SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Mar 6, 2014 2:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6480889)
.........
Where? What is that??

China, in the Guangdong province.

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/04C69DFD.002C
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/04C69DFD.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/04C6A0E4.002C
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/04C6A0E4.002C

NYguy Mar 10, 2014 4:23 PM

New permit...


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=06

Quote:

PROVIDE SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR PROPOSED NEW BUILDING.

Busy Bee Mar 10, 2014 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6480889)
.........
Where? What is that??

More recognizable by its old name, Canton.

Zapatan Mar 11, 2014 6:35 PM

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...05&requestid=7

It says "building height" 1,550 feet.

I'm guessing that's just the maximum they can build to :shrug:

Onn Mar 11, 2014 7:16 PM

No, I'm pretty sure that's the real height to the roof. No where does it say 1,424 feet anywhere. Without more detailed plans its hard to know for sure. This was approved a few weeks ago:

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...02/217w572.jpg
http://www.yimbynews.com/category/217-west-57th-street

Zapatan Mar 11, 2014 7:23 PM

That seems too good to be true but hey, so would have 432 park avenue just a few years ago and that became a reality :cheers:

NYguy Mar 11, 2014 8:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6489067)
No, I'm pretty sure that's the real height to the roof. No where does it say 1,424 feet anywhere. Without more detailed plans its hard to know for sure. This was approved a few weeks ago:


That's been the height since it was filed. There has been no new information filed yet in that regard. They're working with the same permit.



http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdat...#axzz2vgfBKOpt

This Economic Indicator has a History of Calling Major Turns
Luxury real estate reaches new heights



http://www.elliottwave.com/images/fr...ngusatoday.jpg


By Bob Stokes
11 Mar 2014


Quote:

Previous economic periods show that an aggressive quest for luxury arrives late in the cycle.

Consider the Gilded Age of the late 1800s: Over-the-top spending in that era ran face-first into The Panic of 1893. Similar episodes have happened before and since. Porters and ladies' maids were splurging on their own carriages just before the bursting of the South Sea Bubble. And luxury spending went into high-gear during the 1920s, just before the Great Depression.

The August 2007 Elliott Wave Financial Forecast noted:

The boom in luxury goods is no secret. ... There are many signs that the latest binge is a final blow-off in luxury spending.

The stock market peaked two months later.

Now luxury real estate is reaching new heights. Imagine standing in your living room and being able to look down on the Empire State Building. Take a look at this excerpted USA Today diagram.

The February Elliott Wave Financial Forecast notes:

The New York City skyline remains impervious to bearish subtleties as new residential towers continue to poke higher and higher... The amazing breadth of the City’s latest tall-building boom [includes] eight separate residential towers either under construction or in the planning stage. In November, the flurry was topped off by the unveiling of the Nordstrom Tower, a 1,423-foot condominium that will be built in midtown Manhattan. If and when it is complete, it will surpass the current world’s-tallest residential building, the Princess Tower in Dubai.

Luxury residential development reaches beyond Manhattan, and the just-published March Financial Forecast updates you on where else the "skyscraper indicator" is flashing a warning.

Zapatan Mar 11, 2014 8:50 PM

Darn, I figured 1550 was too good to be true...


Can't complain about ~1430 feet though. :)

Onn Mar 11, 2014 9:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6489248)
Darn, I figured 1550 was too good to be true...


Can't complain about ~1430 feet though. :)

It could be 1,550 feet. There's a diagram that says exactly that.

Hypothalamus Mar 14, 2014 11:53 AM

Things are happening:

magnumferrari308
Published on Mar 12, 2014

Video Link


Go to 4:12 for a beam demo :D

NYguy Mar 14, 2014 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6489268)
It could be 1,550 feet. There's a diagram that says exactly that.

Well there is, a diagram that's a reference to the original permit which also listed a height of 1,550 ft. However, Barnett has since said it wouldn't be that, and paid for a cantilver that would allow for the shorter tower. It still could be that high, but all signs point to the lower tower.

JayPro Mar 14, 2014 12:51 PM

Who cares at this point TBH???

Really now? Is a stream-of-consciousness keyboard-batting session the best way to kill time here till the responsible parties give us that which by now they practically owe us?????? All the necessary paperwork has been filed. All the necessary meetings have been held, all the bouts of pissing and mewling AKA intellectual debate spoken, the NIMBY hordes silenced amd the groundwork well underway.

In the grand scheme, 126 feet of difference for a tower of this magnitude utterly fails the test of spending time worrying about.

antinimby Mar 14, 2014 2:01 PM

It would be heartbreaking to findout that 1550 tower with the pointy top is replaced with not only a shorter tower but one with a flat top.

Maybe the 1400 figure refers to the highest occuppied floor and that there is a 100+ feet crown? Let's hope so.

scalziand Mar 14, 2014 5:46 PM

The constant back and forth certainly is a great way to pass the time, even if it doesn't get anything productive done.

Zapatan Mar 14, 2014 8:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6493907)
Well there is, a diagram that's a reference to the original permit which also listed a height of 1,550 ft. However, Barnett has since said it wouldn't be that, and paid for a cantilver that would allow for the shorter tower. It still could be that high, but all signs point to the lower tower.

True but now that 111 might go to ~1400 and not 1350 don't you think he would at least slant the roof a little to add some height? After all he does want to have the tallest next to central park.

gramsjdg Mar 15, 2014 3:46 AM

Well, based on the latest diagrams of the cantilever tower, I think it is safe to say that it will be at least 1435 ft, and not 1423 ft (unless I am missing something)

I still think this will end up being between 1450 and 1500 with the cantilever, along with a substantial redesign. Steinway has upped the ante too much to be ignored. If Barnett stays with the current massing/render and the earlier 1423 ft height, this thing is going to be an also-ran and totally outclassed architecturally, particularly if steinway pushes up to 1400 ft.:titanic:

NYguy Mar 16, 2014 12:02 PM

This tower and 111 will rise at virtually the same time (along with 220). Barnett has always said the design mattered more than the height, though obviously the views are what play into the height. Unlike 432, this tower will go head to head with 111 (which might just top 432, at least in height). It's possible Barnett may feel he needs an extra something to stand out further. But I still think he uses the cantilver.

JayPro Mar 16, 2014 12:27 PM

And...if he does, I'm somewhat inclined to think that we may be ready to see how it can be applied in a manner that not many of us would expect.......IOW Show us how you can defeat the common perceptions of this architectural device as a hulking, dehumanizing Tetris piece.

111 (especially), as I've said before, should have made thingds a hell of a lot hotter in the drawing board rooms at both Extell and SmithGill. The moment the river card is turned for this baby had better be one when minds and expectations are completely bowled the feck over.

NYguy Mar 16, 2014 1:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6496402)
111 (especially), as I've said before, should have made thingds a hell of a lot hotter in the drawing board rooms at both Extell and SmithGill. The moment the river card is turned for this baby had better be one when minds and expectations are completely bowled the feck over.

I just hope they reveal something with a WOW factor. We know that it will be tall, but it lost something with those lackluster drawings. I would love to have to eat my words on this one.

King DenCity Mar 16, 2014 5:28 PM

I think we can all agree with you on that NYguy. :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.