SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

Crawford Aug 17, 2013 1:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6235461)
I just hope they will not shorten this tower, they were thinking about it after Sandy hit NYC.

No, they weren't.

What does a hurricane have to do with relative building heights? That doesn't even make any sense.

ILNY Aug 17, 2013 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6235470)
No, they weren't.

What does a hurricane have to do with relative building heights? That doesn't even make any sense.


Well, it actually does. Look what happened to One57.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/re...ewanted=2&_r=1

Looking Down on the Empire State

By JULIE SATOW
June 7, 2013

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.

JayPro Aug 17, 2013 4:44 AM

The above citation is no more than a 50-50 split of somewhat decontextualized journalism and sheer conjecture whose combined main points have been argued ad nauseam here.
We get what we get with final height figures; and come the next superstorm that barrels through MidTown Manhattan, we get what we get if any damage occurs.
Now someone help me get this overbludgeoned horse corpse out of the way. :)

Crawford Aug 17, 2013 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6235605)
Well, it actually does. Look what happened to One57.

I don't understand how you come to that strange conclusion based on that quote.

Extell said the height for 225 W57th has not been finalized. They never said that hurricanes will determine the height of 225 W 57.

And hurricanes had nothing to do with One57's height.

Are you referring to the dangling crane following the hurricane? That is the only relevant link between One57 and Sandy. What I'm wondering, though, is why you think hurricanes would impact building height.

ILNY Aug 18, 2013 3:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6235874)
I don't understand how you come to that strange conclusion based on that quote.

Extell said the height for 225 W57th has not been finalized. They never said that hurricanes will determine the height of 225 W 57.

And hurricanes had nothing to do with One57's height.

Are you referring to the dangling crane following the hurricane? That is the only relevant link between One57 and Sandy. What I'm wondering, though, is why you think hurricanes would impact building height.


I am not saying hurricanes determine height of the building. I was referring to NY Times article and the damaged crane on One57 after Sandy. The article states that Mr. Barnett might take this incident into consideration when determining final height of the tower. That's it.

I just hope they will not make this building shorter, whatever the reason.

NYguy Aug 18, 2013 1:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6236255)
I am not saying hurricanes determine height of the building. I was referring to NY Times article and the damaged crane on One57 after Sandy. The article states that Mr. Barnett might take this incident into consideration when determining final height of the tower. That's it.

I just hope they will not make this building shorter, whatever the reason.

Relax. The article said Barnett was taking those things (time and uncertainty added by height) into consideration. Barnett says there were times when he had development rights, and didn't use all of them. So what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Fun fact: Barnett could use less air rights and build taller than planned. But I'm sure Barnett will build every developable square foot he can. This is prime Manhattan, those air rights aren't just going to be lying around. (Besides, they've recently expanded the lot a little, adding size). As far as a hurricane cutting the height of the tower, if you think One57 - at 1,005 ft was affected by one, what makes you think a tower of 1,400 - 1,300 - or even 1,100 ft wouldn't be?

Let's just say that the design isn't final, and we'll get more specifics when the design is revealed. For now, it is what it is.

McSky Aug 18, 2013 2:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6233491)
One thing you will notice from looking at this image, One57 shifts mostly to the 57th street side. If this tower is shifted in a similar way to the north, 58th street, it could save at least a portion of the views from both towers.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/151779349/original.jpg


It won't matter that much for the east-west views, as the buildings are not that wide. Look at the sample views from 432 Park (at the building website) of various elevations to see what I mean. And wherever the tower of 225 W 57th is placed on its plot, neither building would block the other's view of the Park, which is paramount.

But I do think that Extell will try to place the tower portion of 225 W 57th more towards 58th Street, as this would somewhat alleviate the loss of Park views due to the construction of 220 CPS, which is currently listed as 577 feet.

Barnett knows that 220 CPS is coming eventually, so this is a reason for him to go for maximum height on 225 W 57. Right now, if the 1,550-foot figure turns out to be indeed be the height of the highest occupied floor, Extell would have 973 feet of occupy-able space above the 577-foot height of 220 CPS (minus any part of 220 CPS above the listed height, such as mechanical floors or an architectural cap).

Crawford Aug 18, 2013 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSky (Post 6236441)
ItBut I do think that Extell will try to place the tower portion of 225 W 57th more towards 58th Street, as this would somewhat alleviate the loss of Park views due to the construction of 220 CPS, which is currently listed as 577 feet.

We don't know the height of 220 CPS, though, because the old height was from a previous design from 5-6 years ago, and they have long since added significant additional air rights and changed architects.

My guess is that 220 CPS will be very tall and thin, since that's what all the towers are doing in that part of Manhattan. I would expect it to be comparable in height to the other towers.

nsg Aug 18, 2013 5:35 PM

How tall?
 
I read an article in Icon magazine about Adrian Smith, who said that the height of 225 West 57th Street would be 366m, not the original 472m.

Have any official rendering actually been released yet?

hunser Aug 18, 2013 6:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nsg (Post 6236506)
I read an article in Icon magazine about Adrian Smith, who said that the height of 225 West 57th Street would be 366m, not the original 472m.

Have any official rendering actually been released yet?

You are confusing this tower with 111 West 57th Street, which will be at least 1,200ft / 366m tall.

ILNY Aug 18, 2013 11:38 PM

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7442/9...1f502552_b.jpg



http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2845/9...d0eed4fe_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3730/9...b77d2208_b.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5332/9...9a344315_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3796/9...3f7a58c3_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3712/9...a9cd2bda_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3669/9...725a0cab_b.jpg

NYguy Aug 19, 2013 1:32 AM

^ Nice update...


Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6236528)
You are confusing this tower with 111 West 57th Street, which will be at least 1,200ft / 366m tall.

He's talking about this piece from back in March...

Quote:

http://www.iconeye.com/news/architec...ering-ambition

The US could once finance high-rise marvels that were symbols of its economic and political ambition and success; as both demonstrations of power and the solution to the densification of urban centres. But could the gargantuan architectural gestures of the east make an re-appearance in the post 9/11 west? Smith is unsure, but sees an opportunity in two cities: “London and New York, because they are such international cities, could build towers of this size. There are deep pockets that want to be in those locations if you have the right site,” he says. “In New York, there is a re-emergence of super-tall towers, but they have a very small footplate. There is one we are working on that is 1,200ft (366m). They aren’t as tall as the ones we are making in Asia at the moment, but people are seeing the value in higher density point structures.”


Meanwhile, demo permit has been filed for the final piece, the Beethoven Pianos building...

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

FULL DEMOLITION OF TWO STORY STRUCTURE, USING MECHANICAL MEANS.

JACKinBeantown Aug 19, 2013 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6236742)

Nobody knows the plans yet, of course. But I would imagine that the base (Nordstroms, etc.) would go as high as the old building that they're tearing down (as high as the cross bracing on the building next door). Then there might be an indentation to allow some space for the windows of the building next door to retain some amount of view. It's possible that the actual tower could be back from the street, similar to 432 Park Avenue.

hunser Aug 19, 2013 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6236835)
^ Nice update...




He's talking about this piece from back in March...





Meanwhile, demo permit has been filed for the final piece, the Beethoven Pianos building...

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

I see, but I still wonder why Smith is referring to the 1200ft figure ... :shrug:

Quote:

“In New York, there is a re-emergence of super-tall towers, but they have a very small footplate. There is one we are working on that is 1,200ft (366m).
Thank you for all the updates ILNY, they are very much appreciated. :yes:

NYguy Aug 19, 2013 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown (Post 6237054)
Nobody knows the plans yet, of course. But I would imagine that the base (Nordstroms, etc.) would go as high as the old building that they're tearing down (as high as the cross bracing on the building next door).

It should be a pretty good size. Didn't they say it would be the "tallest" Nordstrom?

Anyway, here are the plans again for a Nordstrom that could have been built, of similar size and layout...


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/...6dc29cfa_b.jpg
http://massforma.com/arch/nordstrom-tower/



Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6237072)
I see, but I still wonder why Smith is referring to the 1200ft figure ... :shrug:

Who knows, it could very well have been the height at the time (remember, the designs are in flux) or it could be a different tower altogether. It could even be the height of the tower now. We'll know for certain when plans are adjusted, or renderings are revealed, which probably won't be any time soon.

MarshallKnight Aug 19, 2013 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6237083)
Who knows, it could very well have been the height at the time (remember, the designs are in flux) or it could be a different tower altogether. It could even be the height of the tower now. We'll know for certain when plans are adjusted, or renderings are revealed, which probably won't be any time soon.

It's definitely possible that it is referring to 111 w57th isn't it, though? Even though SHOP is the architect of record on that, AS+GG could be the design architect. Although, if that article came out in March, then I don't really know how that jives with the timeline for that building.

sbarn Aug 19, 2013 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarshallKnight (Post 6237279)
It's definitely possible that it is referring to 111 w57th isn't it, though? Even though SHOP is the architect of record on that, AS+GG could be the design architect. Although, if that article came out in March, then I don't really know how that jives with the timeline for that building.

I don't think SHoP would be the architect of record on 111 w57th - I don't think they would want to be anything other than the design architect.

Anyway, it would be a shame if this building is reduced from 1,550 to 1,200 ft. However, at this point, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

babybackribs2314 Aug 19, 2013 6:31 PM

The actual Nordstrom store will be 280'+ tall, so it will be about the same size as the adjacent building; I'd be surprised if there were setbacks for the store itself. It's going to be enormous.

Zapatan Aug 19, 2013 7:42 PM

I always had a sneaking suspicion 1550 was too tall for NYC. :shrug:

ILNY Aug 19, 2013 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6237452)
I always had a sneaking suspicion 1550 was too tall for NYC. :shrug:


That would be first 1500+ footer in NYC, almost too good to be true.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.