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)

CCs77 Apr 4, 2014 12:37 AM

Moving Up in the World
Structural gymnastics help ultrathin, ultra-tall residential towers for the ultrarich make their mark on the Manhattan skyline.

By James S. Russell, FAIA
http://archrecord.construction.com/t...-the-World.asp

Quote:

In New York City these days, residential towers cannot be too slim or too tall. The improbably slender form of One57, now fully enclosed, is the furthest along of a new crop of super-thin, supertall, super-luxe residential towers. Designed by Atelier Christian de Portzamparc for Extell Development Company, with glass panels of blue, pewter, and silver, it rises 1,004 feet, hundreds higher than even its tallest neighbors.
Quote:

Nearby, SHoP Architects is still refining its design for the 1,350-foot-tall building planned for 111 West 57th Street. So far, it is the slimmest of about a dozen super-skinny, supertall towers planned or under construction in New York. The ultrathin buildings are intended to lure buyers willing to plunk down as much as $95 million for a home perched high in the sky
Quote:

Codes define a slender building as one that is more than seven times as high as the narrowest side at its base. In the Skyscraper Museum's recent show Sky High and the Logic of Luxury, Willis exhibited towers she calls super-slender—those with at least a 1:12 ratio. The slenderness ratio of 111 West 57th is a startling 1:24.

Quote:

Core Principles

The simplest tactic to combat those forces is to add weight, especially at the top of the building, but Marcus says that's just a first step. The engineer must engage the building's entire structural system by strengthening the connection of the core to the perimeter columns and shear walls. To stiffen 111 West 57th Street, WSP thickened the shear walls that run the full length of the east and west exterior walls to as much as 3 feet, and linked them to the core with deep beams.

The building's 15½-foot floor-to-floor heights left plenty of space above the ceilings to conceal the stiffening beams. The dimension not only suited the engineer's purpose: the floor-to-floor height also coincides with the maximum code-permitted run of the exit stairs. That allows the floor space given over to the core to be minimized, especially as the two required exit routes are nested atop each other in a “scissor” configuration. The generosity of the resulting 12-foot-high finished ceiling has become a selling point.


Before people panic, please note that it says 1300 ft aproximately, it is not that they reduced the height, in the text of the article you can see that still says 1350 ft.
So please don't begin to ask if they reduced the height, they didn't


Crawford Apr 4, 2014 2:33 AM

This building is so bad-ass it even kicks Tower Verre's ass.

If the upcoming 57th Street towers want to stand out, they will have to top this (both in terms of design and height). That's going to require creative developers with creativity and cojones.

Zapatan Apr 4, 2014 3:18 AM

Quote:

Before people panic, please note that it says 1300 ft aproximately, it is not that they reduced the height, in the text of the article you can see that still says 1350 ft.
So please don't begin to ask if they reduced the height, they didn't


I thought it was supposed to be around 1400' now? :uhh:

Looking good though

wilfredo267 Apr 4, 2014 3:34 AM

That's a mistake. SHOP said the tower was approximately 1,400 ft.



You can watch the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIy2HPTCz3g

CCs77 Apr 4, 2014 4:05 AM

Oh come on! just what I didn't wanted, to start another boring discussion about the height! It seems it started anyway.

As far as we know, officially, the height of this building is still 1350 ft. the guy at the conference said it would be approximately fourteen hundred feet, again, the key word is approximately, He may just round up to fourteen hundred, I don't know why is there such a big deal about that.

I think that building is more interesting than just 50 feet more or less.

WonderlandPark Apr 4, 2014 4:09 AM

this one seems to be languishing. lots of talk, no prep or concrete.

Submariner Apr 4, 2014 4:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 6525721)
this one seems to be languishing. lots of talk, no prep or concrete.

Pictures from March 17th show equipment on site, but no digging had taken place.

Crawford Apr 4, 2014 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 6525721)
this one seems to be languishing. lots of talk, no prep or concrete.

The opposite is true. 111 is likely, by far, the fastest moving project on 57th Street.

111 W.57 was announced just a few months ago, and already approvals, financing and demolition.

432 Park was initially announced as an office project back in 2003 or so, then the site wasn't demolished until 2007 or so, then construction didn't begin until 2012.

The Nordstrom Tower and One57 sites basically took 10 years from land acquisition to development.

250 East 57th Street was announced around 10 years ago, and yet construction just began a few months ago.

But worst of all is the Durst site at 57th & 6th. This site was demolished for a tower in the late 1990's, and yet still hasn't broken ground, supposedly because they're still negotiating for additional buildings and air rights. 52 W. 57, due to location and air rights, could be the most impressive yet if Durst can pull it off.

To be fair, Durst didn't acquire 52 W. 57 until relatively recently, so the delays aren't really his fault.

Perklol Apr 4, 2014 4:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 6525721)
this one seems to be languishing. lots of talk, no prep or concrete.

I agree. Talk is cheap on SSP.

I also don't understand why these articles round off numbers. If it's 1350 ft. then say 1350 not "about" 1400' or "almost" 1300.

Crawford Apr 4, 2014 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6525760)

I also don't understand why these articles round off numbers. If it's 1350 ft. then say 1350 not 1400' or 1300.

Because SSP is not representative of 99.9% of the planet. No one outside of SSP gives a crap about the exact height of a building.

It would be like asking the exact width of a building, or the exact cost of a building. Do you really care if this building costs 1.45 billion or 1.47 billion? Probably not.

yankeesfan1000 Apr 4, 2014 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6525759)
The opposite is true. 111 is likely, by far, the fastest moving project on 57th Street.

111 W.57 was announced just a few months ago, and already approvals, financing and demolition...

Did I miss this?

sbarn Apr 4, 2014 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6525737)
Pictures from March 17th show equipment on site, but no digging had taken place.

I agree. Time to see some action on this one. The lack of construction activity makes all these articles seem more tortuous.

Also, has financing been confirmed?

NYguy Apr 4, 2014 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilfredo267 (Post 6525681)
That's a mistake. SHOP said the tower was approximately 1,400 ft.

It's probably a rounded number, it could be more or less. Previously the tower was stated to be "about" 1,300 ft. The 1,350 ft figure is the only figure we have at this point, its basically what everyone has been using until the actual height is revealed. So yeah, you are going to see that number until then. However, both SHoP and Stern said it was a 1,400 ft tower. Take it as you will.



Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 6525721)
this one seems to be languishing. lots of talk, no prep or concrete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6525760)
I agree. Talk is cheap on SSP.


Yeah, I mean really, this thing should be half risen already.




http://www.rew-online.com/2014/04/04...nd-best-deals/
Builders crunching numbers to land best deals


April 4, 2014


Quote:

Michael Stern:
We are finishing up at Walker Tower. There is one unit left, a penthouse. We are working on another conversion on West 50th and 9th Avenue called Stella Tower, a 51-unit, 120,000 square foot project. We just broke ground on a condo conversion and a new tower at 111 West 57th Street at 6th Avenue, the former Steinway Building. In Brooklyn, we are starting a new job on Baltic and 4th Avenues which will be about 65 units on the Park Slope side of 4th Avenue. Our big rental project on 1st Avenue and 35th Street is 800 units and just under one million square feet.

James Nelson: Michael, you’re building 1,300 feet high on 57th Street, what are the hard costs there?

Michael Stern:
Around $800 a foot, because the building is pretty exotic and tall, but in other places it’s significantly less. On our 1st Avenue rental project, hard costs will be more like $400 a foot, and that’s a 50-story and a 40-story project. So as Ken said, it’s really very site-specific and design-specific.


gttx Apr 4, 2014 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark (Post 6525721)
this one seems to be languishing. lots of talk, no prep or concrete.

The design isn't even finalized. Deep breaths.

JayPro Apr 4, 2014 1:35 PM

No...no "deep breaths" when you suddenly introduce into the converstion *all the more* of a reson for all the Nervious Nellies around here to start hyperventilating again.
Why would the architects have gone through all this presentation reigamarole inf they were *even at this point* unsure of what the thing would *even remotely* look like???

JayPro Apr 4, 2014 1:37 PM

PS If, however,I *am* reading correctly into what you say, whatever exterior tweakages affected by any height change would be minimal.

sbarn Apr 4, 2014 4:27 PM

Quote:

We just broke ground on a condo conversion and a new tower at 111 West 57th Street at 6th Avenue, the former Steinway Building.
Just curious, is this actually true? Has anyone actually seen construction activity on site?

Submariner Apr 4, 2014 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6526224)
Just curious, is this actually true? Has anyone actually seen construction activity on site?

I'll be in that area on Sunday and all 6'3" of me can try and peer over the fence and see what is going on. Perhaps someone can take a look at it sooner, though.

ILNY Apr 4, 2014 6:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6526290)
I'll be in that area on Sunday and all 6'3" of me can try and peer over the fence and see what is going on. Perhaps someone can take a look at it sooner, though.

No need, there is a gap in the fance.

Excavation has started the last time I was there on March 14.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3691/1...0fc971fe_b.jpg

sbarn Apr 4, 2014 7:13 PM

^^ I don't know if I would call that excavation... :shrug:


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:23 PM.

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