Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^ The way that market is shaping up, in that particular area of Manhattan, you really do need an attention grabber. Height alone won't do it, because they're all tall.
|
@NYGuy:
I agree with you on all that. It's just that sometimes people take skyline pics from odd angles that make everything line up "just right". That pic will demonstrate this phenomenon to the proverbial tee once both towers are well towards completed. |
This is my favorite NYC building as of now. Sorry to you TV lovers but this is the best for me ;)
|
Quote:
|
^Good! If anyone said Nordstrom tower will be the best tower (not that I think anyone would.) i would slap them through the computer. And TV is also pretty amazing. This just has a more classic NYC look to it and TV is more of a "Fresh New Angular NYC" look.
|
Quote:
I know what you mean, I've taken a few pics myself from the 57th street angle. what I'm saying is that it's a very specific point you have to get to in order to get that exact vantage point. The Manhattan skyline is so large that most people won't go through the trouble of trying to get that specific shot. But the canyon (close up) views of it will be fantastic. |
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7329/1...e6bf1711_b.jpg
This lot is scary small. If you think 432 is skinny this footprint looks much smaller. http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5544/1...49b7af87_b.jpg |
at first when this goes up people will be thinking it's just a little highrise or something, and then, BOOM it gets taller than all the buildings right around it and they'll be all like WHAT!? the same wil happen with nordstrom tower except it's not as nice.
|
The tower is wider than the lot width, it overlaps into the Steinway lot behind it's protected section.
|
Quote:
Did you happen get the completion date off this sign June 201?:???: |
Quote:
That's correct. http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152531302/original.jpg |
Did it get thicker?
|
^ No, it's always been that way since they moved to the taller tower.
|
Hmm when did they get financed? It's good to go with the TV and 220.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Wonderful to see the progress on site! Always feels good to have a render on the fence! Can't wait for this, so exciting! :D
|
ls this financed? l love this building.
|
:P
Quote:
|
2014 will be the beginning of the biggest transformation of the skyline since the original twins. AMAZING
|
Quote:
Don't recall anything about financing. But like One57 and 432 Park, it could potentially start without it. New permit filed (excavation). Also, there are 3 extra floors. http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=02 Quote:
Original filing: Quote:
|
I had this as 62 floors for some reason.
|
eh. its the municipal ARTS society, not johns hopkins or the hadron collider.
|
Quote:
|
Most of Central Park is covered by shadows anyway based on #22-23 in post #525.
|
Hey, the graphics are nice anyway. And it's the most detail I've seen for the 225 w 57th massing.
|
Wow at this building's height.
|
That MAS study makes me sick to my stomach. If their wish came true, there would be practically no changes to the Manhattan skyline in the future, which is frankly an appalling prospect. Hopefully their proposal for public review of buildings over 1000 ft doesn't come true. If it does, I think it would have a catastrophic affect on the real estate industry.
|
Eh i wouldnt worry, money is the language of development and NYC and developers have plenty of money.
|
The Municipal Arts Society and Historic Council are nothing more than NIMBY organizations disguised as cultural and arts organizations. They're there to fight developments, building heights and density but in those few times when you actually do need them to speak up to save a historic building in a commercial district (where few NIMBY's actually live) they're nowhere to be found.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It was reassuring today to here the new comptroller, Scott Stringer, saying the City's skyline must and will change. Meanwhile, 2 more permits filed today... http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01 Quote:
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=03 Quote:
|
Quote:
At the same time, however, I am enraged that Extell can alter the skyline with the garbage they have planned at 255 W 57th while Torre Verre has been stunted from making the impact that it deserves. These kinds of missed opportunities make it hard for me not to sympathize with those that would like to see greater public control over the city's most prominent projects. People come from all over the world to see our skyline, it's one of the primary factors that make NY such a desirable place to live and visit. As such, the aesthetic appeal (or lack thereof) of these towers has a real economic impact on the city and thus the public at large. A developer is only going to spend extra money on a project when it will yield greater rents/sales prices. Unfortunately, tenants generally don't care that much how their buildings look from the outside (at least not enough to pay much more per square foot), they just care about the views they will enjoy. Over time, though, all buildings will enjoy greater views/prices if everyone avoids putting up bad quality designs. It's a classical tragedy of the commons problem where the incentives of the individual are misaligned with the costs to the group--think of it as a type of visual pollution. The way to fix it is to create a commission that rewards quality design with a grant of additional air rights (similar to what is proposed for the re-zoning of midtown east, but applied throughout the city and on an ad hoc basis) and thus incentivize developers to create projects that benefit everyone. Under such a system, a developer would voluntarily choose to apply to an architecture board for the grant of air rights in lieu of (or in addition to) buying air rights from other sources. The basic idea is that the most prominent building in any neighborhood should be beautiful. This would apply equally to granting an extra 50 feet of height to a landmark-worthy design in Soho as it would to granting an extra 350 feet to a massive tower in midtown. None of this would prevent an ugly as of right tower from going up, but it would at least allow for better quality architecture to eventually swallow it up. http://nymag.com/news/features/affordability-2014-1/ |
I'm less bothered by supertalls around Central Park than I am seeing them surround and hide the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings.
|
This article is a trash. If they want to shadow, move to the Bronx, Queens, Jersey City, and others. Manhattan is a mega city, can not be stopped in time because of people like that, with a small mind.
|
Quote:
|
The problem with public review processes is that it really isn't a "public" review but a "special interests" review, usually a facade for politicians for shaking down the developer. Developer donates to campaign fund: politician's operatives don't make much of a stink at a "public" review. I'm sure you can figure out the opposite of that. The second segment of the "public" that will bother to pay attention is those that will lose their view, be inconvenienced by the construction, or will be afraid of crowding in the area because of increased density.
The best that could be hoped for is an independent board or architects to review proposals. I'd bet though that even they would disappoint a lot of people. |
^twinning
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Skyscrapers aren't anything new in this city that has been building them for well over a century without any type of review board, and yet it's the most iconic skyline in the world. The skyline needs to evolve naturally, as it always has. There's no way to guarantee that we are going to like everything that gets built, whether there is any type of review board or not. Quote:
Quote:
New York has enough regulations on what can be built. Just look at the hoops that a tower like the Tower Verre had to go through, only to be cut down. I don't know how many people here are really aware of it, but the special permit process for that tower relates more to the design than the actual height of the tower. They could always build a taller tower, but the special permits that allow them to build a tower outside design regulations wouldn't be issued. Those permits will only be issued at the 1,050 ft height. Now you have to ask yourself, would the Empire State itself have survived such a process? How about the Chrysler? We can't say for certain about back then, but I do know if such towers were proposed today as the tallest, there certainly would be pushback. Quote:
|
From the schedule A, it appears floors (17-33) will be single floor units(18 being mechanical), floors (34-35) mechanical, floors (36-54) will also be single floor units, floors (55-56) mechanical, floor (57) is amenity space, floors (58-59) are a duplex unit, floors (60-63) single floor units, floors (64-71) duplex units, and floors (72 -75) will be a 4-level penthouse. Floors (76-77) will be mechanical. Those are actual floor numbers, they will probably change to higher counts with marketing.
You can see the changes in the plan to demolish part of the Steinway building in the rear... before http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152531300/original.jpg after http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154054066/original.jpg http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154054067/original.jpg |
New permit...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=04 Quote:
|
^great ,cannot wait for this to be done.
|
|
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01
Quote:
|
|
The quality is stupendous-- thanks Babybackribs! I won't post the whole thing, but everyone should take a few minutes to read @ YIMBY!
New York YIMBY: Interview: Michael Stern of JDS Development BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON JANUARY 24TH 2014 AT 1:00 PM http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...4/01/stern.jpg Michael Stern -- image from JDS Quote:
111 West 57th Street — image from SHoP More details on 111 West 57th at New York YIMBY |
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.