|
Quote:
|
I doubt it's sneaking up "very quietly", in fact 220 could very well be contemplating the end of its short-lived dominance over the area, and trying to live the moment as long as it lasts. But hey, I don't live in NY, and I could be totally wrong :P
Quote:
|
What is the height of cpt while now???
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^^^^Thanks NYguy for always posting new photos.
|
Quote:
|
There aren't many times or many places where you see two of the tallest towers to the roof rise just blocks with each other as seen in post #4953, pic #23. In the city, you have 57th Street/S.Park South for the view and the HY district (which has the largest super tall concentration currently rising and planned). All within just mere blocks of each other. We literally have super tall nodes rising. Back in the old days, millennia ago, like 1990, there as just the ESB and Chrysler in Midtown. Remember those sad days. The city seemed provincial back then, like a small village. Fast forward, and its a zoo of cranes.
|
Quote:
I don't know what they will call it when history looks back, but there's no denying we are witness to a special time. For me, this view from this block defines this era in New York. When One57 went up, it was seen as a giant on this stretch, with a damaged crane dangling 1,000 ft over Manhattan. Not many years later, it will seem quaint compared to the two towers rising on either side. It changes that fast. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...212_183505.jpg ScenEssence https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4646/3...b1fd5b86_k.jpg |
I've been gone for a while on work and have missed this forum. Thanks to all who keep us updated with photos. I was in Chicago a few weeks ago and there is plenty of construction going on, but the scale and feel of construction in NYC is just on another level. Thanks again to all of those who contribute the photos and other updates!
|
No doubt there are more interesting and more beautiful projects in NY, but man CPT just blows me away every single time, just cause it's gonna be the tallest(?), probably. Thanks NYguy for all your pictures. They are worth every second spent on the forum. :cheers:
|
The forum is not the same without pics, so the more the merrier. In fact, I started posting here because I was inspired by the pics.
Also, I agree there's a lot going on. It can seem overwhelming at times, but it's a time we can't let pass us by without savoring some bits of it. The photo updates help us do that. :cheers: |
They're indispensable, matter of fact.
They're used as a primary indicator of when a project might be topped out. At least for me. And it also gives an indication of urban context (fitting into the cityscape, etc.), more so than perhaps leaving that task solely to our imaginations. |
Agreed.
Another snow pic. One thing about the towers over the park, they will at least make for nice postcards. miki pryor https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4571/2...7be4b9f3_h.jpg |
|
I love looking at views of this tower (and the others) from the park. It just proves the critics so wrong. These towers aren't destroying the park, I believe they enhance it even more.
Steven Lev Art and Photography https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4728/2...f97bcab8_h.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4736/3...c76289d6_h.jpg thetzar https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4729/3...8581660a_h.jpg JLOW-NY https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4729/2...ab1b733a_h.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4595/3...7c9d4281_h.jpg |
It will be a glorious day when this one finally exceeds 220 CPS. A sure sign that it has gone over 1000 feet.
NYguy have you lived in NYC your entire life? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
pAdma-K https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4683/2...77cb963a_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4683/2...e94a52c0_h.jpg |
|
^^^^^
If this angle is right in the above post (my approximation), 200 Amsterdam Avenue should sit somewhat in the middle in the distance between One57 and 220 CPS. At 684 ft, it will have a nice impact from this angle. As a reference, look at the towers of the GWB. They sit about 604 feet from the water to the top. 684 ft on the UWS will do wonders. Factor that in with the natural elevation of the area, and from the waterfront via Fort Lee or West NY, it will appear to tower over its surroundings. |
The skyline keeps changing.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4681/...67a78a6b_o.jpg 225 W 57th St (Central Park Tower by NyConstructionPhoto, on Flickr https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4588/...73e487ec_o.jpg 225 W 57th St (Central Park Tower by NyConstructionPhoto, on Flickr |
I hope they bring those ugly monsters on either side of the Pyramid down next!
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._power_jeh.JPG |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The IRT powerhouse was landmarked, but the western half of the block is crap and unlandmarked. Hopefully it will have a major tower in the future. |
If Cityspire is 814 feet, that would place CPT in the 750 range now by comparison.
|
|
Quote:
|
An image for this Christmas eve as we look forward to an even more exciting year next year....:cheers:
jeff.overs https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4591/3...a96ccfd1_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4591/3...87655bf9_h.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4591/3...9306aea8_k.jpg |
|
Quote:
The DSNY property probably has no chance of moving, as A. It's new, B. The zoning doesn't even allow for megadevelopment and C. It has a critical long-term use. |
Juat saying.....
But to this day it simply astounds me how that post-1974 classic, beautiful contrast between Gracie Mansion and 9 West 57th can stand up to the Park Lane Hotel's worst possible side. A lesser mini-assemblage would've beenutterly wrecked by it. |
The Park Lane hotel will be replaced down the line. I don't see it lasting another 10 years. The property itself is a prime candidate for a future tallest.
Ideally, as the current supply both present and u/c dries up, when a new cycle begins, it would be nice to see a high end residential (ideally mixed used with a hotel + condos atop) rise. Witkoff has plans for the site, the question is when it will all come to fruition. Right now they are on hold, as he shelved the plan back in 2016. But it can always be revisited. NY is fast approaching, in certain neighborhoods, the prospect where a super tall will yield a feasible profit under certain market conditions. Towers on average being proposed north of 34th Street have been reaching for the sky. Given the flurry of 800 ft towers. As opposed to the typical Midtown Plateau of 650 ft, the plateau is moving towards the 800 ft mark. NY will become the super tall capital in the next decade. I'd expect it to not be dethroned after that, as it is so built up, that super talls will be way more common. |
Comparing renders of this tower, which will be topped off sooner than it seems...
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...WLnu4u.r16.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...NJPUEu.r18.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...JzIOGr.r19.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...3RDDP.r16c.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...JZkII.r18c.jpg http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...eZjfn.r19c.jpg |
Guys, is 1550 figure still the highest occupied floor for this tower leaving room for the addition of crown or parapet to further push it to the equivalent in feet of 500 meters or is it by now for sure the final confirmed height of the actual structure itself?
|
Quote:
http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...Pa77Smf.c1.JPG http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...QkzeH0S.c3.JPG |
^^ aha, thanks a lot!
|
|
Quote:
|
A cold day out, likely my last pics of the year for this one...
DECEMBER 26, 2017 1. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180212.jpg 2. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180227.jpg 3. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180333.jpg 4. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180347.jpg 5. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180407.jpg 6. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180427.jpg 7. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180446.jpg 8. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180501.jpg 9. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180520.jpg 10. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183838.jpg 11. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183850.jpg 12. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183902.jpg 13. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183913.jpg 14. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183929.jpg 15. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183944.jpg 16. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183957.jpg 17. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184011.jpg 18. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184029.jpg 19. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184041.jpg 20. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184054.jpg 21. http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184107.jpg |
its not the 1550’ on the schematic that’s intriguing, it’s the +1550’!
|
Quote:
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks like its 750-770 ft based on the reference to Time Warner. Also, this angle is beautiful because we can use 432 Park as the measuring stick. Now, keep in mind that 432 Park is back in the distance several blocks, so if we moved it to this parcel location (CPT one), it would appear taller than at its current position, but for the sake of mental exercise, let's use it as a measuring stick, and just add 150 ft to that. Also, Verre looks like it has a 100-120 ft more until top out. |
Quote:
Or is that presupposed? |
1,629' is the height factoring in elevation. From sea level, at 0', it will appear to be 1,629 ft. Similar concept with the ESB, which appears much taller due to the elevation or most of Midtown really, especially going towards 6th and 59th, in which there is an incline. Similarly you will see the decline as you walk down 5th towards the Flat Iron. The island itself is very hilly, and even part of Midtown you can see this. Washington Heights really gives you an appreciation for how hilly the island can be.
|
Ah....
Quite surprising given all the verticality we do see. I hope I'm still not asking the question you answered above but: Let's go on the assumption that 1500'+ mentioned in the document is the inferred height above street level, i.e. all documents of this type use height above street level as the benchmark. And let's apply the "topographical" condition you mentioned. Are they throwing in the + operator to suggest the possibility of an additionl design element...i.e. the spire oft-debated here? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 4:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev