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)

ILNY Mar 17, 2014 3:38 AM

3.14.14
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2798/1...6a105d64_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/1...475fb64f_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3777/1...ac4d075d_b.jpg



http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2743/1...5d87eff8_b.jpg

nbrandwein Mar 21, 2014 8:40 PM

According to www.yimbynews.com, 220
Central Park South will now rise to 1031' - surely this will precipitate Extell keeping the original 1550' of this tower to preserve more unobstructed apartment views?

Barbarossa Mar 21, 2014 9:30 PM

I noticed on the work in progress sign there is no rendering like there is with other projects. Are they still designing it?

NYguy Mar 21, 2014 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbrandwein (Post 6506064)
According to www.yimbynews.com, 220
Central Park South will now rise to 1031' - surely this will precipitate Extell keeping the original 1550' of this tower to preserve more unobstructed apartment views?

Not necessarily. While that would be great news for this tower, an extra 80 ft isn't going to drastically alter Barnett's tower.

Zapatan Mar 21, 2014 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6506207)
Not necessarily. While that would be great news for this tower, an extra 80 ft isn't going to drastically alter Barnett's tower.

This is true but what will take away from his tower is that Steinway and 432 are about the same height as it, which I think will look weird to be honest. Obviously it's still awesome these buildings are getting built but picturing 3 buildings next to central park that are all ~1400 might look a little odd.

TechTalkGuy Mar 22, 2014 1:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6506276)
Obviously it's still awesome these buildings are getting built but picturing 3 buildings next to central park that are all ~1400 might look a little odd.

Actually, having so many supertalls near Central Park South sounds perfect to me! :P

Zapatan Mar 22, 2014 1:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6506499)
Actually, having so many supertalls near Central Park South sounds perfect to me! :P

Oh absolutely, I wasn't trying to make it sound like a bad thing but it would be nice if there was a little variation between their heights... but obviously beggars can't be choosers. :frog:

TechTalkGuy Mar 22, 2014 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6506503)
Oh absolutely, I wasn't trying to make it sound like a bad thing but it would be nice if there was a little variation between their heights... but obviously beggars can't be choosers. :frog:

What would be odd is proposing towers near the Rockaways or on Roosevelt Island. :rolleyes:

Perklol Mar 22, 2014 1:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6506503)
Oh absolutely, I wasn't trying to make it sound like a bad thing but it would be nice if there was a little variation between their heights... but obviously beggars can't be choosers. :frog:

True. I think 225 would have been 1550' if 220 CPS wasn't getting in the way. It had to cantilever because of 220 CPS.
At least we are getting some limestone on CPS/58th Street.

Zapatan Mar 22, 2014 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6506517)
True. I think 225 would have been 1550' if 220 CPS wasn't getting in the way. It had to cantilever because of 220 CPS.
At least we are getting some limestone on CPS/58th Street.

Do we know for sure it's not going to be 1550?

For all we know when Barnett said he could have gone bigger but didn't he meant going past that height since I think he could have.

It would be really nice if it could at least trump Sears since that's been the highest roof for the past 40 years, time to upgrade America

wilfredo267 Mar 22, 2014 2:57 AM

l think that the odds of this this being taller than Willis at least are greater than the 1,550 figure. l hope l'm wrong.

gttx Mar 22, 2014 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6506536)
It would be really nice if it could at least trump Sears since that's been the highest roof for the past 40 years, time to upgrade America

I'm sure Adrian Smith would get some smug satisfaction out of that.

nomad11 Mar 28, 2014 8:02 PM

Apparently, more applications filed today which still maintains the 1550' figure...keep those fingers crossed!

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

King DenCity Mar 28, 2014 9:39 PM

You can guarantee we all will keep our fingers crossed. :)

King DenCity Mar 28, 2014 9:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6506536)
Do we know for sure it's not going to be 1550?

For all we know when Barnett said he could have gone bigger but didn't he meant going past that height since I think he could have.

It would be really nice if it could at least trump Sears since that's been the highest roof for the past 40 years, time to upgrade America

Haha "trump" :)

Zapatan Mar 29, 2014 3:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomad11 (Post 6516584)
Apparently, more applications filed today which still maintains the 1550' figure...keep those fingers crossed!

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


They probably haven't updated that part, it might just be another mistake like 220 central park being 1031 feet.

That's what I'm going to assume for now unless it really is 1550 and I will be more than pleasantly surprised. :yes:

NYguy Mar 29, 2014 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomad11 (Post 6516584)
Apparently, more applications filed today which still maintains the 1550' figure...keep those fingers crossed!

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


That's a new filing for work, with a reference to the original new building permit that was filed in 2012. Until that permit is altered, newer permits will continue to reflect the 1,550 ft height, with the permits for various work on the site continuing to be filed.

Zapatan Mar 29, 2014 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6517755)
That's a new filing for work, with a reference to the original new building permit that was filed in 2012. Until that permit is altered, newer permits will continue to reflect the 1,550 ft height, with the permits for various work on the site continuing to be filed.


Yea, but I'm surprised he wouldn't want to push it a little higher considering 111 will now likely rise to about 1400' and obviously 432 park avenue to that same height.

Even if it were in the 1480-1500 range it would have an edge over those buildings.

NYguy Mar 29, 2014 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6517763)
Yea, but I'm surprised he wouldn't want to push it a little higher considering 111 will now likely rise to about 1400' and obviously 432 park avenue to that same height.

Even if it were in the 1480-1500 range it would have an edge over those buildings.

You don't know that he hasn't. Barnett has said the tower would be lower after purchasing the rights for the cantilever. The smart money would be to go with whatever he says. But the new building information hasn't been filed or revealed, so there's always a chance that it's something different.

Every permit filed after the new building permit is a reference to that job. It's still the same building, even when the height changes.

Submariner Mar 29, 2014 10:13 PM

Ultimately, whether it's 1424 or 1550 feet in height, we're still getting a very tall tower. That being said, if we are spending energy hoping for one outcome or another, I think we should all be wishing for a tower of the caliber of 111w 57th, and not what we have seen in renderings for 225w 57th...


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:02 AM.

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