SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

Submariner Feb 20, 2014 7:28 PM

While this is interesting, I'm not sure it's proof positive that the building has seen a large change in height. I thought the cantilever was a necessity only if the buildings height was lower - didn't Extell just go through a lot (and pay out the nose) for the ability to build over the ASL?

Still, given the quality of it's neighbors, I have to imagine that regardless of height the tower will undergo some kind of redesign and emerge as a higher quality product than what we see in the current renderings.

ILNY Feb 20, 2014 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6450133)

So are we back to the old design and height?

http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/02/app...th-street.html

King DenCity Feb 20, 2014 8:44 PM

I wish.

Zapatan Feb 20, 2014 8:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King DenCity (Post 6461006)
I wish.


It looks like it is.

NYguy Feb 20, 2014 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6460856)
So are we back to the old design and height?

http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/02/app...th-street.html

Not necessarily. Those drawings are from the building without the cantilever.



it's time for De Blasio to rein in these whackos...


http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2014...dents-pols-say

Stop Building Towers That Darken Central Park, Locals and Officials Say

By Mathew Katz
February 20, 2014


Quote:

A panel on giant towers near Central Park became a pummeling session Wednesday night as politicians, experts and locals all slammed Midtown's rising skyscrapers for the shadows they will cast on public space.

In a packed house at the New York Public Library, nearly every speaker at the Town Hall on Central Park Supertowers complained that the huge structures planned for the area, many 70 stories or more, would ruin the public's enjoyment of Central Park while providing pricey apartments for the rich.

“This is the debasement of a great public resource, used by millions, for the benefit of an elite few," said author and journalist Warren St. John, to widespread applause.

"My argument is shadows make the park less pleasant."

The sole voice supporting the developments was Gary Barnett, president of Extell Development, which is in the middle of building the 75-story One57 tower.

Sitting with his arms crossed and frequently shaking his head, Barnett was a punching bag as opponents called for harsher reviews of the skyscrapers and even a moratorium on mega-developments.

"I think we need to keep it in context — we don't need to overreact," Barnett said.


He defended One57's shadow, claiming it would only be cast on Central Park for a few minutes a day — and he argued that shadows were already there.

"The southern part of the park is covered in beautiful trees, which already provide shade," Barnett said.

The multitude of towers planned for the area also includes 215 W. 57th St., which will be 1,550 feet; 432 Park Ave., which will be 1,398 feet; and 107 W. 57th St., which will be 1,350 feet.

The new wave of skyscrapers is the result of developers combining lots and taking advantage of zoning controls that were established in the 1980s — before the tall, thin towers were technologically possible, panelists said.

The standing-room-only forum, hosted by Community Board 5, brought out hundreds of people, including politicians from across Manhattan, many of whom complained that the towers largely housed foreign investors who did not live in Manhattan full-time.

"None of these buildings weave into our community, contribute to our community in any meaningful way," said City Councilman Corey Johnson, who represents parts of Midtown and the West Side. He and others suggested tightening zoning codes and requiring more public disclosure of plans for tall buildings. Johnson added that he hoped the proliferation of huge towers would end now that Bill de Blasio is mayor.

Community Board 5 set up a "Sunshine Task Force" in 2013 to evaluate the impact of several tall towers set for construction along 57th Street near Central Park. The board will eventually produce a detailed report on the issue.

But many at the forum had already made up their mind, saying that the towers had the potential to transform the way Central Park is enjoyed for years to come.

"Central Park is not my backyard — it's everyone's backyard," St. John said. "This is about the backyard of New York City, not any one person's private space."


http://gothamist.com/2014/02/20/shad...ntral_park.php

Skyscraper Shadows Will Not Harm Central Park, Developer Promises

By Lauren Evans
Feb 20, 2014


Quote:

It's a comforting fact of New York City life that space in Central Park will never be allocated for towering high rise condos, glass-walled TD Banks or the upscale, alcohol-slinging Denny's that have become commonplace in so much of the city. But according to some, the threat of development destroying the park is still very real—not of physical structures being built in the park, but the shadows that such structures will cast from the outside.

A panel of stakeholders congregated at the New York Public Library last night to discuss the potential effects of shadows cast by the forthcoming "Billionaire's Row," a set of seven sky-high luxury apartments that many park-goers fear will prematurely darken soccer games and picnics with their omnipresent icy shade.

The issues, the panelists insisted, are complicated. Zoning regulations are outdated and lack transparency, but what would changing them entail? Should buildings have height restrictions, or is a building's height less problematic than its width, or moreover, the number of tall buildings densely packed into a group? San Francisco has a "Sunlight Ordinance," which requires review by the city planning department of any proposed structure over 40 measly feet. Should New York City have such an ordinance as well?

Barnett, dressed in a Jobsian black turtle neck and clenching a venti Starbucks Drink, didn't have answers to any of those questions, but he did have a prepared statement intended to tickle the palpable sense of Liberal Guilt that pervaded the room. Not only would the shadows be "slender" (Extell generously narrowed the dimensions of One57 to a svelte 102 feet, versus the 225 feet they could have exploited were they Actually Evil), but the buildings will be an economic engine, creating more than 1,000 permanent, high-paying jobs for New Yorkers and their families.

"Is the possible small, minute addition of shadows that do no harm a worthwhile tradeoff against our fellow New Yorkers' chance to build a better life? And for our city to grow and become greater?" Barnett asked from his turtleneck. "I think not. This is the wrong issue at the wrong time."

Dissenters of the developments also argued that the towers would largely be occupied by foreign owners with little interest in the city—Russian oligarchs, Saudi oil barons—those types of people. "I think we need an oligarch tax on New York City," said State Senator Brad Hoylman, one of the panel's co-sponsors. "They're paying very little, and they're worth very, very much."

Barnett finds this argument prejudiced. New York City is a friendly place, he said, not just for the poor, but the rich and the mega rich.

"America has always been a very welcoming country—we want everyone to do well," he said. "We welcome the poor and the downtrodden, but we also welcome the wealthy, as well. There's nothing wrong with wanting to come here. There's no reason for us to knock other people."

miesian Feb 20, 2014 9:36 PM

This has to be the most annoying project ever. It can't decide what it is. How about a vision? How about a decent render BEFORE it opens? A sad commentary on the current scene. But, other projects on 57th are on the up and up. Go figure.......:rolleyes:

chris08876 Feb 20, 2014 9:37 PM

Sigh..... Well, one thing we can learn from the Chinese is to just ignore these residents. If someone buys a lot, they spent the money, so let them do what they want.

Quote:

Community Board 5 set up a "Sunshine Task Force" in 2013 to evaluate the impact of several tall towers set for construction along 57th Street near Central Park. The board will eventually produce a detailed report on the issue.
Just go outside. Plenty of sunshine.

Tectonic Feb 20, 2014 10:16 PM

I want Tower Verre to get its 200ft back. I'm asking for a lot, I know.

Perklol Feb 20, 2014 11:00 PM

Quote:

1550'
:happybirthday:

Zapatan Feb 20, 2014 11:02 PM

News articles usually don't care about correct numbers so I guess we can assume it's still 1400 or whatever...

I was excited when I saw the title changed at SSC but I've learned never to get my hopes up in NYC.

Since this is an as-of-right building I assume the NIMBY's have no power, or at least I hope that's true.

M. Incandenza Feb 21, 2014 3:12 AM

Regarding the freaky shadow people: it's worth marveling that, of all the causes they might champion, of all the struggles for social justice they might pursue to make the world just a little bit better, what really gets these people's blood boiling is that a small corner of a very large park - the very corner of that park that is used disproportionately by the most privileged people in the city, and some of the most privileged people in the world - might be shady for a few extra minutes a day.

Zapatan Feb 21, 2014 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Incandenza (Post 6461543)
Regarding the freaky shadow people: it's worth marveling that, of all the causes they might champion, of all the struggles for social justice they might pursue to make the world just a little bit better, what really gets these people's blood boiling is that a small corner of a very large park - the very corner of that park that is used disproportionately by the most privileged people in the city, and some of the most privileged people in the world - might be shady for a few extra minutes a day.

It really is incredible isn't it?

What complete and utter losers... the tower is rail thin anyway so who cares?

Ugh people...

NYguy Feb 21, 2014 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Incandenza (Post 6461543)
Regarding the freaky shadow people: it's worth marveling that, of all the causes they might champion, of all the struggles for social justice they might pursue to make the world just a little bit better, what really gets these people's blood boiling is that a small corner of a very large park - the very corner of that park that is used disproportionately by the most privileged people in the city, and some of the most privileged people in the world - might be shady for a few extra minutes a day.


If only that energy could be used for good. Why would you go to the very heart of a skyscraper capital if you are so against tall buildings and shadows anyway. There's so much more to New York, and really, the entire country than that small slice where these supertall towers can rise. It makes no sense. It's enough to make Barnett go bald.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/ny...=nyregion&_r=0

A Packed Forum for a Rising Concern: New Skyscrapers Near Central Park


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/...ticleLarge.jpg


By CHARLES V BAGLI
FEB. 20, 2014


Quote:

The image on the screen was arresting: four long foreboding shadows thrown by a new set of skyscrapers across one of New York City’s brightest green gems, Central Park. The four towers are among eight very slim and very tall ultraluxury buildings that are turning 57th Street into a billionaires’ row. The towers, which feature apartments selling for as much as $95 million, are stirring passions among civic activists who worry about their impact.

With over 425 people crowding into the New York Public Library on 42nd Street on Wednesday evening, it was clear that the local community board had touched a nerve as the host of a forum called “Central Park Supertowers.” At least a half-dozen elected officials also showed up. It was an unusually large showing for a community board event.

Linda B. Rosenthal, a Democratic state assemblywoman from the Upper West Side, said the buildings were for the foreign “monarchs” and “oligarchs” who could afford the astronomical prices but would rarely be at home to turn on the lights. Other critics say the towers — three of which would soar above the Empire State Building — would cast shadows on the streets and Central Park, making it less hospitable to the 40 million people who visit every year.

“These buildings will make a lot of money for developers,” Assemblywoman Rosenthal said. “And that’s their right. But we need something back.”

Warren St. John, a former reporter for The New York Times and a panelist, called for a moratorium on buildings over a certain height south of Central Park. He said that he was not opposed to tall towers, but that these new skyscrapers contain luxury condominiums that would do little to alleviate the city’s housing crisis.

Gary Barnett, the sole developer on the panel, countered that the uproar over shadows was overblown. “The shadows cast by tall, slender buildings are very brief, maybe 10 minutes, in any one place and cause no negative effect on the flora or fauna in the park,” he said.

Mr. Barnett is completing a 1,004-foot-tall skyscraper at 157 West 57th Street that will include a hotel and condos, and beginning work on a 1,500-foot-tall tower at 217 West 57th Street that will feature a Nordstrom department store at the base. He also lamented the disparaging remarks about wealthy apartment buyers made by other speakers. The buildings, he said, would generate tax revenues and thousands of construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs in the hotel and shops.

Bernard Wiles, a retired schoolteacher and a volunteer for the Central Park Conservancy, said he would hate to see skyscrapers become the norm south of the park, even if they were skinny.

But not everyone shared his misgivings.

Just hours before the forum, Mayor Bill de Blasio told the city’s powerful real estate aristocracy that he was willing “to use height and density to the maximum feasible extent” in order to generate his oft-stated goal of building 200,000 units of affordable housing.


“I hope people hear me loud and clear that the only way I can achieve my goals is if we are building and building aggressively,” the mayor said at a meeting of the Real Estate Board of New York.

FMIII Feb 21, 2014 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6461612)
It really is incredible isn't it?

What complete and utter losers... the tower is rail thin anyway so who cares?

Ugh people...

Maybe it's the other way around. Those people are so accustomed to win and dictate what people can or can't do that they think they are entitled to have a say about everything going on in the world. Nonetheless, I believe that shadows over the park, albeit a small one, is a real issue. As such, it should not be dismissed with sarcasm but counterbalanced with solid arguments. Unlike penthouses facing it, the park belongs to everyone, but the city has to grow in order to maintain its status in the world. Improving NYC's attractiveness will also benefit to everyone and this is the reason why "shadows" should not dictate the height of what can be built around it.

NYguy Feb 21, 2014 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII (Post 6461852)
I believe that shadows over the park, albeit a small one, is a real issue. As such, it should not be dismissed with sarcasm but counterbalanced with solid arguments.

It is not a real issue. As has been stated, the park is mostly covered in trees - trees that produce shade and shadow. New York City is not known for it's glorious, sunny days. Should the park be shut down on those days the sun doesn't shine? And speaking of shade, on those steamy hot days in the summer when even more people are in the park? Yeah, that shade is welcome. I'm in that park a lot, and be it sunny, cloudy, rainy, or snowy, the people in the park are not affected. They're in the park because they want to be in that park.

FMIII Feb 21, 2014 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6461884)
It is not a real issue. As has been stated, the park is mostly covered in trees - trees that produce shade and shadow. New York City is not known for it's glorious, sunny days. Should the park be shut down on those days the sun doesn't shine? And speaking of shade, on those steamy hot days in the summer when even more people are in the park? Yeah, that shade is welcome. I'm in that park a lot, and be it sunny, cloudy, rainy, or snowy, the people in the park are not affected. They're in the park because they want to be in that park.

I am not in favor of those people. I also agree that "damages" done by those towers to the park will be minimal. However, I don't think that they are necessarily wrong to bring up the subject. It is sometimes better to think about all aspect of a development before it is done than after, when it's too late. I also believe that the best way to counter them is to discuss with them (as Barnett did yesterday).

In short, if I may say so, they have to understand that "shadows" is too small an issue to overshadow the growth of NYC.

rlw777 Feb 21, 2014 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII (Post 6461926)
I am not in favor of those people. I also agree that "damages" done by those towers to the park will be minimal. However, I don't think that they are necessarily wrong to bring up the subject. It is sometimes better to think about all aspect of a development before it is done than after, when it's too late. I also believe that the best way to counter them is to discuss with them (as Barnett did yesterday).

In short, if I may say so, they have to understand that "shadows" is too small an issue to overshadow the growth of NYC.

I agree there is nothing wrong with bringing up the subject. I don't think the shadows are a big deal but I am also reminded that the best urban spaces are a product of real public discourse. Because unchecked development can make places less desirable and hinder future development. It won't surprise me if some of those zoning controls get changed in the next 10 years or so.

M. Incandenza Feb 21, 2014 6:02 PM

A reminder of just what we're talking about here:

http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/t...mensions-1.png

These are the dimensions of Central Park. Building shadows from these supertalls are an issue for, what, the southern 1/6th of the park (in winter)? The very part of the park, like I said, that is used most by wealthy people? Adjacent to the densest zone of extant skyscraper development in the US already, but the neighbors of whom are nonetheless aghast at the prospect of shadows from buildings?

The thing is, rlw777 makes a good point: public participation in deciding the course the city is going to take is important. But that just makes it all the more frustrating that this is the hill these people choose to die on. Where are they when it comes to defending the interests of those who aren't so massively privileged? Obviously they couldn't care less, to any meaningful degree. And that just devalues the very public participation that we need to function as a democracy.

supertallchaser Feb 21, 2014 6:19 PM

so is it officially 1550ft ? if so should we change the title and diagram?

Submariner Feb 21, 2014 6:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Incandenza (Post 6462288)
A reminder of just what we're talking about here:

http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/t...mensions-1.png

These are the dimensions of Central Park. Building shadows from these supertalls are an issue for, what, the southern 1/6th of the park (in winter)? The very part of the park, like I said, that is used most by wealthy people? Adjacent to the densest zone of extant skyscraper development in the US already, but the neighbors of whom are nonetheless aghast at the prospect of shadows from buildings?

The thing is, rlw777 makes a good point: public participation in deciding the course the city is going to take is important. But that just makes it all the more frustrating that this is the hill these people choose to die on. Where are they when it comes to defending the interests of those who aren't so massively privileged? Obviously they couldn't care less, to any meaningful degree. And that just devalues the very public participation that we need to function as a democracy.

Most NIMBYism isn't built on rational fear, but rather illogical, hair-trigger sensitive zealotry. I'm willing to bet that before opposition to these towers became well organized (for example, before the shadow studies were conducted) their near-exact line of thinking was "Tall towers are bad" with no other thought besides that. Besides poorly thought out dislike of tall towers, I really think that some people just derive meaning or pleasure or something from "fighting back" or trying to stand in someones way. What is the best reason they have for fighting high rise development in Manhattan, the home of the skyscraper and one of the densest cities on earth? Shadows, and even then they have to use highly selective and skewed data to make their point.

I once worked on a project in a small town whose economic base was near dead - their schools, DPW, police, fire, etc were all badly, badly underfunded - the schools in particular were in terrible shape. The developer I was working for would have contributed in taxes alone, enough to increase the town's budget by 25% yet the town still turned it down in large part because people didn't like the idea of clearing 30 acres of woods - the clearing, mind you, wouldn't be visible from any part of town - you had to drive along the access road to see it.

It's a psychological disorder. There is no other explanation.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:25 PM.

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