Quote:
|
Quote:
It's obviously not an accurate representation of what any shadow in Central Park looks like to the human eye, because the camera has underexposed the bottom half in response to being blown out by the bright sun in in the top half. |
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articl...-skinny-tower/
The skinny on SHoP’s new skinny tower: Architecture review The JDS and Property Markets Group’s 57th Street tower is ushering in a new era of spindly and iconic structures http://s12.therealdeal.com/trd/up/2013/12/Gardner.jpg December 01, 2013 By James Gardner Quote:
|
New York’s New Delirium
Quote:
|
I have a question for your New Yorkers. What is the transpiration/economic/crime situation at the north end of Central Park? Is that area technically Harlem? It does not look very Manhattanish on Google Earth. If these super tall, super slim high end residential towers are going up to take advantage of the views where the lots are tiny... well then it seems to me that it would be easier to build a more massive high end residential tower on the north end. Something with wide floorplates east to west, but narrow north to south (ala, John Hancock) Then residents would have a view not only of the park, but Midtown as well.
|
There's no crosstown subway lines north of Central Park, just the ones that run north/south under the avenues. It would be preferable to see a cross town line be built, probably at 116th or 125th street, before massively building up the Harlem area. Personally, I think that 125th street would be best, because it's a wide street like 57th, 42nd or 34th, so it's already something of a focus of activity, and it would tie in with the 125th street MetroNorth commuter rail station. The under construction 2nd avenue subway line will have a spur onto 125th street, so it shouldn't be too hard in the future to extend it further west across the island. Once that's done, the several blocks north and south of 125th could be massively up zoned like the Hudson Yards, and another supertall row could be developed.
Of course I haven't seen a plan this ambitious being seriously considered by the city, and it's not really worth considering, until the WTC and Hudson Yards are built out. By the Yards, I mean not just the yards themselves and the boulevard, but also redeveloping the Javitts Convention Center, and the blocks south of the yards, which are equally underutilized, but haven't been rezoned yet. Infrastructure wise, a 125th street subway wouldn't be built until after the second ave line is completed, and at the rate it's going, its not going to be fully funded never mind built for another couple decades. As for northern Manhattan looking different than the rest of the island, that's partly because of the geology of the island, and partly because of how it was developed. The northern end is much hillier, with occasional steep cliffs which mirror the Palisades in New Jersey. The rugged terrain made it harder to maintain the street grid when the streets were laid out. As for the development pattern, that's because development started at the southern tip, and grew northwards. The chaotic jumble of streets in the southern financial district is from the colonial era, before the city was formally planned. Moving north into tribeca, soho, smaller sections of grid start emerging, as entire areas were being planned and developed in a haphazard manner. In 1811, the city adopted a new master plan that stopped the piecemeal development and established the present grid, allowing development to march orderly northward. At first, the plots marked out by the surveyors were rather narrow, resulting in the common tenement. Over time, the grid has been broken up by public housing projects and co-ops, and developers have built bigger towers by assembling the small tenement lots into larger plots. There's a variety of reasons way Harlem hasn't been developed as intensely as Midtown or the financial district. The density of development was influenced by the transportation infrastructure (Before 1961, developers had free reign to build however big they wanted, so zoning wasn't an issue). At first, the subways (first built as elevated lines) were built for commuting between the predominantly residential neighborhoods that were growing steadily northward, and the southern financial district(wall street), and the industrial area directly north of that(docks, meatpacking district, garment district, newspaper row, etc). These lines were only for local transportation though. When New York Central RR and Pennsylvania Central RR wanted to build terminals for their interstate rail lines, the city had already forbidden steam powered trains south of 42nd street, so that's where New York Central built Grand Central Station. What would eventually become the Mid town business district grew around the terminal. Penn Central didn't want to be left with out a Manhattan terminal though. Since the tunnel under the Hudson required that they use electric trains anyway, the steam prohibition below 42nd street was not an issue, and they had more flexibility locating the station. Land near the financial district would have been too expensive, as would land directly adjacent to the NY Grand Central Station, so they split the difference by building Penn Station several blocks south of Grand Central, where the land was still cheap. Northern Manhattan never got a rail terminal to act as a an anchor for intense commercial development like Midtown did, so it stayed mostly lowrise residential well into the mid 20th century. By then, economic issues like white flight and redlining led to urban decay in Northern Manhattan (which isn't to say that other parts of the city weren't seeing their share of decay too). In 1961, NY adopted zoning regulations which for the first time limited the maximum bulk allowed to be built. This effectively locked in the existing development patterns, ensuring that it would be focused around downtown and midtown, and disallowing major projects except for the public housing projects I mentioned earlier else where. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125th_Street_(Manhattan) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pal..._(Hudson_River) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...7_Plan_of_1811 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Manhattan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining http://www.worldcat.org/title/seeing...=brief_results Oh dear, this post ended up rather long. |
Quote:
- Primarily it is a residential district with a similar feel to adjacent neighborhoods east and west of the park, compared to the huge business district south of the park - Subway connections aren't great as you just have the C on the western edge and the 2/3 serving Central Park North, both of which shuttle people uptown/downtown but not crosstown (only buses for this) - Historically the connection to Harlem has made this area slower to develop than its UWS and UES neighbors, but rent pressures are starting to change that. I think you will see a big boom in new residential buildings here. - Height is limited by very different zoning requirements than you have in Midtown, due to the way the neighborhood has been built historically - Crime is still somewhat of a problem, but that is changing as housing prices push people out. - The nature of the park is different here too. It is more of a residential amenity and less of a grand civic/tourist space....partly by design and partly just because of the way midtown interacts with the southern edge. |
^Thanks guys. Lots of good info.
|
Quote:
Does not look Manhattanish? You mean in terms of highrises? There are some but most of Manhattan is not covered with highrises, but rather very dense midrise, which is also the norm around Central Park North. They are planning many taller buildings along Central Park North and environs, but the zoning does not allow for real skyscrapers. |
Quote:
How the Word ‘North’ Affects Prices. Living Along Central Park North By JOHN FREEMAN GILL Published: November 12, 2013 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ticleLarge.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...-map-popup.png Quote:
|
Quote:
The towers rising south of Central Park are in an area (the so called "special midtown district") that allows for greater density, which means basically larger buildings, and no height restrictions. You won't see supertalls or anything close to that rising north of Central Park. In fact, you won't see that east and west of Central Park either. I lived on W. 112th St years ago, and the area has changed a lot, but it won't be Central Park South. And yes, it's very Manhattan still. |
1350 foot tall and 60 foot wide for an incredible ratio of 1:23 !!!!!!
|
Permits filed in preparation for work on the landmark...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01 Quote:
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01 Quote:
|
Enlarged this pic from...http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...ough_intro.php
The day when we can look up and see this... http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153802688/large.jpg http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153802688/original.jpg |
This is in the top tier of new architecture in the city, along with the likes of Tower Verre, 56 Leonard, the BIG Pyramid, 2WTC, and the Hudson Yards towers among others. Instant classic.
|
Yes, this is a special building for sure. 432 Park, TV, One 57 and this are magnificent. Maybe it's making them rethink the design between 225W 57th street!
|
I'm still (aren't we all, though?) waiting for the due East/West money shot...as well as our first looks at some nighttime profiles.
|
Is there a timeline on this published yet?
|
Quote:
Quote:
I haven't seen any night profiles, but the east-west profile will be pretty much the same as this... http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152820786/original.jpg |
Well, yes...but I meant by way of clarification how this'll look superimposed on the skyline from more or less the same vantage point.
Fellow forumer ILBY posted this on the 432P thread: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5495/1...2b11439e_c.jpg ...which will be a sight to behold when both that and this are ready to open. BTW I was going to chime in on the Nordstrom IMO; but discretion, as they say........ |
All times are GMT. The time now is 7:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.