SkyscraperPage Forum - NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT

Viewing Page 171 of 407

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)

Alright guys, I have some inside info... What is something you REALLY want to know about this building? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by one4all (Post 7104087)

Alright guys, I have some inside info... What is something you REALLY want to know about this building? ;)

hmmm, any idea when vertical construction will start and is the design final?

What is the exact height to the parapet and to the top of the spire?

Quote:

Originally Posted by one4all (Post 7104087)

Alright guys, I have some inside info... What is something you REALLY want to know about this building? ;)

Another reason why "insiders" should keep their mouths shut.

Be careful, there are ways to backtrack to the source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by one4all (Post 7104087)

Alright guys, I have some inside info... What is something you REALLY want to know about this building? ;)

Although Barnett is keeping everything top secret, I find it hard to believe that the design and height are not final and are any different from what we've already seen. Someone from LendLease recently told me a different story, but I don't believe it.

Part of this is at street level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 7104096)

hmmm, any idea when vertical construction will start and is the design final?

The design seems to be final, as the drawings haven't changed that much over time. The more recent renderings seem to be what the building will actually look like.

Vertical construction as in above street level? Will probably be mid to late fall the way things are. Some construction is already at street level as JR Ewing stated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseball1992 (Post 7104097)

What is the exact height to the parapet and to the top of the spire?

You guys seem to be dying to know this, so... Top of spire seems to be set at 1775' as you all have heard multiple times. These things CAN change though, as it's clearly not anywhere near that height yet haha.

Parapet, source says around 1520'-1530'. These numbers are from early June, when the latest "new" info was in.

I also asked someone from Lendlease, and they seemed about on track with these numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayden (Post 7104098)

Another reason why "insiders" should keep their mouths shut.

Be careful, there are ways to backtrack to the source.

I'll take the risk, or maybe just close my account and skedaddle... :runaway:

But really, is it that bad to have the height known? That seems to be the only "secret" and it's not that big of a deal as far as I can tell. Let's not make this a big deal :shhh:

So what's the latest parapet height? I think it's still 1,530, though the LL guy said it's a lot taller -- not the spire , the parapet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR Ewing (Post 7104203)

So what's the latest parapet height? I think it's still 1,530, though the LL guy said it's a lot taller -- not the spire , the parapet.

That's what I remember hearing on SSC a couple weeks after the 1522 figure came out; "parapet to be a lot taller than 1525"

:previous: For the city's tallest, nothing is sweeter than being know for as the city of cranes, the city of bridges, the city of subways and the city of skyscrapers! :cheers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 7108519)

:previous: For the city's tallest, nothing is sweeter than being know for as the city of cranes, the city of bridges, the city of subways and the city of skyscrapers! :cheers:

It's the city of supertalls, where the word will soon be redundant.

I need you guys to contact the writers of this article for writing such blatant trash...

ivan.pereira@am-ny.com

The headline read "Supertall Skyscrapers Are Tormenting New Yorkers"...

http://www.amny.com/news

New Yorkers anguished by proliferation of 'supertall' skyscrapers
Since 2005, 16 of NYC's tallest buildings have broken ground in Manhattan.

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1..._960/image.jpg

By CARLA SINCLAIR AND. IVAN PEREIRA
July 27, 2015

Quote:

New York City is known for its iconic skyline -- one that is changing rapidly, whether New Yorkers like it or not.

Aptly nicknamed "supertalls," a proliferation of buildings towering well over 800 feet have been cropping up in Manhattan and quickly: since 2005, 16 of the city's tallest buildings have broken ground in the borough, with more on the way.

And some neighbors aren't happy.

The area directly south of Central Park has six 1,000 foot-plus buildings complete or in the works, including 432 Park Avenue, currently the world's tallest residential building at 1,396 feet. The Nordstrom Tower on 57th Street plans to overtake it at 1,795 feet by 2018.

"It negatively impacts the infrastructure, because it adds density with no additional investment in the subway system [and] the big issue of the shadows these buildings are casting on Central Park," said Layla Law-Gisiko, who heads Manhattan Community Board 5's "Sunshine Task Force," which is looking into the surge in skyscrapers near the park.

These "supertalls" are possible due to zoning laws last updated in 1961, which don't limit building heights in the Central Park South neighborhoods, among others. Most supertall buildings currently in the works, like the Nordstrom Tower, don't require public input as they are built "as-of-right," and don't need approval from the City Planning Commission or Board of Standards and Appeals.

Transferable air space is also a major force behind the developments, according to Law-Gisiko.

"You can basically buy your neighbor's air space and build as high as you want," which sidesteps the lot's containment and accounts for the "super-skinny" aspect of these towers, she said.

Developers for the buildings One57, which stands 1,005 feet, 53W53, which is set to be 1,050 feet, 432 Park Avenue, and 220 Central Park South, which is set to be 920 feet, declined to comment.

Midtown isn't the only area dealing with the deluge of vertical developments.

Catherine McVay Hughes, the chairwoman for Community Board 1 in downtown Manhattan, said TriBeCa and the Financial District were always designed for skyscrapers including the new World Trade Center Towers.
However, newer residential buildings such as 30 Park Place and the upcoming 70 Pine Street are problematic because they make an already-expensive area even more unaffordable for everyday New Yorkers.

"With the changing neighborhood, we need to make sure the people who were the original pioneers still have the opportunity to live here," McVay Hughes said.

Meaghan Baron, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit the Municipal Arts Society, condemned zoning laws she called antiquated.

"Fifty years ago, towers weren't being built like this," she said.

Some residents are calling for a temporary moratorium on the buildings until the impacts on infrastructure and quality of life are studied.

Ken Herman, a musician who lives on Central Park, spoke of the impact on the area's classic, scenic views.

"People move here to get a view of the park and now the only way to do it is to block everybody else's view," he said.

At a July 23 meeting sponsored by City Councilman Ben Kallos to discuss a proposed 900-foot building on residential Sutton Place, Community Board 6 member Terrence O'Neal urged his residents to brush up on their knowledge of neighborhood zoning laws.

"Act now. There are many of these buildings going up now," he said.
State Senator Brad Hoylman, whose district includes 432 Park Avenue, agreed that zoning regulations needed a closer look in a rapidly changing Manhattan.

"There is widespread concern from the local community about their impact on neighborhood resources like open air, sunlight and park space," he said.

Not everyone, however, was concerned about the surge in towers, calling it a natural stage in the Big Apple's evolution.

Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning at NYU Wagner, noted that the city has no land to expand horizontally. So, the only place to go is up.

"Our skyscrapers are an essential parts of the city. New York is not a place where building tall buildings is new," he said.

Gary Malin, president of real estate group Citi Habitats, which marketed 900-foot New York by Gehry, agreed, but noted that change can be hard for longtime residents.

"When the Empire State Building was built, it probably wasn't liked that much by some people. But now it's an essential part of New York," he said.

Baron and other advocates acknowledge that the towers probably can't be stopped.

"We're not against tall buildings, at all," Baron said. "But there has to be a trade-off discussion with developers and the neighborhood, and how the development can give back to the community."

She's right. 50 years ago, towers weren't being built like this. Back then, the borough was overrun by functionalist boxes which immersed the skyline's original tall, skinny towers.

~30s-40s

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2634/...bf7f4f2e_b.jpg
photo by Andreas Feininger, posted by erickchristian on the wirednewyork forums

1964

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/...5e9bafc3_b.jpg
posted by erickchristian on Wired New York

Quote:

Meaghan Baron, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit the Municipal Arts Society, condemned zoning laws she called antiquated.

"Fifty years ago, towers weren't being built like this," she said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 7108770)

She's right. 50 years ago, towers weren't being built like this. Back then, the borough was overrun by functionalist boxes which immersed the skyline's original tall, skinny towers.

She's also an idiot. Fifty years ago we didn't have a lot of things, including cell phones, wide/flat screen tvs, tablets, etc. But if she wanted to go back even further, let's say 200 years, we wouldn't have towers at all. It's a whole new and modern world. We can't cling to the world of fifty years ago, as much as some of these people would like to.

As far as the zoning goes, it's already in place, and working the way it's supposed to.

Quote:

Transferable air space is also a major force behind the developments, according to Law-Gisiko.

"You can basically buy your neighbor's air space and build as high as you want," which sidesteps the lot's containment and accounts for the "super-skinny" aspect of these towers, she said.

Here are the graphics for that piece...

http://data.newsday.com/long-island/...nyc-buildings/

New York's rising skyline

At least 20 Manhattan skyscrapers of more than 800 feet have been completed since 2005 or are under construction. Here are the details. You can click on the map for details at any location, or mouse over or tap the bars to see the buildings they represent. Certain buildings that received approval but haven't broken ground are also included.

(the figures aren't accurate)

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/160857668/original.jpg

I just spoke with an engineer at the site from WSP. He confirmed that the design leaked by Yimby is what's rising. When I asked if the parapet would top off around 1,530', he said he did not know.

Anyway, the DOB NB Permit from last week says 95 stories, which is consistent with Yimby's most recent numbers.

PLUMBING - NEW BUILDING
PROVIDE UNDERGROUND PLUMBING CONNECTION AS PER PLANS FILED.

Use: R-2 - RESIDENTIAL: APARTMENT HOUSES Landmark: NO Stories: 95
Site Fill: ON-SITE
Review is requested under Building Code: 2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7108806)

She's also an idiot.

A little decorum, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown (Post 7109171)

A little decorum, please.

It's New Yorker's god given right to call someone an idiot.

:dunno:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7109420)

It's New Yorker's god given right to call someone an idiot.

:dunno:

Anyone who does not appreciate tall skyscrapers in America's largest city should move across the river to NJ. :hell:
All that talk about shadows is absolute B.S.

Let me tell you something, I can stand on the corner of 34th and 5th and enjoy sunshine on the street directly in front of The Empire State Building!!

If you're afraid of your own shadow, move to New Jersey!! :runaway:

One thing that really irks me is when someone forces their opinion down my throat!

This is a free country and if you don't like skyscrapers, move out!! :koko:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 7109420)

It's New Yorker's god given right to call someone an idiot.

:dunno:

If I had called someone an idiot you would have deleted my post and given me a warning. I've never called anyone an idiot, but you've given me warnings for lesser things.

. . "a proliferation of buildings" . . .
sounds like "idiots" Carla and Ivan are talking about nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown (Post 7109598)

If I had called someone an idiot you would have deleted my post and given me a warning. I've never called anyone an idiot, but you've given me warnings for lesser things.

He wasnt refering to another user. Thats the only reason he would warn you about behavior.

Viewing Page 171 of 407