SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

Domer2019 May 19, 2015 8:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattymatt88 (Post 7027718)
I'm surprised at the responses. I thought everyone was going to be as excited as I was after seeing this rendering. I was in Grant Park in Chicago 2 years ago and I was blown away by how in your face the skyscrapers were from the park and I feel like this building is going to give me the same feel from Central Park. Compared to 157 and 432 this tower blows them away. 157 is a complete eye sore in my opinion and I'm glad the Nordstrom tower is going to take some of the focus from that multicolored piece of crap. I do love the tower verre and the steinway building but I don't think we are ever going to get the masterpiece building of the old days like the Woolworth building. The Nordstrom tower will be a very tall box but I thinks it's going to have the same presence as the Sears tower does.

Striking similarities between NT and Legacy at Millenium/Grant Park:

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/02...rMillenium.jpg
Source - http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9179201.htm


Despite some skepticism, it turned out beautiful. I expect nothing less here.

ILNY May 27, 2015 4:41 AM

5.24.15

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8829/1...9d82d4ff_h.jpg



https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8804/1...626e68fc_o.jpg

photoLith May 27, 2015 6:49 PM

Oh my god those people are so dumb. Theyre saying they wouldn't use Central Park in the winter because a shadow from a skyscraper makes the park 20 degrees cooler? They do realize the shadow is only like 70 feet wide or so and you could just walk a little bit and not be in the shadow right? They act as if a tent is going to be put over Central Park and it will be shrouded in darkness for the rest of time. Why don't they propose to cut down all the trees since those cast shadows too?

chris08876 May 27, 2015 8:56 PM

Photolith you can't reason with these people. Many of these residents, often yuppies, are bored of all their money, and so this is their job. TO protest ANYTHING. Thats what they do. They show up at these meetings when people tend to be working. They complain, ask stupid questions, look angry (photos of community meetings confirm this), and so on. What it is is selfishness. They want the city to themselves in their own image. They don't care about the community or the park, but their own selfish interests.

antinimby May 27, 2015 9:17 PM

^ Have you ever been to any community meetings? Vast majority of NIMBY's are not yuppies. They're usually middle age and elderly (and heavily female). Busybodies that have lots of spare time.

Younger people like yuppies are generally too busy with work and social life to attend the NIMBY powwows. They tend to be either supportive or at least indifferent to development.

chris08876 May 27, 2015 9:23 PM

I attend them in the Jersey suburb where I live. Fine, instead of yuppie, let's say old people with money. And yes they do all tend to be elderly or at least middle aged. But that's my point, they have nothing better to do. ( I do so for research since I'm in the Environmental Industry but I don't make it an obsession).

Roadcruiser1 May 28, 2015 1:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 7041454)
^ Have you ever been to any community meetings? Vast majority of NIMBY's are not yuppies. They're usually middle age and elderly (and heavily female). Busybodies that have lots of spare time.

Younger people like yuppies are generally too busy with work and social life to attend the NIMBY powwows. They tend to be either supportive or at least indifferent to development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 7041464)
I attend them in the Jersey suburb where I live. Fine, instead of yuppie, let's say old people with money. And yes they do all tend to be elderly or at least middle aged. But that's my point, they have nothing better to do. ( I do so for research since I'm in the Environmental Industry but I don't make it an obsession).

It's easy to shut them up. All you need to do is put a few Golf Courses. Pretty soon they will be distracted, and you can keep them quiet. :).

NYguy Jun 1, 2015 12:39 PM

Definitely no deck here...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/ny...nues.html?_r=0

Up on the Roof: Top-Floor Attractions Help Maximize Revenues


By CHARLES V. BAGLI
MAY 31, 2015


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/...superJumbo.jpg

Adam Rose, the developer of 70 Pine Street, (without helmet), leads a tour of the condominium project, where four of the top floors will be open to the public
for dining and drinking.




http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/...superJumbo.jpg

Felix Meinhof, 3, takes in a live image in the “sky portal,” on the opening day of One World Observatory near the top of One World Trade Center in Manhattan on Friday.



Quote:

In a city crowded with venerable towers and gleaming new skyscrapers, builders and developers are trying to squeeze more money out of their real estate by taking advantage
of one of their last available spaces: their rooftops.

Cocktail lounges and restaurants have popped up on the tops of hotels, office towers and residential buildings, offering views of the city’s skyline, its bridges and waterfront,
as well as $20 mixed drinks.

Even higher are observatories in the tallest skyscrapers, which are tapping into the city’s soaring tourism market. The city’s highest perch officially opened on Friday, when
five elevators started whisking visitors 1,268 feet up to the 102nd floor of 1 World Trade Center — in 48 seconds — for “helicopter views” of Manhattan and beyond.

...The new trade center observatory will compete for visitors with two heavily trafficked viewing sites: Top of the Rock, at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, and the Empire State
Building, the gold standard of observation decks with 4.3 million visitors last year.

And more are on the way. On the Far West Side of Manhattan, one developer has designed a two-story, outdoor observation deck-bar-restaurant that will be cantilevered
over the Time Warner Building, 1,100 feet above Hudson Yards, at 33rd Street and 10th Avenue.

Next to Grand Central Terminal on East 42nd Street, another developer has planned an observatory at the top of One Vanderbilt, a proposed 63-story office tower.

...In Lower Manhattan, a developer is reopening a boutique-size, glass-enclosed observatory at the top of a 66-story tower at 70 Pine Street as part of a four-story restaurant and bar.

One developer, Gary Barnett, has already scrapped plans to put an observatory atop the slender 1,775-foot tall Nordstrom Tower he is building on West 57th Street, saying he would rather sell condominiums than sacrifice valuable square footage. “You need express elevators, staircases,” Mr. Barnett said. “It costs you square footage on every floor.”

The number of visitors at the Empire State, one of the most recognizable buildings in the world, has risen year after year, with annual revenues more than doubling to $111.5
million last year, from $40 million in 2004. The deck, whose profit last year was $82.5 million, now accounts for 40 percent of the building’s entire revenue.

Adam Rose, a developer, is converting 70 Pine Street, an Art Deco building near the New York Stock Exchange, into what promise to be the most expensive rental apartments
in Lower Manhattan, with a restaurant and bars on floors 62, 63, 64 and 66 to be managed by the team behind the Spotted Pig, the celebrated West Village restaurant.

He is restoring the observatory, where diners will have unobstructed views and the ability to walk out onto the narrow terraces. Mr. Rose is spending $5 million to create an
amenity for tenants and a downtown nightspot.

“This is a major element of making 70 Pine Street special,” Mr. Rose said. “It adds value to everything below it.”

Mr. Rose’s project is not designed to compete with the big observatories and will never attract millions of tourists. But like Top of the Rock, the outdoor terraces on the 66th
floor of 70 Pine will offer visitors a sense of being among the city’s skyscrapers, rather than looking down on other buildings from the clouds.

But David Checketts, chief executive of Legends, said he was not worried about the competition or whether New York has reached an observatory saturation point.

“I imagine the Empire State Building has upped its advertising budget,” he said. “It’s an elevator ride and a view. There’s Top of the Rock and there’ll be others. They’re kind
of back in vogue. But I do think this one will be highly desirable, because we’re next to the September 11 Memorial, the museum and a resurgent downtown.”

toxteth o'grady Jun 1, 2015 1:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7046179)
Definitely no deck here...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/ny...nues.html?_r=0

Up on the Roof: Top-Floor Attractions Help Maximize Revenues


By CHARLES V. BAGLI
MAY 31, 2015


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/...superJumbo.jpg

Adam Rose, the developer of 70 Pine Street, (without helmet), leads a tour of the condominium project, where four of the top floors will be open to the public
for dining and drinking.




http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/...superJumbo.jpg

Felix Meinhof, 3, takes in a live image in the “sky portal,” on the opening day of One World Observatory near the top of One World Trade Center in Manhattan on Friday.

I remember when going up to the observatory of the Empire State Building meant looking DOWN on the rest of the city. Now there are going to be too many taller highrises around. A restaurant on the top floor of one of these buildings should be an epic moneymaker, but perhaps not the same guaranteed return as a multi-million dollar penthouse suite.

Welcome2Boise Jun 1, 2015 3:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxteth o'grady (Post 7046225)
I remember when going up to the observatory of the Empire State Building meant looking DOWN on the rest of the city. Now there are going to be too many taller highrises around. A restaurant on the top floor of one of these buildings should be an epic moneymaker, but perhaps not the same guaranteed return as a multi-million dollar penthouse suite.

I humbly beg to differ. I like that dominant feeling of looking down too, but I personally feel the best views are at like 75% of top of skyline. You get the feeling of being in the middle of it all, you can still see most everything and you don't have to look at as many ugly rooftops and air-conditioners. Therefore, ESB's view has never been better IMHO.

Regarding Nordtstrom having one, considering the floorplate size a restaurant or observation deck would just be silly for the reasons he stated. It would take too much square footage away on everyfloor for those billionaires. Those things are better in large office buildings methinks.

gramsjdg Jun 1, 2015 9:55 PM

I always assumed this tower would never have a public obs deck...

chris08876 Jun 1, 2015 10:13 PM

Besides the engineering involved, it would reduce the exclusivity of the tower. People who pay for this want the environment of being among the creme of the crop in the economic ladder. A site like this, with a deck, would be a tourist traffic jam. It would hurt sales, and like Barnett mentioned, reduce the unit site not to mention drive up costs.

But no worries, we have or will have:

1) ESB
2) Top of Rock
3) WTC1
4) 30 Hudson
5) 1 Vanderbilt
6) Statue of Liberty Podium (Can count as a form of an observation deck)
7) Staten Island Wheel

I might be missing some, but for the moment, current and future decks.

hunser Jun 1, 2015 11:01 PM

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES025055572

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...6b5081953e.jpg

^ Oh come on, just break the 1,500' mark ffs ... :angry: This feels even worse than 432 PA with its 1,397' ...

Onn Jun 1, 2015 11:18 PM

The perimeter wall is only to the top of the last occupied floor I assume. That means the parapet could be above 1,500 feet.

hunser Jun 1, 2015 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 7047105)
The perimeter wall is only to the top of the last occupied floor I assume. That means the parapet could be above 1,500 feet.

I forgot about that one. I was too upset to think cleary ...
EDIT: the floor count is now 95, potentially good news.

gramsjdg Jun 1, 2015 11:51 PM

The way things are going, I won't be the least bit surprised if the curtain wall/parapet/"apparent roof" height ends up being the full 1550'. After all, The 1530' figure per NY Yimby is as he said, from last year; well before Steinway got the boost to 1428 (I think it was around 1397' at that point).

The final spire height is another matter...

Zapatan Jun 2, 2015 12:13 AM

It might be the actual roof since the floor count is now 95. Even if not 1,494' is still very tall.

I never expected this building to have an observation deck either so it's not really a big deal, especially since there are already so many in NYC. 1WTC, 30HY, ESB, Vanderbilt etc. might not be quite as high but still high enough for an amazing view.

hunser Jun 2, 2015 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 7047164)
It might be the actual roof since the floor count is now 95. Even if not 1,494' is still very tall.

Yes, very likely. As VG @SSC has pointed out, the perimeter wall of One57 per DOB was listed as 953' ... and the building's final height was eventually 1,005'.

So yes, 1494' + ~50' could bring us back to the old 1,550' figure. :yes:

NYguy Jun 4, 2015 2:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7046972)
I always assumed this tower would never have a public obs deck...

Just something Barnett was reportedly considering at one time, but it didn't make sense for a variety of reasons.

intheburg Jun 6, 2015 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg (Post 7046972)
I always assumed this tower would never have a public obs deck...

I'm with you. It would have never occurred to me that this tower should have a public deck, given its already-declared primary uses. It's going to have a gigantic Nordstrom at the base, for crying out loud! Even beyond the space that would have to be given over to express elevators and the observation deck itself, I don't think the building could handle a third major purpose at street level.

I presume the entrance to the residential lobby will occupy one side of the building and that Nordstrom will require multiple street-level entrances. Further, I presume there will be substantial delivery docks (for both the residential tower and of course the giant department store) occupying an entire side of the base. The thought of adding a public lobby large enough for an observation deck queue makes my head hurt. That's too much going on at street level for a building with such a modest footprint.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.