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)

NYguy Jun 11, 2013 12:11 AM

I don't understand why you guys are so up in arms. Gary Barnett was just sharing his thoughts on the design process in general, and his thoughts on how it relates to this building.


Quote:

Still, deciding a building’s height is a judgment call, and “there have been times that I had air rights but I didn’t end up using them,” he said.

Extreme height adds time and uncertainty to a project, as well as construction costs. One57, for instance, was waylaid when Hurricane Sandy snapped off a crane boom and left it dangling far above the street. Mr. Barnett is weighing these considerations for his Nordstrom property, he said, and said he may choose to forego the full 1,550 feet.


The building is still in development. Barnett has always had the option to build lower, you just get the words from his mouth now. By no means is he saying he's going to cut the height.

Zapatan Jun 11, 2013 4:04 AM

Well we'll have to wait and see, but to me, it sounds like we should expect a shorter building just because of that excerpt.

Maybe and hopefully I am wrong. :)

hunser Jun 11, 2013 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6160143)
I don't understand why you guys are so up in arms. Gary Barnett was just sharing his thoughts on the design process in general, and his thoughts on how it relates to this building.

The building is still in development. Barnett has always had the option to build lower, you just get the words from his mouth now. By no means is he saying he's going to cut the height.

The thing is, people here, and especially New York forumers, have some bad experience regarding approved buildings. So I can't blame them. New York buildings tend to get a height decrease instead of a height increase. On the other side of the globe it's the other way around.
But let's end this discussion here, it's too OT.

Zapatan Jun 11, 2013 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6160501)
The thing is, people here, and especially New York forumers, have some bad experience regarding approved buildings. So I can't blame them. New York buildings tend to get a height decrease instead of a height increase. On the other side of the globe it's the other way around.
But let's end this discussion here, it's too OT.

Yes, exactly why I was saying what I was saying. It's a US thing, although worse outside of New York.

NYguy Jun 11, 2013 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6160350)
Well we'll have to wait and see, but to me, it sounds like we should expect a shorter building just because of that excerpt.


Well, I just got word from Barnett. He's thinking he may cancel the tower altogether and just build the Nordstrom. But nothing is certain at this point. :sly:

-Filipe- Jun 11, 2013 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6160543)
Well, I just got word from Barnett. He's thinking he may cancel the tower altogether and just build the Nordstrom. But nothing is certain at this point. :sly:

:runaway:

vandelay Jun 11, 2013 2:04 PM

There's really no point for speculation at this point, especially when there's a motive for obfuscation: i.e. why hype up your unbuilt building when you've got to sell a building under construction.

Submariner Jun 11, 2013 3:38 PM

Any reason why? If so, that's too bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6160543)
Well, I just got word from Barnett. He's thinking he may cancel the tower altogether and just build the Nordstrom. But nothing is certain at this point. :sly:


hunser Jun 11, 2013 4:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6160660)
Any reason why? If so, that's too bad.

He wasn't serious. ;)

JayPro Jun 11, 2013 8:50 PM

Caveat: The following is most likely to be construed as a grand-mal overreaction on my part; but here goes nothing............................

I'm praying that Barnett's playing head games here. And I hope NYGuy's "4-1-1 straight from the proverbial horse's mouth" post is somehow reflective of that same sort of psychological gamesmanship. This alone concerns me greatly.

Given the worst possible scenario, I suggest this: If the tower deal falls though, despite many an already approved permit to carry on as per schedule, I blame Nordstrom's alone. If they didn't want to bring their mothership store to the Big Apple, they should've just kept their HQ tent pitched in Seattle and not wasted Mr. Barnett's tim...or, for that matter, annihilated our collective emotional stakes in seeing this grow into a potentially striking mark on our beautiful skyline, and a commercial figurehead worth extensive praise and plaudits all around.

That said, I'd dare think that N's presence would most gladly--and perhaps with minimal, if not token, civic and local government resistance--be welcomed by a 300-to-500' squat box on the fringes of the Emerald City's CBD.
Then again, this is the same town that was too damn chintzy to build a stadium to keep their pro hoops team. But that's Oklahoma City's gain...and look at the *beautiful* tower they put up no sooner than the franchise relocation happened, never mind their sudden rise of fortunes on the court. QF, I really mean this: if Seattle wants to shoot themselves in the foot a second time, more power to them...I suppose. But might I first suggest indemnifying the City of New York from whatever enterprise-based masochistic tendencies they still might have?

The preceding brief (writer's emphasis) topical deviation serves my purpose to conclude with this:

If Nordstrom's *really* wants be a "playa" in NYC's continued unprecedented rise in at the very least commercial prestige, it should do more than merely set up nominal bases of operation. Indeed, the only thing that the true entrepreneurial spirit of New York demands in this case needs doing: Set up those offices on a *grand* scale and stop pussyfooting around with our developers who only want to make your damned task easier.

In the end, Mr. Barnett's desire to build the tower--which for all intents is ready to break ground--can only be measured by and conflated with Nordstrom's willingness to partner with him in all aspects of this venture. If they don't want to help him do this--to wit, essentially sabotage beyond repair any chances to significantly increase their own bottom line--their own corporate wishy-washiness alone will be cited as what ultimately will have done in all hopes for the tower going forward.

So if this three qaurter-baked, half-a-bubble off plumb prophecy of mine somehow actually comes to pass, it should never be allowed to get around that Mr. Barnett somehow balked at any stage in this process. People like him can do a helluva lot for any large business that wants to set up shop in the Apple; indeed we welcome whoever is ready for the challenge. In turn, though, that business must be steered by and armed with the forward-thinking collaborative sort needed to establish an abiding presence worthy of this great City.

Otherwise, to be blunt, either stay home, or don't bother. Or else go to boom-towns like Houston or Austin who can even further benefit from your trade. Just don't come to NYC with visions of literal castles in the sky, only to see them dissolve into ether no thanks to reality, and then blame the developer for this or that gone wrong.

Crawford Jun 12, 2013 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6161036)
Caveat: The following is most likely to be construed as a grand-mal overreaction on my part; but here goes nothing............................

I am still amazed people are talking about a real estate puff piece article. The author doesn't even know what air rights are, and people are debating hidden meanings in the prose.

The building could be taller, it could be shorter, it could be fatter, it could be thinner. All we have are the official zoning documents, and they have all been filed at 1,550 (per NYC DOB height measurements, not top of structure).

Why don't we wait and see what happens; the building is already coming, with Nordstrom opening by 2018 at the latest.

DrNest Jun 12, 2013 1:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6160501)
The thing is, people here, and especially New York forumers, have some bad experience regarding approved buildings. So I can't blame them. New York buildings tend to get a height decrease instead of a height increase. On the other side of the globe it's the other way around.
But let's end this discussion here, it's too OT.

It happens too often in Toronto too. Some decent proposals, with significant height are often forced to chop 20, 30 or even 50m off their height. Rarey is height added other than a couple of floors.

I would agree with the interpretation that Barnett is saying he could have to build lower, but not necessarily will do. And even if the final design is, say, losing 200 ft off the air rights it would still be a 1350ft tower. I'd be more than happy with that.

JayPro Jun 12, 2013 4:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6161291)
I am still amazed people are talking about a real estate puff piece article. The author doesn't even know what air rights are, and people are debating hidden meanings in the prose.

The building could be taller, it could be shorter, it could be fatter, it could be thinner. All we have are the official zoning documents, and they have all been filed at 1,550 (per NYC DOB height measurements, not top of structure).

Why don't we wait and see what happens; the building is already coming, with Nordstrom opening by 2018 at the latest.

I appreciate your citing the opening to my admittedly neurotic post. I was perhaps too hasty in my reaction to NYGuy's post earlier on, perhaps out of not being quite sure what to make of it. Ah hell; I overanalyze by force of nasty habit anyway. One lives and learns, no?

I can only hope going forward that everything proceeds according to script and we're around to see something magnificent that compliments 432P.

babybackribs2314 Jun 19, 2013 4:21 PM

Latest demo update:

225 West 57th June 2013 Demolition Update

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...06/225w571.jpg

NYguy Jun 20, 2013 11:35 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...799658464.html

Building Backer? Try China


By ELIOT BROWN and LINGLING WEI
June 20, 2013


Quote:

New York developer Gary Barnett has nearly completed construction on one of the most expensive condominium towers in history. Now he is looking to China to back an even larger and taller tower a block away.

Mr. Barnett, founder of Extell Development Co., is in early talks with the state-owned Export-Import Bank of China for a loan of about $1 billion to build the soaring condo and hotel skyscraper just south of Manhattan's Central Park, according to people familiar with the discussions.

If completed, such a deal would likely be the largest loan for a U.S. real-estate construction project since the property downturn and would give the Chinese bank—which has a mission of promoting Chinese investments globally—its first foothold in a U.S. real-estate project.

The high-profile building is poised to be the tallest residential tower in the country. With a building-permit application calling for a 1,550-foot-high structure, it would surpass the Empire State Building, a commercial skyscraper, in height. Its architect was the lead designer of the world's tallest building, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, and retailer Nordstrom has agreed to put its flagship department store at the base of the building.

The talks still could fizzle. Two prior deals for large U.S. projects that involved state-run Chinese banks collapsed in more advanced stages of discussion, including a giant housing development in San Francisco that involved home builder Lennar Corp. A person familiar with Export-Import Bank's thinking said, "the project is in a good location," but the bank will have to do its own due diligence to determine whether it is "a good project."

In 2010, Export-Import Bank agreed to finance $2.5 billion of the cost to build a $3.4 billion hotel, casino and resort project in the Bahamas, in which the China State Construction Engineering Corp. serves as the contractor—fitting with the bank's mission to help Chinese companies overseas. The project is under construction. Export-Import Bank has also financed an energy project in Texas. In the same manner, the U.S. subsidiary of the construction company is in talks to be the co-general-contractor on Mr. Barnett's New York tower, along with Lend Lease Group, should the bank loan go forward, the people familiar with the deal said.

Onn Jun 20, 2013 11:52 PM

I guess that makes sense after Barnett looked to Abu Dhabi for the One57 loan. Barnett may not be as nationally connected yet as, say, Harry Macklowe is, but he's still going to get the money to get the job done. The $1 billion loan is probably only half of the total costs.

antinimby Jun 21, 2013 12:32 AM

C'mon banks, give the loans to Extell, please.

Zapatan Jun 24, 2013 6:35 AM

this tower isn't entirely residential is it?

If so it would be the world's tallest.

jd3189 Jun 24, 2013 6:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6175433)
this tower isn't entirely residential is it?

If so it would be the world's tallest.

It's mostly residential aside from Nordstrom in the lobby if I'm not mistaken.

hunser Jun 24, 2013 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 6175436)
It's mostly residential aside from Nordstrom in the lobby if I'm not mistaken.

To be classified as a residential tower, more than 85% of the building's space has to be residential (according to the CTBUH rules). Nordstrom is going to occupy at least 1/6 of the available space, so most likey this tower will be mixed-use (officially).


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:56 PM.

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