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)

Zapatan Jun 16, 2014 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 6619529)
is this 111 w 57th or 432 Park?

432 park it looks like

Skyguy_7 Jun 16, 2014 12:47 PM

It's 432 Park, judging by the faint detail at the crown, which by the way, reads "ROOF/ EL' 1443'-6""
I don't know how accurate that drawing is, but I believe this is the first we've seen such a figure.

LMich Jun 16, 2014 1:09 PM

You can gather nothing about the height not being able to see what the base elevation is on the drawing, and I'd really hate to see the height discussion started again without one definitively being released by the architect and/or developer.

sbarn Jun 16, 2014 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 6619529)
is this 111 w 57th or 432 Park?

This is 432 Park. I've been to the museum...

CCs77 Jun 16, 2014 2:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6619923)
It's 432 Park, judging by the faint detail at the crown, which by the way, reads "ROOF/ EL' 1443'-6""
I don't know how accurate that drawing is, but I believe this is the first we've seen such a figure.

Yes, it is 432 park, but when you read "elevation" it is always above sea level. Since this building sits around 45 ft above sea level, you have to substract that number from the elevation to have the actual height of the building.
1443.5 - 1397 = 46.5ft, meaning that 46,5 ft is about the elevation above sea level where this building sits.
Or, 1443.5 - 46.5 = 1397ft, the actual building height above the street.

Another picture of the model of 111

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5156/...420a4d14_q.jpg
1-10 Sky High por MsSusanB, en Flickr
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5156/...f1fd8c2f_h.jpg

McSky Jun 16, 2014 3:06 PM

Daft logic (a webpage that uses Google Earth to derive elevations) says that the site of this tower is at an elevation of 60.7 feet. If that 1443.5' roof height is accurate, this tower will be 1383' tall.

http://www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-goo...d-altitude.htm

Skyguy_7 Jun 16, 2014 3:10 PM

Thanks CC, for the clarification. Please excuse my ignorance.

CCs77 Jun 16, 2014 3:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSky (Post 6620078)
Daft logic (a webpage that uses Google Earth to derive elevations) says that the site of this tower is at an elevation of 60.7 feet. If that 1443.5' roof height is accurate, this tower will be 1383' tall.

http://www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-goo...d-altitude.htm

Yes, but there is still confusion about that cross section drawing. That drawing is not of 111W57th, but of 432 Park Ave. that building (432 Park) has an elevation, using that tool, of between 48 and 50 ft, depending in which place of the lot I clicked, Which by the way is about the same you have in GE when you place the cursor at the site of the tower, and pretty near of the 46,5 ft I stated earlier.

The elevation of the site of 111W57th is indeed about 60 ft, but we don't know with certainty the elevation or height of the building yet. The last thing we now is that it is 1350 ft above the street.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6620086)
Thanks CC, for the clarification. Please excuse my ignorance.

Don't worry, not everybody has to know that, and that is a misinterpretation that happens frequently.

NYguy Jun 17, 2014 4:05 AM

I still expect this tower to be around 1,397 ft, but things can always change.


https://twitter.com/trdny/status/467...115648/photo/1


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/156149582/original.jpg

TechTalkGuy Jun 21, 2014 1:58 PM

:previous: If things do change in the right direction, then additional height would certainly be a welcome design that would be admired by many! :tup:

NYguy Jun 23, 2014 1:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6626975)
:previous: If things do change in the right direction, then additional height would certainly be a welcome design that would be admired by many! :tup:

I think we may be approaching the height limit at which such a design would be acceptable, at least as long as the width doesn't grow, which it won't. I'm ready for some final renders, along with updated height info.

TechTalkGuy Jun 23, 2014 2:01 AM

:previous: I counted 12 setbacks! :bowtie:

ILNY Jun 23, 2014 5:39 AM

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5153/...723d2903_b.jpg

sbarn Jun 24, 2014 2:33 AM

This building is such a tease... really looking forward to the construction beginning in earnest.

NYguy Jun 24, 2014 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6629327)
This building is such a tease... really looking forward to the construction beginning in earnest.

It will be a while before you start to see anything sprout up on site. Anything going on now is likely to be mostly out of view.

mrnyc Jun 24, 2014 12:55 PM

so thin, tall and good looking. a supermodel tower.

TechTalkGuy Jun 26, 2014 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6629558)
It will be a while before you start to see anything sprout up on site. Anything going on now is likely to be mostly out of view.

How can you possibly predict the length of time it takes for site prep? :shrug:

You never know, they just might be able to anchor the bedrock in record time given the narrow size they have. :cool:

NYguy Jun 26, 2014 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy (Post 6632265)
How can you possibly predict the length of time it takes for site prep? :shrug:

You never know, they just might be able to anchor the bedrock in record time given the narrow size they have. :cool:

I can't predict anything, but I do know from filings that JDS has said it will be a time consuming process, which is why they wanted approval to begin work right away. This is not really a "new" building, but an expansion, or "alteration" of a landmark.

TechTalkGuy Jun 26, 2014 1:32 AM

:previous: Not a new building?

It sure looks new (and exciting) to me. :)

NYguy Jun 27, 2014 12:37 AM

Quotes from a piece on building tall...


http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/0...ywhere/373493/

Why Can't We Build Skinny Skyscrapers Everywhere?
The limits to how tall and thin towers can be has more to do with markets than engineers.



http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/cit...lead_large.jpg


June 26, 2014
Kriston Capps



Quote:

Within the next few years, the number of New York City skyscrapers that are 1,000 feet or taller is going to soar. Today, there are seven towers in the 1,000-feet-plus club. If construction proceeds as planned on projects now under way or scheduled to break ground this year, that figure will more than double.

In Manhattan, architects are building highest and fastest in Midtown. There, the supertalls aren't just tall—some of them are superskinny, too. A group of buildings along West 57th Street with residential units priced from $5 million to more than $100 million has transformed the Central Park perch into Billionaires Row, a signifier of America's new Gilded Age. In most cases, each unit is basically its own penthouse suite, occupying an entire floor of its building.

Taken on their own terms, the superskinnies represent a feat of architectural design. The new developments going up on West 57th Street may, in fact, be approaching the outer limits of the tall-to-thin aspect ratio for a structure. Just not for the reasons you might think.

"Structurally, there are a lot of very unique challenges, especially for a building that wants a high degree of special views," says Vishaan Chakrabarti, a partner at SHoP Architects and the director of the Center for Urban Real Estate at Columbia University. SHoP—the firm that designed the Barclays Center as well the forthcoming Domino Sugar Refinery development, both in Brooklyn— is responsible for what may be New York's, and the world's, skinniest supertall.

.....Down the road is 217 West 57th St., another supertall, superskinny Midtown tower. This isn't, strictly speaking, the project with the sharpest aspect ratio that architect Gordon Gill has ever designed. That honor belongs to the trident-shaped tower designed by architecture firm Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill for One Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, a $95 billion—billion—mega-development planned by firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM). But 217 W. 57th St. will nevertheless be one of the skinniest towers in Manhattan and the nation.

"The complexity just increases when you get slender," Gill says. "The floorplates become smaller, but the views can become really amazing."

.....This new kind of skyscraper is popping up all over Midtown—but so far, only there. There are reasons that superskinnies haven't shown up in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, or other cities. Nor are they likely to get much skinnier in Manhattan.

"From an engineering standpoint, there’s a ways to go," Gill says when I ask him how tall and thin the firm can build. "From an economic standpoint, we’re close to the limit."

....."We cut slots, we punch holes, we create notches in the corners of the buildings" to mitigate the effects of wind, Gill says, on tall and thin buildings alike. But there are some places where superskinnies will just never go. No matter how pitched income inequality comes to be in San Francisco, these towers will never rise there. "For areas that are seismic, the slenderer buildings are not advisable," Gill says.

.....Even in Billionaires Row—where Midtown zoning allows skyscrapers to soar—the oxygen has mostly been used up. To build the towers that are rising now, in many cases, developers purchased air rights from adjacent shorter buildings. "At least in this corridor, most of the air rights have been used up," Chakrabarti says.

In other words, these superskinnies are unique—a "registration of the market," as Chakrabarti calls them. "It is a typology that’s happening, no question," he says, noting that SHoP has at least two more supertalls coming to New York.

"But if I look at our overall portfolio, [superskinny, supertall] is not an enormous percentage in terms of square footage."

So fans and critics of these buildings shouldn't expect to see them copied everywhere. At least, not until design and engineering technology advances to the point that that the aspect ratio can be pushed to even leaner proportions in markets that could sustain these developments. Or, not until other markets generate the political climate that makes these developments possible.

"I just received a document a couple days ago from someone who's been working on a patent for building stabilization," Gill says. "I'm going to dig into that and check that out. The more we learn about how to tune that, the more interesting the structures can become."


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:00 AM.

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