's rendering does not take into account the open spaces every fifteen floors to create the six, floating towers.

[marshall]

STR's rendering does not take into account the open spaces every fifteen floors to create the six, floating towers.

I noticed that..Are these going to be actual open spaces in the tower in those segments every fifteen floors? Or just the illusion of such?

[Roadcruiser1]

STR's rendering does not take into account the open spaces every fifteen floors to create the six, floating towers.

They sort of look similar to the stripes for the mechanical floors on the former Twin Towers don't you think?

[marshall]

:previous:

I thought the same thing..However on the rendering by DCM if you look closely the spaces in this tower do look more substantial than in the Twins, but of course hard to tell..

[Roadcruiser1]

I noticed that..Are these going to be actual open spaces in the tower in those segments every fifteen floors? Or just the illusion of such?

As of currently I don't think there is information to solve that question.

[NYC GUY]

STR's rendering doesn't have the open spaces because it was made before an actual rendering was out.

[NYguy]

Another issue to take into consideration is how the planning commision might react to a skyscraper 1,400 ft+. No doubt they would do a double take at such a propsal, if they haven't already. This already would be the tallest building in New York City and second in the country.

As stated, City Planning has no restrictions on height, just bulk (or total size). This tower is not large, for example, compared to an average NY office tower, but the slenderness of it makes it up in height.


So has the City Planning Commission given the go-ahead for the intended height of 1398 feet? Is the final height already decided upon and approved by all relevant parties?

Again, height is not an issue, and the facility shown on the previous page was approved by all parties (community board, borough president, etc.), so it's not as if people in that area aren't aware of this tower. The only thing that could stop the tower at this point is financing or the economy.


Are these going to be actual open spaces in the tower in those segments every fifteen floors? Or just the illusion of such?

The spaces will be open, doubling as terraces for residents, example below.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/141803324/original.jpg

[marshall]

I guess time will tell, when better accurate renderings come out...Just curious whether those spaces are merely mechanical vents like on the Twins or 1WTC, or actual open-air spaces between segments. Anyway, exciting to see a supertall of this magnitude come up in midtown. Long overdue.

[CoolCzech]

weren't you the one who always said that it was called 432 park ave. because it was 432 meters?

Anyway, while a 1397 foot roof is beyond tall, it would be cool if it could break the 1400 mark, I guess we can (maybe) leave that to the new tower down the street.

Maybe they'll stick a 7 foot lightning rod on top, and then skyscraperpage.com will list it as a 1,404 foot pinnacle? :rolleyes:

[Onn]

Again, height is not an issue, and the facility shown on the previous page was approved by all parties (community board, borough president, etc.), so it's not as if people in that area aren't aware of this tower. The only thing that could stop the tower at this point is financing or the economy.

That is my biggest worry, but it certainly seems like the market for very high end residential space in New York exists. The world's 1% doesn't seem to mind throwing around their wealth even in turbulent economic times. One 57 has been highly sucessful so far, so I don't see why Park 432 couldn't succeed either. Would also not be surprised if there were even more residential supertalls on the drawing boards of developers who have not yet entered the race.

[Chicago Shawn]

I suppose the benefit of straying away from the forum for a couple of months is stumbling along surprises like this. I had no idea this project's concept had evolved into what is now starting construction.

Wow, just wow. The view from Central Park is going to be so sick. The slenderness ratio of this tower alone is amazing.

Really going to be hard to argue "out of context" now for future development in northern midtown. Makes me even more upset over the forced height reduction of Jean Nouvel's original design for MoMA.

[sterlippo1]

STR's rendering does not take into account the open spaces every fifteen floors to create the six, floating towers.

yeah, i noticed too .............in fact, i like STR's rendering better:tup:

[NYguy]

(May 16, 2012)


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2424506-T1200800.jpg
www.432park.com

[2-TOWERS]

This is gonna be one heck of a Tower.....:tup:

[JACKinBeantown]

yeah, i noticed too .............in fact, i like STR's rendering better:tup:

When I first saw his rendering a few months back I thought it was just a massing model. I'm excited about the height of this building... more than I could have imagined for the location, but not so much about the design. It looks like a typical form-follows-function box of the 1950's. Oh well... it will make a huge impact on the skyline.

[NYguy]

Looking at the cam, they seem to be working faster now. I wonder how long before they put up banners around the site proclaiming it New York's "tallest"...:sly:

[Ed007Toronto]

That is really going to stand out in midtown.

[Totojuice]

As stated, City Planning has no restrictions on height, just bulk (or total size).

Although City Planning has no restrictions on height, the FAA does actually impose a 2000 foot height limit on buildings in New York City. Not to say that they wouldn't allow it, but the builder would have to get an FAA waiver or variance of some kind to allow anything over 2000 ft...

[Totojuice]

Looking at the cam, they seem to be working faster now. I wonder how long before they put up banners around the site proclaiming it New York's "tallest"...:sly:

That would be awesome. lol.

[babybackribs2314]

Wow at the speed of this.

The footings are now going in for the 57th Street retail component, as well as along the eastern side of the main tower. Work is progressing very quickly today, and there's tons of rebar on-site.

[photoLith]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7077/7069775585_257b795404_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7120/7069775835_3ca5ec5905_b.jpg



Its freaking Coruscant, holy crap that is awesome. I hope each and every one of those towers is completed and more within 20 years! All you guys need now is to have The Chicago Spire rise in your city.

[NewYorkDominates]

(May 16, 2012)


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2424506-T1200800.jpg
www.432park.com

Where is the tower going to fit,since aren't the dimensions 100'x100'?The site looks more like (35'x25')+(25'x15')

[Roadcruiser1]

Although City Planning has no restrictions on height, the FAA does actually impose a 2000 foot height limit on buildings in New York City. Not to say that they wouldn't allow it, but the builder would have to get an FAA waiver or variance of some kind to allow anything over 2000 ft...

There isn't a law like that. The FAA would want a reason why you are going to build something over 2,000 feet. They do allow buildings of over 2,000 feet to be built.

[scalziand]

Where is the tower going to fit,since aren't the dimensions 100'x100'?The site looks more like (35'x25')+(25'x15')

The size of the equipment being used is very deceiving. The part of the hole where the tower will rise is 5 townhouses wide making it 100'

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7780/63920074.jpg

Also, the ramp still covers part of the footprint of the tower.

[marshall]

Its freaking Coruscant, holy crap that is awesome. I hope each and every one of those towers is completed and more within 20 years! All you guys need now is to have The Chicago Spire rise in your city.


Amazing rendering. New York will have the coolest skyline in the world if all these towers are built. Just think how far we have come in just ten years. We now have 1WTC, and 432 Park is under construction...Hopefully more to follow soon. A question, in the New York 2030 rendering, what is the very tall building seen just to the right of the Empire State Building & 432 Park? It looks to be taller than both 1WTC and 432 Park. Thanks.

[TouchTheSky13]

I think they could make this building wider and more aesthetic without changing the footprint: Install cantilevered extensions between each floor, Frank Lloyd Wright style. That would effectively widen the building and create horizontal accents that would downplay the narrowness of the design. Like balconies on high-rise apartments but without the railings. The only issue might be that the view straight down would be a little more limited- but you would only need to extend each floorplate out 5 or 6 feet...:shrug:

Yeah and not to mention a narrow, rectangular building is going to have to be constructed to withstand winds in excess of 60-80 mph and the vortexes that coinside with winds of that magnitude. I sure hope that the engineers have thought of a way to counteract this type of resonance. That would be hell living that high up and feeling your 1400 ft. tall home tilt ever so slightly like that.

[babybackribs2314]

Amazing rendering. New York will have the coolest skyline in the world if all these towers are built. Just think how far we have come in just ten years. We now have 1WTC, and 432 Park is under construction...Hopefully more to follow soon. A question, in the New York 2030 rendering, what is the very tall building seen just to the right of the Empire State Building & 432 Park? It looks to be taller than both 1WTC and 432 Park. Thanks.

That's an old proposal for two towers atop MSG, one of which would've topped 1,600' (I believe).

[Totojuice]

There isn't a law like that. The FAA would want a reason why you are going to build something over 2,000 feet. They do allow buildings of over 2,000 feet to be built.

Name one.

Point is not that it is impossible, point is that there are FAA restrictions above 2000 feet.

The FAA presumption against construction of structures over a certain height is set forth in the FAA rules. A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the FAA rules proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued. See 14 CFR § 77.17(c).

[scalziand]

A question, in the New York 2030 rendering, what is the very tall building seen just to the right of the Empire State Building & 432 Park? It looks to be taller than both 1WTC and 432 Park. Thanks.

sbarn thoughtfully provided a key for his rendering. I think you are referring to the Madison Square Garden towers (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=163351), which would have been 1200'-1400'.



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/7069775981_557f299865_b.jpg

[scalziand]

Name one.

Point is not that it is impossible, point is that there are FAA restrictions above 2000 feet.

There's a handfull of radio towers that are over 2000 (http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=54838375)', some grandfathered, some not, and the Chicago World Trade Center (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149208) got permission from the FAA for about 2300'.

[Zapatan]

That's an old proposal for two towers atop MSG, one of which would've topped 1,600' (I believe).

Is that still an active proposal?

[Totojuice]

There's a handfull of radio towers that are over 2000 (http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=54838375)', some grandfathered, some not, and the Chicago World Trade Center (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149208) got permission from the FAA for about 2300'.

Roadcruiser's point was around buildings not radio towers.

Fact is, there are no buildings in the US over 2000 feet. Why that is the case could be a combination of cost, desire, and FAA red tape -- who knows. But at the end of the day the fact remains:

1. There are FAA restrictions for construction over 2000 feet.
2. You do need a waiver/exception to build beyond this height in the US.

How awesome would it be to get a SOM architect to do a live chat with us or something :cool:

[marshall]

sbarn thoughtfully provided a key for his rendering. I think you are referring to the Madison Square Garden towers (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=163351), which would have been 1200'-1400'.

Well even if the only newer supertalls New York actually has by 2030 are 1WTC & 432 Park, that will be a big impact on the skyline!

[meh_cd]

Yeah, the tallest transmission towers are in ND, but that is because there is nothing there. It's flat. The entire surrounding area around those two particular towers is farmland and there are no airport approaches nearby. I'm sure we'll get another 2000 foot structure in the US in the future, but to be honest I don't particularly care either way. NYC in particular has a ton of both large and small airports in the area that might make it difficult. Not saying that it will never happen, though.

The tallest KVLY transmission tower in ND also has, if I remember correctly, the longest transmission range (AM radio) in North America.

[Eidolon]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7120/7069775835_3ca5ec5905_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/7069775981_557f299865_b.jpg

Excellent work sbarn!

However, I feel that midtown will have several supertalls by 2030 if the current rezoning scheme goes through and the far west side will almost certainly have several that we currently have no knowledge of. The far west may even be home to New York's tallest when the convention center gets redeveloped a few years down the road.

Truly exciting times we live in :cheers::banana:

[NYguy]

Point is not that it is impossible, point is that there are FAA restrictions above 2000 feet.

That's a misconception. People don't just put up 2,000 ft towers for the hell of it, that's the reason you don't and won't see a lot of them going up in the US. But we're getting off the point here. I believe there's an active discussion on this topic over in the B&A forum.



Where is the tower going to fit,since aren't the dimensions 100'x100'?The site looks more like (35'x25')+(25'x15')

Here's how the main shaft fits on the site...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143218503/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143218504/original.jpg

[NYC GUY]

^^^
93' by 93' that's well ............thin. For a building I guess.

[plinko]

So we have a site plan showing a parapet height of 1,398' and a building application showing 440 Park Avenue as the address...why hasn't the thread title changed if this has been moved officially to 'construction'?

[NYguy]

^ Title hasn't changed yet because it's still being called 432 Park Ave (which isn't a reference to the address), and we've changed it a few times already. It could simply be 1,398 ft, which is the height to the top of the parapet at this point, we'll know for sure when official heights are released.


(Older site shot from newdasilva@flickr.com (http://www.flickr.com/photos/silvaflickcom/6556382229/sizes/l/in/photostream/) )

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6556382229_fce93f711b_b.jpg



^^^
93' by 93' that's well ............thin. For a building I guess.

Superthin, supertall...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143220192/medium.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143220192/original.jpg

[JACKinBeantown]

Anybody know how deep the pilings go?

[Ed007Toronto]

Looking forward to this one rising.

[meh_cd]

Anybody know how deep the pilings go?

I hope they go deep into the bedrock for this thing. In the back of my mind I know the engineers know what they are doing, but geez is the building ever thin. At least it'll have a mass dampener.

[NYguy]

(May 17, 2012)


http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/50832/2429381-T1200800.jpg
www.432park.com

[CarlosV]

^^^
very exciting :) i will try and snap there soon

[NewYorkDominates]

^^^
very exciting :) i will try and snap there soon

Thinking about it,you're going to have the best view of Park 432 rising.Can't believe you're capturing the greatest moment in New York City for Skyscrapers.

[scalziand]

I hope they go deep into the bedrock for this thing. In the back of my mind I know the engineers know what they are doing, but geez is the building ever thin. At least it'll have a mass dampener.

See those long tendons on the ramp? Those are grouted into the bedrock, socketing the building down, kind of like mini-piles.

[sw5710]

1,398' is the final#

[hunser]

1,398' is the final#

How come? If you mean the DOB filings, they are not final, and more important not official.

[SonnyinMiami]

I don't see this building fairing too well against The Cloverfield Monster ..., http://www.cloverfield.wikia.com/

[jd3189]

So I guess we're just getting starting with this baby. New York is getting back into the competition it started 100 years ago.

[kenratboy]

I really want to see some floor plans for this one (a few floors up). There must be some clever space-saving stuff in this one!

[NYguy]

I really want to see some floor plans for this one (a few floors up). There must be some clever space-saving stuff in this one!

There are a couple on page 76.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/realestate/big-deal-new-yorks-race-to-the-top.html
How’s the Weather Down There?

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
May 17, 2012

...New York, it seems, is entering a tall-buildings arms race. By 2016, New York could have 6 of the 10 tallest buildings in the country (with Chicago having the other 4), and 3 of the highest residential structures, according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in Chicago.

Following New York by Gehry at 8 Spruce Street and the mammoth One57 at 157 West 57th Street, even taller residential towers are in the works, including 432 Park Avenue on the site of the former Drake Hotel, and the GiraSole, proposed for 11th Avenue on the Far West Side. Both of those buildings would be taller than One57, which will be Manhattan’s tallest residential building, at 1,004 feet, when it is completed next year. And 432 Park Avenue, a condo structure scheduled to be finished in 2016, would be 1,398 feet, surpassing One57 and second in height only to One World Trade Center, an office complex, the Council on Tall Buildings said.



Everyone has commented on how thin this building will be, and it's pretty thin. Without any proper renderings, the only other tower I could think of to compare it to is the 7 South Dearborn proposal, both for it's size and segments. Below is just an idea of the tower with the segments more visible. At the top of each segment will be an open air terrace for residents.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385302/medium.jpg http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385303/medium.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385302/original.jpg___http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385303/original.jpg

[Zapatan]

That article forgot to mention the two hudson yards towers, I think the smaller one will star construction soon...

[NYguy]

That article forgot to mention the two hudson yards towers, I think the smaller one will star construction soon...

even taller residential towers are in the works, including 432 Park Avenue on the site of the former Drake Hotel, and the GiraSole, proposed for 11th Avenue on the Far West Side.

Girasole is more mixed-use, not really meeting the definition of residential because of the percentage. I'm not sure of the exact percentage of this one.

[hunser]

CTBUH (http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/432-park-avenue/) updated the tower's status to under construction!

Figures
Height: Architectural 426.1 meter / 1398 feet
Height: Occupied 396.9 meter / 1302 feet
Height: To Tip 426.1 meter / 1398 feet
Floors Above Ground 89
Floors Below Ground 3
# of Apartments 128

Facts
Official Name 432 Park Avenue
Type building
Status Under Construction
Country United States
State New York
City New York City
Street Address 432 Park Avenue
Building Function residential
Proposed 2011
Start of Construction 2012
Completion 2016


Companies Involved
Owners CIM/56th Street NY;
McGraw Hudson Construction Corporation
Developers CIM Group;
McGraw Hudson Construction Corporation
Design Architects Rafael Vinoly Architects;
SLCE Architects
Structural Engineer WSP Cantor Seinuk
MEP Engineer WSP Flack + Kurtz
Main Contractor McGraw Hudson Construction Corporation

[JACKinBeantown]

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385302/medium.jpg

This shows how 7 South Dearborn was designed to blow in the wind. ;)

[MolsonExport]

Thank god for some tall thin towers. elegant beauties > hulking beasts.

[NYguy]

CTBUH (http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/432-park-avenue/) updated the tower's status to under construction!


Street Address 432 Park Avenue


Like so many people, they've got that wrong!

[jlanka]

this may have been discussed already, but the sway in a heavy wind with a building that thin is going to be pretty big. Can you say seasick?

Or are they using a pendulum to counteract the sway?

[JayPro]

this may have been discussed already, but the sway in a heavy wind with a building that thin is going to be pretty big. Can you say seasick?

Or are they using a pendulum to counteract the sway?

IIRC one of the things they're using is (I think what you're describing) a computerized damper block(?) similar to the counterweight device atop the Citicorp (1977) tower.

[marshall]

So 432 Park won't have a damper like the Taipei 101 has? Personally this building has grown on me. I like it because it is different, and unusual in its narrow width and height. I like unusual, and I think this will be a cool addition to the skyline!

[marshall]

Any idea when the CBUTH will make this tower's status to under construction if they haven't already, and if they haven't yet, why not?

[Fishman92]

Any idea when the CBUTH will make this tower's status to under construction if they haven't already, and if they haven't yet, why not?

Is it so hard to just look 4 posts above you?

[Roadcruiser1]

Any idea when the CBUTH will make this tower's status to under construction if they haven't already, and if they haven't yet, why not?

It is under construction. It's just the address that was changed. That was what NY Guy was talking about.

[Roadcruiser1]

this may have been discussed already, but the sway in a heavy wind with a building that thin is going to be pretty big. Can you say seasick?

Or are they using a pendulum to counteract the sway?

So 432 Park won't have a damper like the Taipei 101 has? Personally this building has grown on me. I like it because it is different, and unusual in its narrow width and height. I like unusual, and I think this will be a cool addition to the skyline!

There is no tuned mass damper. It will take up too much room at the top. That room is valuable real estate. What I believe will be used is the hat truss. The same concept that was used in the Twin Towers to counteract their sway to the wind.

[kenratboy]

There are a couple on page 76.



Thanks!

[Roadcruiser1]

There are a couple on page 76.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/realestate/big-deal-new-yorks-race-to-the-top.html
How’s the Weather Down There?

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
May 17, 2012




Everyone has commented on how thin this building will be, and it's pretty thin. Without any proper renderings, the only other tower I could think of to compare it to is the 7 South Dearborn proposal, both for it's size and segments. Below is just an idea of the tower with the segments more visible. At the top of each segment will be an open air terrace for residents.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385302/medium.jpg http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385303/medium.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385302/original.jpg___http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143385303/original.jpg

If it's so similar to South Dearborn I rather see something like South Dearborn rise here. Why not use that design instead of a box?

[CarlosV]

http://elitedaily.com/elite/2011/yorks-super-building/

the article is old but i like the model

The tower will be named the Drake Hotel – 432 Park Ave, designed by Rafael Vinoly. The architectural plans show that a 1,300 foot tall will occupy that space. It will feature 128 condos with 12 foot high ceilings plus 5,000 square foot driveway to ensure privacy. The total cost of this super building is approximately $1 billion.
.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7217/7224078132_895386c606_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7224078132/)
Untitled-1 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7224078132/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

[Yankee fan for life]

Keep hearing different heights for this building this forum says 1,420 Wikipedia says 1,380 and the news says 1,398 so how tall is 432 going to be ?

[Roadcruiser1]

Keep hearing different heights for this building this forum says 1,420 Wikipedia says 1,380 and the news says 1,398 so how tall is 432 going to be ?

It's a mystery. No one knows exactly.

[photoLith]

As long as its anywhere from 1300-1450 in height, I don't care, thats freaking amazingly tall.

[1Boston]

Wow a billion dollars. There is no doubt this place is gonna be expensive to live in, i can't wait to see the prices and see how they compare to one57.

And its going to have a 5k sq ft driveway? Where would that go?, it doesn't seem like there would be room for that.

[oblivionlml]

This building is a stupid and disproportional box that should not be built, enough said.

[Roadcruiser1]

This building is a stupid and disproportional box that should not be built, enough said.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/096/044/trollface.jpg?1296494117

[599GTO]

This building is a stupid and disproportional box that should not be built, enough said.

The original WTC were "disproportional boxes". They were fat disproportionate boxes.

Something tells me you love them though.

[Zapatan]

-
That was my first impression, but you've got to admit that this building is a little more unique than other boxes like 1Liberty. It's grown on me, and although I do think it's a little too tall, I consider it a positive addition, especially because the West side of midtown is going to be sprouting supertalls soon.


-
Meh, with so many 400-800 foot buildings, a hyper-tall in my mind would actually make the skyline look smaller to me.

Once NYC has built all of its 1000-1400 footers, then bigger buildings can come, but if it was built now it would look silly I agree.

[scalziand]

And its going to have a 5k sq ft driveway? Where would that go?, it doesn't seem like there would be room for that.

Since the foot print of the tower is so small, there's plenty of room at the bottom for a driveway/plaza, even including the space for retail.