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)

Guiltyspark Jan 20, 2016 8:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 7305131)
Yeah but 111's footprint has got to be less than a quarter of any of the classic downtown towers.

Maybe the footprint, the the main bulk of those old towers are incredibly thin.

NYguy Jan 21, 2016 4:54 AM

And these thin residential towers are being built with the express purpose of putting units higher up. Higher units, better views. Better views, more money. It's literally the highest and best use of that land, what brings in the most bucks. It's whey so few places can support such towers, and only a select few places will. In either case, it will be an improvement on the skyline, which will have a variety of new skyline elements redefining New York for the next century.


The 57th Street gang...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/162381317/original.jpg

1Boston Jan 22, 2016 3:14 PM

https://56.media.tumblr.com/063570d9...muoo1_1280.jpg


https://56.media.tumblr.com/eca9198d...muoo2_1280.jpg

Tumblr Link

What once was, ca. 1916

chris08876 Jan 23, 2016 3:14 PM

https://standard-discourseorg.netdna..._1_375x500.jpg
Credit: walpole

punchydj Jan 24, 2016 12:36 PM

Hi guys!

There is the construction progress during the year 2015:

Video Link


Thank you!!!

punchydj Feb 7, 2016 3:12 PM

Hi guys!

There is the progress during the month of January.

Video Link


Thank you!!!

Zapatan Feb 8, 2016 11:08 PM

Where did the 1,495 figure come from?

NYguy Feb 9, 2016 3:29 AM

Brandon Nagle



https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gtC3Ipr2...0/DSCN3191.JPG

ILNY Feb 15, 2016 3:40 AM

From yesterday.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1638/...476d7106_o.jpg


https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1649/...9be86cc6_o.jpg


Looks like the tower is about to take off. I am surprised there was no piling or any excavation more than about 10 ft done. Can somebody explain how a 1400 ft super slim tower be constructed without deep foundation?

NYguy Feb 15, 2016 4:29 AM

Sweet baby, it's ready to rise....:cheers:


http://therealdeal.com/2016/02/10/le...-west-57th-st/

Lender Apollo defends economics of 111 West 57th St.


February 10, 2016
By Katherine Clarke


Quote:

...Apollo provided a $325 million mezzanine loan for the West 57th Street project last year, as part of a $725 million financing which also comprised a $400 million first mortgage loan from AIG.

The developers are projecting a sellout of $1.45 billion for 65 apartments, according to the offering plan, which was approved by the New York Attorney General in October. The priciest condo is asking $58 million, or $8,179 per foot. A spokesperson for JDS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Welcome2Boise Feb 16, 2016 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 7335862)
Looks like the tower is about to take off. I am surprised there was no piling or any excavation more than about 10 ft done. Can somebody explain how a 1400 ft super slim tower be constructed without deep foundation?

Parts of Manhattan have very shallow bedrock. Once you hit it, you need not dig further unless you are building out basement space. I'm just assuming this is one of those spots. But I don't have a geological map handy to prove my point. :cheers:

Citylover94 Feb 16, 2016 3:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welcome2Boise (Post 7336617)
Parts of Manhattan have very shallow bedrock. Once you hit it, you need not dig further unless you are building out basement space. I'm just assuming this is one of those spots. But I don't have a geological map handy to prove my point. :cheers:

That is exactly what has to be the case because by contrast the new Four Seasons tower in Boston which will only be 755' will have a 160' deep foundation to reach the bedrock below it.

ILNY Feb 16, 2016 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welcome2Boise (Post 7336617)
Parts of Manhattan have very shallow bedrock. Once you hit it, you need not dig further unless you are building out basement space. I'm just assuming this is one of those spots. But I don't have a geological map handy to prove my point. :cheers:


Correct, bedrock is shallow along W 57th street but the tower does not need to be anchored to resist vertical wind shear force?

Citylover94 Feb 16, 2016 6:58 PM

You don't have to blast into bedrock to anchor the tower to it depending on the type of foundation used it isn't usually necessary to dig into the bedrock because you can anchor a tower to bedrock without doing that. In some cases some buildings even supertall skyscrapers don't even go to bedrock. For example the Petronas towers use a special type of piling that is made to reach almost to bedrock between 60 and 100 feet beneath the building and uses friction to anchor the building the piles extend from a large concrete raft foundation structure that anchors the building and the two foundation types work together to allow the building to resist wind and seismic stresses on the building.

In this case they will be able to anchor the building to bedrock. The above just shows that there is no risk to the tower by not going deeper and the only reasons to go deeper are in situations like that described above where the bedrock is far below a building and there is not necessarily a need to anchor directly to bedrock. There are so many variables involved in what type of foundation and anchoring is used that until they start constructing that for this building I could not tell you how they will do it for this tower, but there is no risk of it falling so long as they have designed the structural support system correctly. Even then if there is an issue found later that could most likely be corrected at the time as has been done in the past with other buildings such as the Citigroup Center in New York and the John Hancock Building in Boston.

Welcome2Boise Feb 16, 2016 7:03 PM

Deleted, better answer above. :)

Vortex11 Feb 17, 2016 7:34 PM

Is this website new, or has it been up a while?

http://111w57.com/

hunser Feb 17, 2016 9:08 PM

^ That website went online on March 2015. :)

hunser Feb 18, 2016 12:58 PM

That 1,495' figure keeps popping up. If true, that would be utterly amazing having two 1,500 footers so close to each other. :crazy:

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/1...7th_street.php

Absurdly Luxe Interiors Coming to 111 West 57th Street
Monday, December 28, 2015, by Zoe Rosenberg

Quote:

At about $8,000 per square foot, JDS Development Group and Property Market Group's 111 West 57th Street will be home to some of the most expensive residences in New York City. So of course the skinny supertall's interiors will reflect that staggering opulence. Other than the few renderings of the project's interiors that were revealed in early April, details surrounding its finishes have been scant. William Sofield, whose namesake firm is handling the building's interiors, sat down with Architectural Digest to chat about the "pornographically expensive" project, revealing a few more unknowns all while testing out some totally tone-deaf rhetoric (h/t LLNYC).
Quote:

[AD Interviewer]: What's the latest and greatest from Studio Sofield?

[William Sofield]: Our big project is 111 West 57th Street, the new needle building that's going up above Steinway Hall. SHoP is doing the architecture, and we're doing all the interiors. It's quite a production—about 1,495 feet high and 58 feet wide, so it's too thin to kill any of the trees in Central Park.

[AD Interviewer]: [reviewing drawings] This looks swank! I suppose the building is yet another pornographically expensive project?

WS: On a scale of one to over-the-top, it's over-the-top. I think the apartments will sell for something like $8,000 per square foot, which is roughly what the fabrics we specified cost.

[AD Interviewer]: Pity the vanishing middle class.

WS: I thought this was middle class!

chris08876 Feb 18, 2016 4:27 PM

This tower, 30 Hudson, and 340 Flatbush have to be the best projects going on right now. Arguably the most radical designs currently in this century for the area.

Quote:

[AD Interviewer]: Pity the vanishing middle class.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/c2/c2ff...adb78a66f6.jpg

:P

NYguy Feb 19, 2016 3:09 PM

About that 1,495 ft height, we'll see...


http://therealdeal.com/2016/02/18/fi...t-57th-street/

First Look: Inside the sales gallery and model unit at 111 West 57th Street
JDS, PMG project has projected sellout of $1.45B



http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up...teinway-11.jpg


February 18, 2016
By Katherine Clarke



http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up...teinway-10.jpg



http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up...teinway-12.jpg



http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up...steinway-7.jpg


Quote:

JDS Development and Property Markets Group have managed to keep visuals of 111 West 57th Street, the ultra-skinny tower at the Steinway building on Billionaires’ Row, largely under wraps, aside from a couple of hand-picked renderings doled out to the press.

But prospective buyers can finally get a glimpse at what the pricey apartments will actually look like, thanks to a series of images of the building’s sales gallery and model unit spotted by The Real Deal via a tipster.

The images were promptly removed from the website of photographer Evan Joseph once the developers were reached for comment, but TRD took screen shots. The images give a first look at the building’s luxe finishes, including its grand onyx bathtubs, dark wood kitchens and sweeping staircases.
The developers declined to comment on the images, saying that sales were yet to formally kick off at the building.

JDS and PMG are projecting a sellout of $1.45 billion for 65 apartments, according to the offering plan, which was approved by the New York Attorney General in October. The priciest condo currently in the offering plan is asking $58 million, or $8,179 per foot.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:31 PM.

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