SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Completed Project Threads Archive (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=348)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

reencharles Oct 12, 2013 4:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6299375)
http://observer.com/2013/10/communit...udents-league/

The question is just how much influence the Community Board’s denial of the special permit will have on the high-rise. As the project’s defenders reminded the crowd time and time again, the tower is being built as-of-right, with a lot merger and air rights purchases allowing for the building’s incredible height regardless of Community Board approval. The only reason the developer needed to come before the Community Board at all is because it wants to cantilever over a landmarked building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6300338)
The Community Board vote is just advisory, and it's expected that they will vote no. Community Boards tend to be NIMBY, and vote against development 90% of the time.

And, in any case, they aren't asking for approval for the building as a whole, but for a cantilever, to accommodate the retail better.

Good to know. Glad that NIMBYS have "voice" just to change the cantilever.

NYguy Oct 12, 2013 7:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6300307)
Maybe not worthy of opening a new thread but still promising news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/re...ef=realestate&



Well, get ready for a 500m+ über! :cheers:

For further discussion see here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...03#post6300303

or a new thread.

That is very promising indeed. At the skyscraper museum's "sky high" exhibit, it's mentioned that there are about 6 other projects in various states of development and approval that declined to participate.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6300338)
The Community Board vote is just advisory, and it's expected that they will vote no. Community Boards tend to be NIMBY, and vote against development 90% of the time. And, in any case, they aren't asking for approval for the building as a whole, but for a cantilever, to accommodate the retail better.

Yes, the community board vote is advisory, however final say is with the LPC, and the cb vote could very well influence that.

But if we can get rid of the cantilever, then the tower is on a better track, I don't care if it's higher or lower. Things have pretty much gone Extell's way, but I don't know if that cantilever is in the bag. With any luck, it'll be shot down.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152819866/original.jpg

BigDan35 Oct 12, 2013 8:51 PM

Subscribed

wilfredo267 Oct 12, 2013 9:54 PM

So its an as of right site but if the LPC votes against the cantilever then he will have to remove it?

scalziand Oct 12, 2013 10:06 PM

He can do anything he wants with the available air-rights, but he can't do that.

wilfredo267 Oct 12, 2013 10:15 PM

So if the the cantilever is rejected (fingers crossed) and 220 supposedly being a considerably tall tower i'm excited to see what Extell will do next.

NYguy Oct 13, 2013 12:22 PM

There are options for the site. I understand that Extell doesn't one a competitor's tower in the middle of his Central Park views. But 220 will only rise so tall. I doubt that the top 25% of Extell's tower would be blocked in any form.

In it's current configuration, the sites are almost head on, even with the cantilever.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152847407/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152847223/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152847224/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152847225/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152847226/original.jpg

Urbana Oct 16, 2013 12:50 AM

It seems that our suspicions are correct.

Quote:

The cantilever would ensure that more of the apartments in Mr. Barnett’s building would have clear views of Central Park. If the league turns down his offer, Mr. Barnett said he would raise the height of the tower to 1,500 feet, from 1,400 feet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/ny...Xw2KmVjpvvk1yA

Submariner Oct 16, 2013 2:14 AM

They better reject it then lol.

antinimby Oct 16, 2013 2:18 AM

It looks like the League accepted Extell's offer. That's why he's doing the cantilever. However, all of it is contingent on whether the LPC will approve it.

Let's hope the LPC disapproves the cantilever, thus forcing a redesign.

easy as pie Oct 16, 2013 5:11 AM

^ well, the rationale behind the cantilever seems to arise primarily out of the deal with vornado to that neither site would block the other (suggesting that vornado intends to build 220 cps on the western portion of w58th rather than on the park directly) and the secondary/stated rationale is to provide nordstrom with "column free" space on their floors.

given these rationales, both of which are very important to the success of the project (as currently defined), i see barnett doing absolutely everything to get it through, which is unfortunate, given how ugly it is.

NYguy Oct 16, 2013 5:42 AM

I would even be fine with a reduced height, so long as they lost the cantilever.

nomad11 Oct 16, 2013 6:11 AM

And the plot thickens....maybe this will rise to 1,550 ft after all

NYguy Oct 16, 2013 1:36 PM

It's like almost every week now there's something to look forward to. Next week, it's the LPC meeting for this one. I feel it could go either way here.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152819866/original.jpg

hunser Oct 16, 2013 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6304092)
It's like almost every week now there's something to look forward to. Next week, it's the LPC meeting for this one. I feel it could go either way here.

Exciting times for sure. Remember when we were happy that the BofA and NYTT towers would break 1000 feet? Admittedly with a spire, but still. And now it's hard to keep track of all those supertalls (already over 20!). With "smaller" towers it's nearly impossible. Never thought we would experience such a boom, especially not so early.

Anyway, I hope they lose the cantilever and the tower exceeds 1,500'. :yes:

King DenCity Oct 16, 2013 4:50 PM

^same here

easy as pie Oct 16, 2013 5:28 PM

The cantilever would ensure that more of the apartments in Mr. Barnett’s building would have clear views of Central Park. If the league turns down his offer, Mr. Barnett said he would raise the height of the tower to 1,500 feet, from 1,400 feet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/ny...pagewanted=all

ILNY Oct 16, 2013 5:47 PM

I hope they will kill the cantilever.

chris08876 Oct 16, 2013 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie (Post 6304453)
The cantilever would ensure that more of the apartments in Mr. Barnett’s building would have clear views of Central Park. If the league turns down his offer, Mr. Barnett said he would raise the height of the tower to 1,500 feet, from 1,400 feet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/ny...pagewanted=all

I feel that they will kill it. Considering the location, it demands top notch architecture. An eye sore here would be a travesty no matter what the height is. NY isn't all about height, its about beauty.

NYguy Oct 16, 2013 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser (Post 6304103)
Exciting times for sure. Remember when we were happy that the BofA and NYTT towers would break 1000 feet?

Yes I do. In fact, the Times ran a piece on it's own headquarters building rising that high, despite 9/11.



Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6304701)
NY isn't all about height, its about beauty.

I agree with that, height isn't everything, especially at this time when we are getting so many great proposals that will alter the skyline. This building doesn't really have to be the tallest as far as I'm concerned. However, those Central Park views are the "money shot" as far as Barnett is concerned, and the only logical thing to do is raise the tower higher so more units in his tower can avoid the 920 ft 220 CPS.

We'll see what happens next week.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.