SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | 111 W 57th St | 1,428 FT | 85 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198228)

NYguy Apr 9, 2014 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6531627)
To rooftop I think they mean?

It's probably an accurate height, but its the first I've seen it anywhere...



http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...-new-york-city

Too Rich, Too Thin, Too Tall?


http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...treet-ss03.jpg

Michael Stern is the head of JDS Development Group, one of the companies building 111 West 57th Street.


By Paul Goldberger
May 2014


Quote:

And then there is 111 West 57th Street, designed by the architectural firm SHoP, which will be the thinnest tower of all, and quite possibly the most elegant: 1,397 feet, balanced on a base only 60 feet wide. The builders of 111 West 57th are Kevin Maloney of Property Markets Group and Michael Stern, the head of JDS Development Group. Stern broke into the Manhattan luxury market just recently by converting an old Art Deco telephone-exchange building on West 18th Street into the exceptionally sophisticated—and exceptionally successful—Walker Tower. Stern is a passionate enthusiast of New York architectural history (he named the 18th Street building for its original architect, Ralph Walker), and he seems genuinely eager to add to that history.

His tower, which will be sheathed mostly in glass on its north and south sides and will have supporting walls covered in bronze and terra-cotta on the east and west, will be slipped beside, and rise above, another landmark, the handsome, limestone-clad office building that houses Steinway Hall, the ornate piano showroom, at its base. SHoP’s design partners, Gregg Pasquarelli and Vishaan Chakrabarti, said that what they wanted most of all was to design a building that would feel as if it belonged in New York and no other place—that “has the DNA of New York, so you will know it wasn’t plucked off the skyline of Shanghai or Hong Kong,” as Pasquarelli said to me.

The building will rise straight up on its northern side, facing the park, but on the south it will gently set back in a series of steps so that the north-south dimension of the tower gradually gets thinner and thinner until it has no depth at all at the top and becomes just a glass wall at the building’s crown. It is a subtle and graceful re-interpretation in modern form of the stepped-back, “wedding cake” towers of New York’s past, seasoned by a sprinkling of a classic New York material, terra-cotta, all put together in a way that makes deft use of today’s technology. Of all the new towers, it is the only one that gets ever more delicate as it rises, ending not with a climactic crown but by almost disappearing into the sky.

photoLith Apr 9, 2014 8:15 PM

It looks as though the top 10 or so floors of 111 West 57th St are too thin to even have apartments or condos in them. I like all the towers but 111 just looks kinda ridiculous. Like its way way way too skinny and it may look quite odd.

Zapatan Apr 9, 2014 9:24 PM

Some of the heights are still off for those buildings but good to see this one could potentially be the same height as 432 :)

Barnett needs to go a bit higher lol

Crawford Apr 10, 2014 2:57 AM

I will definitely take 1,397 ft. for this tower. I guess that's what the constant references to "about 1,400 ft" or "almost 1,400 ft" were.

But, yeah, Barnett needs to add at least 100 ft. to 225 W57, and 31 W57 better have an impressive height too. Towers will really need to soar in this neighborhood to make an impression.

NYguy Apr 10, 2014 7:18 AM

I always presume that whatever height is given for this tower is a total height, including the glass crown.

It's interesting though, the way the 57th street towers always get lumped together in the media, and it's always with a sense if caution. Yet the massive supertowers of the west side are always presented with a sense if optimism and excitement.

nomad11 Apr 10, 2014 3:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6533132)
I always presume that whatever height is given for this tower is a total height, including the glass crown.

It's interesting though, the way the 57th street towers always get lumped together in the media, and it's always with a sense if caution. Yet the massive supertowers of the west side are always presented with a sense if optimism and excitement.

I think it's because the 57th street towers aren't being built to increase the vibrancy of street life in midtown (with the exception of Nordstrom) or to add new office space. They're basically 21st century castles for the global elite class. I'm not saying I'm against these buildings (so far I like the designs I've seen so far and buildings can always shift roles in their usage. How many art deco "office buildings" are now converted to residential?)

But from the media's perspective, the Hudson Yards is seen as a massive project which will include a ton of office space, a public observation deck, and a public plaza with (hopefully) impressive night life and cultural attractions. That's probably the main difference in the eyes of the media.

De Minimis NY Apr 10, 2014 4:55 PM

I think the sense of caution conveyed in reporting about the 57th Street towers also represents a justified concern about the questionable sustainability of dumping this much luxury supply on the market at once. How deep is the can the market for 25M+, or even 75M+ apartments really be?

It's indisputable that the population of NY will continue increase over time and that the drop of crime rates and general increase in cleanliness and pedestrian experience has changed the calculus for first-time buyers away from 20th Century trend of moving to the suburbs and towards starting families and buying right here in NYC. Despite any hiccups caused by interest rate increases or other minor shocks to the market in one direction or another, I think it's pretty safe to say that there is long-run sustainability for demand growth and thus continued development for condos in the 1-5M range. For towers relying so heavily on super-luxury pricing, though, where is all of the demand coming from? 5-10 years ago there were only a handful of apartments in the whole city that could have drawn prices that now serve as fundamental assumptions in the financial models for these projects. I know a lot of demand is coming from NY buyers (or so all of the major developers seem to say), but income growth in the city hasn't come close to the growth of pricing at this end of the market. With respect to money coming from abroad, we need to question the extent to which the demand represents a permanent change in appetite of a new class of global elite and to which extent it represents a desire for the global elite to park their money in a relatively safe asset class until global economic conditions become more stable.

I love the designs we are getting out of this luxury housing boom, but I think there is a very realistic possibility a bubble is forming in this sector of the market. Look at some of the beautiful apartments selling for 50M (say the penthouse at Walker Tower)... is that really only half the value of the top floors of One57? In a world where there are only a handful of penthouses at that height, it doesn't really matter how the value of those penthouses compares to other lower priced luxury options in NYC--all you really need are a handful of billionaires that simply don't care about relative value and want their trophy at any cost. Once you break through that initial group of wild-spending billionaires, though, most super rich people, even other billionaires, aren't going to pay twice the price for a penthouse in One57 than they would for the penthouse of One Madison Park. The One57 experience may be a bit better, but is there really 50M in difference between the two?

I hope I'm wrong, as I do love a lot of what's being planned, but I think the media is correct to report on this barrage of proposals with skepticism. It's like any other novelty item: people will pay crazy amounts to be the first to have something that didn't previously exist, but once the market reacts and the commodity becomes more widely available, that initial novelty value rapidly declines. If that happens and 100M penthouses start selling for 70M, projects based on the 100M assumption may stall out.

Hudson Yards is a different animal. No matter how you cut it, NYC needs more modern office space. Landmarking and pricing constraints make it difficult to deliver that space on the scale needed to meet demand in Midtown East and FiDi alone. In a worst-case scenario I can see market troubles delaying parts Hudson Yards beyond what is currently anticipated, but in the long run the fundamental needs of the city make it inevitable that this project will succeed eventually.

Zapatan Apr 10, 2014 6:06 PM

I wonder why they chose to make it the exact same height as 432?

Not that I'm complaining of course, that's really tall

Crawford Apr 10, 2014 7:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Minimis NY (Post 6533608)
How deep is the can the market for 25M+, or even 75M+ apartments really be?

I don't have an answer, but there are thousands of potential buyers, and actually not that many apartments in that price range.

Now whether you can get those buyers is another question, but they're definitely out there. Keep in mind that most of these buildings have very few units, especially if we're talking 25 million+ apartments.

De Minimis NY Apr 10, 2014 8:07 PM

^^I hope you're right. I also have no idea how much flexibility projects like these have on pricing before they get into trouble--an eventual decline in value for the most extreme end of the spectrum may not render projects unprofitable if mid-floor units hold value pretty well.

In either case, I trust any building from JDS to be well-designed enough to avoid being caught without a chair if the music ever does stop.

NYguy Apr 10, 2014 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Minimis NY (Post 6533608)
I think the sense of caution conveyed in reporting about the 57th Street towers also represents a justified concern about the questionable sustainability of dumping this much luxury supply on the market at once. How deep is the can the market for 25M+, or even 75M+ apartments really be?

The demand will answer that question. The same concern could be asked about office space being built or proposed on the west side, but it hardly is in the media. Only the WTC or proposed towers of the Grand Central area get that a lot.



Quote:

For towers relying so heavily on super-luxury pricing, though, where is all of the demand coming from? 5-10 years ago there were only a handful of apartments in the whole city that could have drawn prices that now serve as fundamental assumptions in the financial models for these projects.

I love the designs we are getting out of this luxury housing boom, but I think there is a very realistic possibility a bubble is forming in this sector of the market. Look at some of the beautiful apartments selling for 50M (say the penthouse at Walker Tower)... is that really only half the value of the top floors of One57?
You ask questions that the market will answer. It's the market, and not just "concerns" about it that will decide what gets built. None of that justifies the concern over these towers being built, because truthfully, the buildings are tall, but they aren't really that large. And New York has never been a timid city.

I think their primary concern is the number of tall buildings being built, but my point is that same concern is hardly found anywhere for the Hudson Yards, which will have much larger buildings, casting larger shadows.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/155173115/original.jpg

NYguy Apr 11, 2014 1:16 PM

I think this tops the addition to the Hearst building by Foster...possibly the best in the city's history.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/155184089/original.jpg

ILNY Apr 14, 2014 4:05 AM

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3745/...efc82364_b.jpg

SD_Phil Apr 14, 2014 4:31 AM

I can't believe how thin that lot is.

NYguy Apr 14, 2014 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil (Post 6538202)
I can't believe how thin that lot is.

It's a small lot. The building itself covers more than the lot. It's integrated with Steinway Hall, which is why it is considered an enlargement.

Hypothalamus Apr 21, 2014 12:48 AM

Some new toys on site. Ignore my finger!

As of April 20th, 2014...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/...276800c3_b.jpg
©Hypothalamus

Hypothalamus May 1, 2014 10:54 PM

As of May 1st, 2014...
Photo Credit: #99 on SSC

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7431/...41be0818_b.jpg
IMG_0077 by thenumber99, on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5240/...29c77c43_b.jpg
IMG_0080 by thenumber99, on Flickr

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2896/...a34161fb_b.jpg
IMG_0085 by thenumber99, on Flickr

chris08876 May 2, 2014 12:58 AM

Still hard to believe its going to be 1,350 ft given the site. Amazing how far engineering and technology has advanced with respect to skyscrapers.

dc_denizen May 2, 2014 1:12 AM

the question is do the economics require 100 MM condos, and would they still do ok with only 70 MM or 50 MM? What's the ROI on these things if the sales are as anticipated - must be gargantuan no?

Zapatan May 2, 2014 3:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6561365)
Still hard to believe its going to be 1,350 ft given the site. Amazing how far engineering and technology has advanced with respect to skyscrapers.

According to that one source it'll be 1397' which is slightly crazier :haha:


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:22 AM.

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