There is no work on this site. Never believe what the developer says.

In most cases, what the developer says is what happens.

What we don't know is if that was the latest, most accurate information. But at the very least, we wait until the quarter is over. Even then, if it starts a month or two after that, it's really no big deal, as long as it gets built.

@NYGuy;

Thanks for the blow-up image; but I fear that now it just makes it look more like something I would've put together with an random set of Legos when I was maybe twelve, and simply *pretended* to see a curve on one elevation and a slant on the one adjacent to it.

But the one *big* mistake in this render is the half-drawn base occluded by the structure in the foreground.

Details, my friends. Details, details and more details. This, ostensibly, is what those commissioned to make renderings for proposed skyscrapers are supposed to emphasize in order to ultimately get something built.

So here they half-ass it with the podium/base. And they continue to sell the viewer on a nearly 700' structure whose form essentially cannot be fully extrapolated from the render's vantage point, and whose placement in the skyline cannot be properly gleaned, no thanks to what I can plainly see is a horribly inaccurate drawing of One57.

Whoever can, with a straight face, simply up and tell me that this rendering is somehow meant to give an idea of the building's visual and aesthetic presence and contribution to a greater whole is a brave man indeed. No question IMO arises in terms of height, of course when considered per se.

Bottom line?

C o n t e x t. So much in this regard is yet to be found wanting. I'll be happy to wait till more illustrations hit cyberspace.

They just bought the neighboring building...

http://commercialobserver.com/2013/0...t-57th-street/



http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...room-building/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...icleInline.jpg

March 26, 2013

The two little buildings to the left of Steinway Hall can't be long for this world, I'd imagine.

Yeah I'd have no problem with integrating Steinway into the base of a much larger tower, say 1200' or so.. ;)

Although smaller, it has more than twice the space of the planned new tower next door. But I don't think it will be torn down (I don't think it can). These are the people behind the Walker Tower, so they could have success with converting the building to luxury residential.



http://www.montclair.edu/news/media/..._Hall_.jpg.jpg
http://www.montclair.edu/news/articl...ArticleID=7384


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2151/1...623bcc01_b.jpg
This Week in New York: twi-ny.com


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2181/1...c5a678da_z.jpg

Does not look as skinny as Park 432 only because it is shorter. I believe that the floor plate size for 107W 57 is a lot smaller. Does anyone know the sq footage for each of these super skinnies?

haha, as if they don't know what they're going to do with that building. it's called luxe condos on the upper floors of the steinway building and air rights transfer to the adjacent 107 w57th site, adding something like another 30 floors. seems pretty straightforward aside from the decision about incorporation of the steinway into the base of the tower development/maintaining bottom floors or entire building as stand alone or whatever.

i love this tower design, so personally, i'd rather see the rights transferred off-site, but with how ultra-luxe w57th is these days, seems unlikely unless they already have another site ready to go (or if the rights could be sold at a huge price to another tower in the near vicinity...)

I think it would be better to just transfer the air rights over and leave the Steinway as is.

I believe this one is only 105,000 sf. 432 Park is much larger.

Here's the article from earlier...

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6346


There will be only 28 "exclusive" units here, assuming they don't add on. But they seem to be gearing up for a groundbreaking.

Thanks for the extra info NYguy. That is a very small floor plate.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/03/...adjacent-site/

JDS, PMG partnership may bring 900-foot tower to Steinway-adjacent site
Purchase of West 57th Street likely allows developers to expand scope of planned project


March 28, 2013
By Katherine Clarke and Mel Gray

A 900-footer in a lot that size would be crazy.

I say bring it on! As I said some time ago, there's already a massive competition between the developers to build a tower with the best views. And go get those views you need to build up. Especially in Midtown <700' doesn't suffice anymore. 1000 feet is the new mark!

They say everything old is new again. At the beginning of the last century, building taller was in. Now, at the beginning of this one, height is being pushed as if the skyscraper is new to the city. For years, there seemed to be an aversion to building higher in New York as people grew weary of skyscrapers. But money speaks louder than words, and if there is more to be made from building higher, the trend won't end. There are people out there with money to burn, and the developers know it.

I really hope this does push to 900 ft or so, it would give a little more balance to the skyline from Central Park, and form a bridge between the taller towers of 432 Park, One57, and the Nordstrom tower.

@NYGuy;
I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at here; but I really don't see why there really *should* (never mind *would*) be any reason to go against verticality.

The idea of "getting tired of it" seems easily trumped by the simple proposition that once room to grow *outward* becomes scarce enough that growth *upward* needs to happen, the thing to do should be glaringly obvious.

Re the recent news with this tower, I for one would like to see the 9 and the 6 in the height figure swapped...or thereabouts. I'm digging also the idea of rippled(?!) perforated N/S facades for LED shows. I just don't understand what they mean by "semi-random".

There shouldn't be.


Once they make if official, we'll swap it. For not they are in “think tank mode.” Who knows, they may find a way to stretch it to 1,000 ft.

I'm glad we agree; but I was momentarily non-plussed as to why NY'ers would tire of skyscrapers. The ubiquitousness of the standard form perhaps???
I would think that as the American architectural palate continues to acquire a better taste for designs beyond the box (as it were), citydwellers who take anything over 300' for granted will *really* start noticing.

Looks like I was on to something. I'd be willing to bet we won't see something as extreme as a facadectomy, but we will see an absorbing of Steinway into the new tower. That is to say that the tower will rise above Steinway, not just using air rights beside it.