SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | 111 W 57th St | 1,428 FT | 85 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198228)

Busy Bee May 18, 2014 8:22 PM

115 & 117
 
Alright, so this is a pretty left field theory i have but it has to be thrown out there. I mentioned at the infancy of this project what a shame it was that those lousy squat buildings to the west of Steinway Hall could not be acquired for this tower.

Now we have this peculiar DOB sidewalk scaffold filing for a total of 143 running feet of shed. Does anyone find it a bit unusual or coincidental that this lenghth happens to be almost exactly the length it would be if 115 and 117 were included? And its an alteration filing! What are the chances we've got an expanded building on our hands. One that is now wider taking FULL advantage of the site and straddling Steinway Hall? I for one think a wider structure would be even better than the current proposal because it eliminates the almost freakish proportions of the design that has the potential to look almost absurd.

WHY would scaffold be needed for 115 & 117 W 57?
Thoughts?

Perklol May 18, 2014 10:34 PM

Are there pics of all of this?

I think if it becomes wider then it could be a good thing. I normally wouldn't say this but it looks dangerously thin from these models.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCLuver (Post 6445692)
My friend and fellow forum member Danielson27 made these models and I just took the screenshots of them, sorry for them not being clad!!! One57, 432 Park, Torre Verre, 111 W57, 225 W57, 220 CPS are all there.

From Central Park:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...psbb5c81ba.jpg

From the West:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps2ef511c1.jpg

From the Empire State Building:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...psd17a597f.jpg

This is from the 220 thread.

Danielson27 May 19, 2014 1:02 AM

that's my model I made a while back. I made a mistake with 111 west 57th street. In that model i mistakely made it 40' by 60'...I later fixed it into it's proper dimensions 58'-9" by 79'-3". Here one of the pics of the final product I posted about a couple months back in various threads.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2898/...14323ca3_o.jpg

Perklol May 19, 2014 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielson27 (Post 6583087)
that's my model I made a while back. I made a mistake with 111 west 57th street. In that model i mistakely made it 40' by 60'...I later fixed it into it's proper dimensions 58'-9" by 79'-3". Here one of the pics of the final product I posted about a couple months back in various threads.

Good work!:tup:

Ok then it doesn't look dangerously thin. :)

NYguy May 19, 2014 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6582911)
And its an alteration filing! What are the chances we've got an expanded building on our hands. One that is now wider taking FULL advantage of the site and straddling Steinway Hall? I for one think a wider structure would be even better than the current proposal because it eliminates the almost freakish proportions of the design that has the potential to look almost absurd.

WHY would scaffold be needed for 115 & 117 W 57?
Thoughts?

We already know that the design was revised due to the footprint and agreement with landmarks. They are just now filing the plans for the changed design, and we also know that the tower will be taller than previous plans. The whole thing is basically an alteration to Steinway Hall.

NYguy May 23, 2014 4:17 PM

Not the most accurate piece, but nice to get a better look at that rendering...


http://www.6sqft.com/construction-be...ominium-tower/

Construction Begins on Manhattan’s Tallest Condominium Tower


http://www.6sqft.com/wp-content/uplo...h-Street-2.jpg


April 18, 2014
By Diane Pham


Quote:

Construction on the SHoP Architects-designed tower at 111 West 57th Street has finally begun! Yesterday evening, one of 6sqft’s reporters walked past the site and took a quick snap of the newly arrived construction vehicles and equipment.

The Manhattan giant, which will also be the world’s slenderest tower, will rise 1,300-feet high, above a floor plate of around 60-feet wide. The building will host three elevators and each floor will be its own 5,000-square-foot apartment with 15-foot ceilings. And for those worried how wind load will affect the 76-story structure, a huge steel weight will be suspended within the top of the building to keep it from swaying (yikes).

King DenCity May 23, 2014 4:58 PM

1300? Probably just the article. Here we go!

tyleraf May 23, 2014 7:38 PM

Its exciting that this is starting construction. Hopefully someone can head down there soon and take some pics.

chris08876 May 23, 2014 7:40 PM

Poor One57. It was only the tallest in the area for a little bit. Now 432 Park is rising like its on meth to the top, and now this. Hopefully this tower will rise like bamboo quickly like 432 Park Ave. Unlike bulky towers, the skinnier they are, the taller they look. This one will catch people by surprise as the local folk probably has no idea. Well, except the ones hearing the construction right next to their window. :haha:

Submariner May 23, 2014 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King DenCity (Post 6589237)
1300? Probably just the article. Here we go!

I wouldn't worry too much. Most of the reputable sources put this closer to 1400 feet.


And I love the way the building shines, at least in the rendering. Can't wait to see how it plays out in person.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/155785274/original.jpg

NYguy May 24, 2014 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6589695)
I wouldn't worry too much. Most of the reputable sources put this closer to 1400 feet.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. Most outlets aren't going to give you an exact height. Until it passes 1400 ft, it's still a 1300 ft tower to most. And as with the headline, we know this won't be "Manhattan’s Tallest Condominium Tower".

Zapatan May 25, 2014 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6590537)
Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. Most outlets aren't going to give you an exact height. Until it passes 1400 ft, it's still a 1300 ft tower to most. And as with the headline, we know this won't be "Manhattan’s Tallest Condominium Tower".

How would we know that if we don't know the final height yet?

chris08876 May 25, 2014 5:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6591279)
How would we know that if we don't know the final height yet?

I would just go with the permits for now. Thats the best, accurate source for the height/dimensions. I doubt it will change its current height. Articles written about developments tend to deviate from the real height and/or round. Not all the time, but sometimes it happens.

NYguy May 25, 2014 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6591279)
How would we know that if we don't know the final height yet?

Go with what you already know. You know the Nordstrom tower has a taller height, and if no taller height is given for this one, why would you assume it?

Zapatan May 25, 2014 5:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6591430)
Go with what you already know. You know the Nordstrom tower has a taller height, and if no taller height is given for this one, why would you assume it?

I thought you meant in comparison to 432 park in which it could be dead even my mistake.

Kinda forgot about Nordstrom tower.

NYguy May 26, 2014 1:51 PM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...78649529_n.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

ILNY May 27, 2014 4:45 AM

Excavation is mostly for small building(entrance) to 111. Majority of the tower will be build "on top" of Steinway building. Can somebody explain how the tower will be supported?

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5157/...4f3e3013_b.jpg

NYguy May 27, 2014 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6593556)
Excavation is mostly for small building(entrance) to 111. Majority of the tower will be build "on top" of Steinway building. Can somebody explain how the tower will be supported?


It will be pretty much built the same as if it were an empty lot. Part of Steinway will be removed/altered for the construction. The portion of the building where most of the tower will rise will be removed.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152899831/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154054066/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154054067/original.jpg

NYguy May 28, 2014 8:52 PM

A lengthy piece of SHoP Architects...

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...architects.php

How SHoP Became NYC's Go-To Megaproject Architects


Wednesday, May 28, 2014
by Sara Polsky


Quote:

SHoP has expanded to 190 employees, 90 of them hired over the last year. The firm has plans to add swing space on the 10th floor of the Woolworth building in January 2015.

Growing, forward-looking architecture firm moves into iconic New York City skyscraper: the symbolism is obvious. But as with most things SHoP, the decision works on multiple levels—the partners are able to list at least four, trading off sentences as they sit together around a conference table. They've had a decade to ponder the bigger meaning of the Woolworth Building from SHoP's previous perch across the street. "Part of the core of this office is really how to work with materials, and how to manifest buildings and architecture that is of our time using...traditional materials," says Chris Sharples, and the "scaled intimacy" of material found in the architecture of the Woolworth Building is an example the SHoP team hopes to emulate. "We talk about sustainability—not so much in terms of how buildings metabolize energy, but more about the idea [that] if you make something beautiful that people take care of, it's gonna last forever. This building is full of new tech companies."

I recognize the tower from the Penn Station concept...

http://curbed.com/uploads/SHoPoffice...wall-thumb.jpg



And what looks like their old proposal for the Nordstrom site, but seemingly taller...

http://curbed.com/uploads/SHoPlede.jpg

Michael12374 Jun 1, 2014 5:42 AM

Any reason on why this project got moved from "under construction" back to "proposed"???

Perklol Jun 1, 2014 5:47 AM

Since when? Maybe it was a mistake by a mod?

NYguy Jun 1, 2014 12:03 PM

It's not technically under construction, though they are moving to that phase.

Michael12374 Jun 1, 2014 4:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6600767)
Since when? Maybe it was a mistake by a mod?

Probably. It has been considered under construction for the last week, then it got moved back to proposed just a day or two ago

Onn Jun 8, 2014 4:07 AM

Quote:

Chinese Buyers snap up NYC skyscrapers

June 7, 2014
New York Post

New York is back in the high life — with a new generation of towers more than 800 feet tall expected to crowd the skyline in the next few years.

Why so many new skyscrapers? Demand, for one — foreign buyers in particular are eager to snap up a spot in Manhattan. And modern businesses are looking to new office towers for the latest in energy efficiency, Internet access and style.

But one of the biggest changes is technological.

Structural advances mean ulta-thin towers higher than the Empire State Building (1,250 feet at roof, 1,454 feet at spire) can be built on spaces one-half acre or even smaller.

Here’s a look at some of the towers headed our way:

"111 West 57th St. 1,400 feet Condos, 60ft. wide at base, top tapers to 'disappear'"

http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com...per2.jpg?w=840
http://nypost.com/2014/06/07/nycs-ne...ll-live-there/

chris08876 Jun 8, 2014 4:09 AM

Thats some positive news. On this, and 1 Vanderbilt.

Double L Jun 8, 2014 2:41 PM

Wow that building will stand out.

Plokoon11 Jun 8, 2014 4:35 PM

I love this tower very unique looking, not that the other Park supertall isn't interesting.

NYguy Jun 15, 2014 11:45 PM

MsSusanB

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2936/...1c470178_h.jpg



https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/...cf344264_h.jpg

Hudson11 Jun 16, 2014 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6619513)

is this 111 w 57th or 432 Park?

TechTalkGuy Jun 16, 2014 12:04 AM

Just when many architects claim that 432 Park is slim (as in the new "slim is in" design), this tower shall claim the crown as the skinniest tower in the city.

Zapatan Jun 16, 2014 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 6619529)
is this 111 w 57th or 432 Park?

432 park it looks like

Skyguy_7 Jun 16, 2014 12:47 PM

It's 432 Park, judging by the faint detail at the crown, which by the way, reads "ROOF/ EL' 1443'-6""
I don't know how accurate that drawing is, but I believe this is the first we've seen such a figure.

LMich Jun 16, 2014 1:09 PM

You can gather nothing about the height not being able to see what the base elevation is on the drawing, and I'd really hate to see the height discussion started again without one definitively being released by the architect and/or developer.

sbarn Jun 16, 2014 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 6619529)
is this 111 w 57th or 432 Park?

This is 432 Park. I've been to the museum...

CCs77 Jun 16, 2014 2:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6619923)
It's 432 Park, judging by the faint detail at the crown, which by the way, reads "ROOF/ EL' 1443'-6""
I don't know how accurate that drawing is, but I believe this is the first we've seen such a figure.

Yes, it is 432 park, but when you read "elevation" it is always above sea level. Since this building sits around 45 ft above sea level, you have to substract that number from the elevation to have the actual height of the building.
1443.5 - 1397 = 46.5ft, meaning that 46,5 ft is about the elevation above sea level where this building sits.
Or, 1443.5 - 46.5 = 1397ft, the actual building height above the street.

Another picture of the model of 111

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5156/...420a4d14_q.jpg
1-10 Sky High por MsSusanB, en Flickr
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5156/...f1fd8c2f_h.jpg

McSky Jun 16, 2014 3:06 PM

Daft logic (a webpage that uses Google Earth to derive elevations) says that the site of this tower is at an elevation of 60.7 feet. If that 1443.5' roof height is accurate, this tower will be 1383' tall.

http://www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-goo...d-altitude.htm

Skyguy_7 Jun 16, 2014 3:10 PM

Thanks CC, for the clarification. Please excuse my ignorance.

CCs77 Jun 16, 2014 3:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSky (Post 6620078)
Daft logic (a webpage that uses Google Earth to derive elevations) says that the site of this tower is at an elevation of 60.7 feet. If that 1443.5' roof height is accurate, this tower will be 1383' tall.

http://www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-goo...d-altitude.htm

Yes, but there is still confusion about that cross section drawing. That drawing is not of 111W57th, but of 432 Park Ave. that building (432 Park) has an elevation, using that tool, of between 48 and 50 ft, depending in which place of the lot I clicked, Which by the way is about the same you have in GE when you place the cursor at the site of the tower, and pretty near of the 46,5 ft I stated earlier.

The elevation of the site of 111W57th is indeed about 60 ft, but we don't know with certainty the elevation or height of the building yet. The last thing we now is that it is 1350 ft above the street.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6620086)
Thanks CC, for the clarification. Please excuse my ignorance.

Don't worry, not everybody has to know that, and that is a misinterpretation that happens frequently.

NYguy Jun 17, 2014 4:05 AM

I still expect this tower to be around 1,397 ft, but things can always change.


https://twitter.com/trdny/status/467...115648/photo/1


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156149582/original.jpg

TechTalkGuy Jun 21, 2014 1:58 PM

:previous: If things do change in the right direction, then additional height would certainly be a welcome design that would be admired by many! :tup:

NYguy Jun 23, 2014 1:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6626975)
:previous: If things do change in the right direction, then additional height would certainly be a welcome design that would be admired by many! :tup:

I think we may be approaching the height limit at which such a design would be acceptable, at least as long as the width doesn't grow, which it won't. I'm ready for some final renders, along with updated height info.

TechTalkGuy Jun 23, 2014 2:01 AM

:previous: I counted 12 setbacks! :bowtie:

ILNY Jun 23, 2014 5:39 AM

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5153/...723d2903_b.jpg

sbarn Jun 24, 2014 2:33 AM

This building is such a tease... really looking forward to the construction beginning in earnest.

NYguy Jun 24, 2014 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6629327)
This building is such a tease... really looking forward to the construction beginning in earnest.

It will be a while before you start to see anything sprout up on site. Anything going on now is likely to be mostly out of view.

mrnyc Jun 24, 2014 12:55 PM

so thin, tall and good looking. a supermodel tower.

TechTalkGuy Jun 26, 2014 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6629558)
It will be a while before you start to see anything sprout up on site. Anything going on now is likely to be mostly out of view.

How can you possibly predict the length of time it takes for site prep? :shrug:

You never know, they just might be able to anchor the bedrock in record time given the narrow size they have. :cool:

NYguy Jun 26, 2014 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6632265)
How can you possibly predict the length of time it takes for site prep? :shrug:

You never know, they just might be able to anchor the bedrock in record time given the narrow size they have. :cool:

I can't predict anything, but I do know from filings that JDS has said it will be a time consuming process, which is why they wanted approval to begin work right away. This is not really a "new" building, but an expansion, or "alteration" of a landmark.

TechTalkGuy Jun 26, 2014 1:32 AM

:previous: Not a new building?

It sure looks new (and exciting) to me. :)

NYguy Jun 27, 2014 12:37 AM

Quotes from a piece on building tall...


http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/0...ywhere/373493/

Why Can't We Build Skinny Skyscrapers Everywhere?
The limits to how tall and thin towers can be has more to do with markets than engineers.



http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/cit...lead_large.jpg


June 26, 2014
Kriston Capps



Quote:

Within the next few years, the number of New York City skyscrapers that are 1,000 feet or taller is going to soar. Today, there are seven towers in the 1,000-feet-plus club. If construction proceeds as planned on projects now under way or scheduled to break ground this year, that figure will more than double.

In Manhattan, architects are building highest and fastest in Midtown. There, the supertalls aren't just tall—some of them are superskinny, too. A group of buildings along West 57th Street with residential units priced from $5 million to more than $100 million has transformed the Central Park perch into Billionaires Row, a signifier of America's new Gilded Age. In most cases, each unit is basically its own penthouse suite, occupying an entire floor of its building.

Taken on their own terms, the superskinnies represent a feat of architectural design. The new developments going up on West 57th Street may, in fact, be approaching the outer limits of the tall-to-thin aspect ratio for a structure. Just not for the reasons you might think.

"Structurally, there are a lot of very unique challenges, especially for a building that wants a high degree of special views," says Vishaan Chakrabarti, a partner at SHoP Architects and the director of the Center for Urban Real Estate at Columbia University. SHoP—the firm that designed the Barclays Center as well the forthcoming Domino Sugar Refinery development, both in Brooklyn— is responsible for what may be New York's, and the world's, skinniest supertall.

.....Down the road is 217 West 57th St., another supertall, superskinny Midtown tower. This isn't, strictly speaking, the project with the sharpest aspect ratio that architect Gordon Gill has ever designed. That honor belongs to the trident-shaped tower designed by architecture firm Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill for One Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, a $95 billion—billion—mega-development planned by firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM). But 217 W. 57th St. will nevertheless be one of the skinniest towers in Manhattan and the nation.

"The complexity just increases when you get slender," Gill says. "The floorplates become smaller, but the views can become really amazing."

.....This new kind of skyscraper is popping up all over Midtown—but so far, only there. There are reasons that superskinnies haven't shown up in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, or other cities. Nor are they likely to get much skinnier in Manhattan.

"From an engineering standpoint, there’s a ways to go," Gill says when I ask him how tall and thin the firm can build. "From an economic standpoint, we’re close to the limit."

....."We cut slots, we punch holes, we create notches in the corners of the buildings" to mitigate the effects of wind, Gill says, on tall and thin buildings alike. But there are some places where superskinnies will just never go. No matter how pitched income inequality comes to be in San Francisco, these towers will never rise there. "For areas that are seismic, the slenderer buildings are not advisable," Gill says.

.....Even in Billionaires Row—where Midtown zoning allows skyscrapers to soar—the oxygen has mostly been used up. To build the towers that are rising now, in many cases, developers purchased air rights from adjacent shorter buildings. "At least in this corridor, most of the air rights have been used up," Chakrabarti says.

In other words, these superskinnies are unique—a "registration of the market," as Chakrabarti calls them. "It is a typology that’s happening, no question," he says, noting that SHoP has at least two more supertalls coming to New York.

"But if I look at our overall portfolio, [superskinny, supertall] is not an enormous percentage in terms of square footage."

So fans and critics of these buildings shouldn't expect to see them copied everywhere. At least, not until design and engineering technology advances to the point that that the aspect ratio can be pushed to even leaner proportions in markets that could sustain these developments. Or, not until other markets generate the political climate that makes these developments possible.

"I just received a document a couple days ago from someone who's been working on a patent for building stabilization," Gill says. "I'm going to dig into that and check that out. The more we learn about how to tune that, the more interesting the structures can become."


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.