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)

King DenCity Nov 9, 2013 1:23 AM

^it's just mind blowing...

baseball1992 Nov 9, 2013 5:27 PM

Did they give any idea on when construction will begin on this?

King DenCity Nov 10, 2013 3:26 PM

^ first quarter of 2014 I believe.

ILNY Nov 11, 2013 4:44 AM

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3790/1...5fda3427_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7301/1...bc25001a_b.jpg

lakegz Nov 11, 2013 11:58 AM

Unbelievable how it's gonna rise through that tiniest sliver of space.

tommaso Nov 11, 2013 11:53 PM

This is gonna be a delight to witness!!:cool:

sbarn Nov 12, 2013 1:59 AM

I wonder how much demo needs to happen in order for this one to move forward. So eager to see this building rise! :cheers:

wilfredo267 Nov 12, 2013 2:17 AM

Does this project have financing? l'm eager to see this built.

NYguy Nov 12, 2013 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6335457)
I wonder how much demo needs to happen in order for this one to move forward. So eager to see this building rise! :cheers:

Less than originally planned. They altered that to appeal more to Landmarks during the approval. What will be demolished is the lowrise at the back of the courtyard (which you can barely see).

chris08876 Nov 12, 2013 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakegz (Post 6334630)
Unbelievable how it's gonna rise through that tiniest sliver of space.

Going to be a different experience looking at it from the street. And its funny how at one point we all though 432 Park Ave was small.

King DenCity Nov 12, 2013 6:32 PM

When it goes up i will feel like i'm looking at a game of jenga and wondering which crane is gonna knock it down ;)

NYguy Nov 19, 2013 1:23 PM

http://shoparc.com/mediaitems/all


Quote:

Gregg isn't the only one building with Legos at SHoP, check out Chris Sharples's Lego model of our 57th street tower


http://shoparc.com/sites/default/fil...00698892_8.jpg

King DenCity Nov 19, 2013 7:54 PM

^Haha! That's so cool!

NYguy Nov 22, 2013 2:03 PM

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...top-featured-2

Central Park, and the billionaires' shadow

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/...es/one57_1.jpg


By Jim Windolf
Nov. 22, 2013


Quote:

.....I was walking through Battery Park on my way to the Skyscraper Museum, founded in 1996 by Carol Willis, an architectural historian who teaches urban studies at Columbia University. She was leading a 3 p.m. tour of her latest exhibit, "Sky High: The Logic of Luxury," which focuses on the advent of tall, skinny buildings throughout Manhattan, with an emphasis on the ones at Central Park's south end.

My interest in the subject had been stoked by "Shadows Over Central Park," an Oct. 28 New York Times op-ed by Warren St. John. I was trying to determine for myself whether the shadows to be cast by the supertowers were worth worrying about—or was this just a micro-concern for urban wusses who like to complain about almost any change?

Willis is an energetic woman in her sixties. The color of her loose, curly hair is academic white. She launched into an enthusiastic, slam-bang history of skyscrapers for me and the five other men who had shown up before hitting her main topic: the new breed of unusually thin towers.

One of these is the nearly completed glass tower called One57, a 1,004-foot residential building at 157 West 57th Street. This is the structure made famous during superstorm Sandy, when a crane dangled from an upper story, causing an evacuation. It made news once again last month, when one of its apartments, a duplex penthouse, reportedly sold for more than $90 million. Gary Barnett's Extell Development Company is the builder, working from plans by Christian de Portzamparc, who won the 1994 Pritzker Prize for architecture.

The developer Harry Macklowe is deep into construction of another such building, 432 Park, not far to the east of One57; it will reach a height of 1,396 feet—technically higher than the new World Trade Center, which tops out at 1,368 feet, before its spire hits the magic number of 1,776.

Another residential tower—this one to come in at 1,350 feet, developed by Michael Stern's JDS Construction Group—will rise between the Macklowe and Barnett buildings. The Skyscraper Museum's exhibit features large-scale models of all three, and Willis seemed house-proud as she showed them off.

"Engineers could have built slender buildings for decades," she said. "In effect, there's nothing very special about the technology of them. It's the land value of New York, and it's New York's characteristic zoning and air-rights transfers of property that allow for the buildings to become very tall. And it's the view of Central Park that creates the high prices. When a developer thinks about his projects, he knows how much money he is going to make. Today we have an excited market, and these buildings are commanding $6,000 to $8,000—even $13,000—per square foot, sales prices that allow you take the next step in development logic of these buildings, which is the logic of luxury."

After the tour, Willis told me to think of the towers as special entities similar, in a way, to "rare flowers that can grow only in the Galapagos Islands," because a combination of special factors (an exuberant market, the rise of the billionaire class, the Central Park views) has made made them specific architectural creatures native to Manhattan. Buildings in Dubai, to which they are often compared, are actually fatter, Willis said; the only similar structure is in Hong Kong.

When I asked her, in a phone interview, about the issue of the Central Park shadows, she said: "It's really important to know how slender these buildings are. People imagine the shadows will be huge and overbearing, but the shadow for 111 57th Street is going to be 50 feet wide and it's going to travel very quickly. The super slender towers are a new form in the history of the skyscraper. Once we begin to appreciate that part of it, and get away from the outrage of the $90-million penthouses and the resentment that rich people are going to throw shadows onto Central Park, then they become something special, rather than just another mundane tower."


The next morning it was sunny and 36 degrees. I stood in Central Park to see One57's shadow with my own eyes. At 10:45 it lay diagonally across the park's southwest corner and it was 45 paces wide. A bearded British tourist stood within its bounds, aiming his camera at One57. He snapped a picture, and I asked him what he thought of it. "It's awesome, isn't it?" he said. I told him it had just been built, and he said, "Really?" To him, One57 was not an interloper. It belonged to the cityscape as much as the Essex House, with its charmingly cheesy sign.

An old man with a white beard sat on a smooth glacial rock in the sun. I watched him as he removed his jacket and lay down, now using the jacket as a blanket. He scratched himself and seemed to fall asleep. Ten minutes later, the shadow took him in. He sat up and looked around with an attitude of, "What the hell just happened?" He stood and walked north, where the One57 shadow was stretching into the Heckscher softball fields.

By itself, the shadow of One57 may be no big deal. But it struck me as unfair that, sometime next year, someone who paid $90 million for a glass-walled, floor-through residence will lounge in full sunshine while the old man will have less light of his own. And it will be more unfair when other shadows join that of One57 in a race across the park. In addition to the three buildings I have mentioned, Barnett (of Extell) hopes to build yet another needle tower, at the corner of Broadway and West 57th Street. And it has been reported that a sale is pending for the rather homely Helmsley Park Lane Hotel, which stands even closer to the park's edge, at 36 Central Park South. Steven Witkoff's Witkoff Group has offered some $660 million for it.

The logic of luxury, followed to its extreme, would suggest that Witkoff tear down the 46-story Park Lane and replace it with a needle tower capable of fetching, oh, $8-13,000 per square foot. (Less clear is whether he can.) But the more certain thing is just down the block, at 220 Central Park South: Madave Properties, a partnership of Steven Roth's Vornado Realty Trust and Veronica Hackett's Clarett Group (these names!), has emerged from a legal duel with Barnett and hopes to put up a slim condominium of its own, at 920 feet, to be designed by Robert A.M. Stern, the architect of the nearby 15 Central Park West. Real-estate gods willing, a total of six towers will stand between the sun and the park—meaning six shadows will creep across the rocks and grass.

Perklol Nov 22, 2013 2:09 PM

That picture makes the problem look 10x worse. Is it really that bad?

NYguy Nov 22, 2013 2:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6349096)
That picture makes the problem look 10x worse. Is it really that bad?

I don't know what you mean. At any time of the day there are going to be shadows over Central Park because it's ringed by skyscrapers. New Yorkers are used to it, nobody goes to Central Park for sun. Of course, the further away you get from the tallest towers, the more sun you will find. I'm in Central Park a lot, and the sun is hardly of any concern to me - regardless of the time of year. There are times I could do without it (for photography).

JayPro Nov 22, 2013 2:35 PM

This piece is just more anti-development, NIMBYist twattage on display, as if dummying up a propagandized editorial's going to turn back the clock on progress.
SMH.

Submariner Nov 22, 2013 3:11 PM

Yeah, NIMBY's will use any excuse and latch on to any scare tactic. Nothing new here, just some grade A insanity.

Perklol Nov 22, 2013 3:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6349116)
I don't know what you mean. At any time of the day there are going to be shadows over Central Park because it's ringed by skyscrapers. New Yorkers are used to it, nobody goes to Central Park for sun. Of course, the further away you get from the tallest towers, the more sun you will find. I'm in Central Park a lot, and the sun is hardly of any concern to me - regardless of the time of year. There are times I could do without it (for photography).

I meant the photograph with the article makes this shadows over the park look like "doom and gloom" situation to prove their point. I'm pretty sure those shadows on the park have nothing to do with nearby buildings.

I agree that this is a scare tactic.

Crawford Nov 22, 2013 4:09 PM

The shadows in Central Park are 99% from trees and structures in Central Park. Obviously tall buildings outside the park are not a major contributing factor, and the article is just NIMBY idiocy.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 AM.

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