Nobody in it? There is Nordstrom at the base and a hotel below the condominiums. It will have far more foot traffic than its predecessor, even without counting the residents who will be in their homes at any given time. Even One57 has lots of foot traffic, since it's also a Park Hyatt hotel. Retail in that area has improved a lot since a Park Hyatt guest and One57 condo owners obviously have more money than the people who frequented the dumpy buildings they replaced.

There are no cons.

That's ridiculous.

I think this tower is very sleek, but I am so annoyed at the constant height changes. And after 40 something years, all we can do is 70 feet higher than the Sears Tower? Big deal.

Great news friend. I am happy to be a citizen of the empire. Ruled under Ramses himself. May his glory sprout numerous towers as we move towards the new golden age. :cheers:

As you say,El cuidad esta En Fuego!!!! :) Y las mujeres (húmedo y en el fuego), también. Nueva York tiene la mejor muchachas del mundo.

Tu eres el hombre, amigo! :cheers:

Wie du bereits gesagt hast, diese Stadt ist nicht aufzuhalten! Sie glüht förmlich und das ist erst der Anfang! Und die Frauen werden feucht wenn sie an New York denken.
Ja, New York hat die geilsten Mädchen der Welt!

;)

^^^^

I agree. That's why all one needs is a nice suit, nice scruff to go with it, and its paradise. :cheers:

Just like this tower, one must look stylish and they all come flocking. Pull up in the S550 Benz too. :)

Sweet!! :cheers:

:cheers:

Imagine that with Park Lane and whatever rises at 29 W 57th, let alone, Hadassah, the 57th St Church site, the Qatari Times Sq. site, 1700 B'Way, etc.

However, I think that the most colossal tower will rise at 52-56 W 57th!

Keep it english, as is the rest of the thread. ;)




Yes. People are somehow under the impression that these towers will be vertical "ghost towns".



There's been nothing as tall as the Sears Tower built here (the west) in 40 years, so yes, this is a very big deal.




Probably the best rendering to date of the group. The spire looks better here, but I would still like to see a symetrical spire on top, give it more of a NY look.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/160447290/original.jpg

I'll agree with the the first part; not 100% sure about the second part, though. ;)

Cheers to Yimby and Otie for their great work.

Going by the spire design and top section of the building, this render looks to be the 1530 ft version...

Is that the time square site? It's insane (in a good way, not impossible) to think of something even taller than Nordstrom rising soon.

True, it took the entire world 30 years to build higher than Sears' roof, and Taipei 101 was still arguably shorter to some. It wasn't until the Shanghai WFC and the ICC in Hong Kong that Sears was dethroned in the roof category, and not until the Burj Khalifa for all categories. So this is obviously a very massive tower.

I've seen Sears (a touch shorter) and Shanghai WFC (a touch taller) in person and almost fell over backwards. The WTC and 432 park also have that kind of effect.



...

No it's an empty site on the south side of 57th that extends to 56th. It's just east of Sixth. However, the owner Morris Jeffries also owns a free-market rental tower next door. It also extends from 56th to 57th.

Morris Jeffries owned the empty lot on B'Way that became 15 CPW.

I've heard discussion of that lot quite recently. Would be nice if it yields a +400 meter tower.

Are there any recent renderings of the spire? I can't pass judgement until I really know the design. It doesn't look bad, but i feel it looks more Chicago than New York.
Just my 2cents.

I much appreciate the asymmetrical aspect of this spire.
It fits handsomely atop this flat-roofed glass needle-tower.
It's off-centeredness is rakishly more "abstract" and seems solidly anchored at a corner.
Its placement goes with the international-style & "moderne" feel of the architecture. . .
like the old flat Prudential in Chicago with its hefty off-center spire. . . (or is it PSFS bldg. in Philly ? . . . oh well) . . .
One Vanderbilt will wear its more appropriately symmetrical central spire well.
It visually continues the flow - tapering up concentrically out of the building's crown . . .
as on Chrysler - Empire - 40W - 70 Pine . . . It's a gesture of fulfillment - culmination.
A spire perched in the middle of a FLAT roof - seems somehow awkward -
out of place - plunked down - cut off - not integrated - undeservedly pompous.
Though perfectly secure - it gives me the impression of being unanchored - glued down.
Chicago solved the problem by doubling the spire on Hancock - Sears - ATT.
(Two's company & nobody's out there in the middle alone - trying to fulfill expectations)
The flat-topped original Twins and the New York Times towers
have (had) spires that seem (to my perception) ill-considered . . .
Ugly to start - a fat sawed-off white pipe afterthought trying to be invisible on WTC -
then a barely visible "what for?" toothpick trying to be talented on the NYT bldg.. . .
both made worse by being stranded out there in the middle of a flat stage . . .
for no good design reason.
Considering the new WTC antenna - well that would be an all-nighter . . .
BofA (NYC) ? - all those angles sort of sweep upwards . . but not quite . . .
But here - this antenna/spire on 217W 57 - its perfect.

If it were a single pole, I'm not convinced, but perhaps.

But this spire is not that. This spire itself has multple setbacks, similar to the way the Empire State's spire rises into it's antenna.


Even if I were to agree that the spire is perfect for this tower, which I don't, it's still not typical of New York design as far as spires go. However, I do like that it has setbacks, mirroring the design of 111 W. 57th.

30665 posts vs.14 . . . uh - ok.
You're entitled to disagree.