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)

scalziand May 2, 2014 3:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen (Post 6561389)
the question is do the economics require 100 MM condos, and would they still do ok with only 70 MM or 50 MM? What's the ROI on these things if the sales are as anticipated - must be gargantuan no?

IIRC, the cost to build One57 was ~$1billion, and sales were ~$2billion.

chris08876 May 2, 2014 4:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6561572)
According to that one source it'll be 1397' which is slightly crazier :haha:

I'm assuming that accounts for the sea level change?

Zapatan May 2, 2014 4:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6561649)
I'm assuming that accounts for the sea level change?

No, they said the actual building was 1397'

baseball1992 May 2, 2014 4:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6561656)
No, they said the actual building was 1397'

They didn't say anything, an article said 1397. That doesn't mean it is official

Crawford May 2, 2014 4:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baseball1992 (Post 6561679)
They didn't say anything, an article said 1397. That doesn't mean it is official

True, we have no official numbers. We have heard "1400", "almost 1400", "1397" and "1350". In any case, it will be damn tall and skinny.

My guess is 1397 is more accurate than 1350 or 1400, because it came from the developers themselves, and seems to be the most common height cited. But until we have permits and construction, we won't know for sure.

NYguy May 2, 2014 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 6561649)
I'm assuming that accounts for the sea level change?

Yes, the 1,397 ft figure is likely a more accurate height than 1,400, which both 432 Park and this tower would basically be if the height holds true. But, as these things go, who knows if the height has been revised yet again. Eventually we will get drawings with the exact heights. Besides, none of the other skyscrapers in that piece accounted for change in sea level.

Hypothalamus May 15, 2014 8:40 PM

New York YIMBY:

Construction Update: 111 West 57th Street
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON MAY 15TH 2014 AT 6:00 AM

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...cavation-2.jpg
Yesterday's excavation progress at 111 West 57th Street, photo by Andrew McKeon

Quote:

Excavation is finally beginning at 111 West 57th Street, where on-site machinery had previously been sitting idle. Digging is already making quick progress, and a comparison of yesterday’s construction shot with a photo from one week earlier reveals that earth underneath the site is slowly shrinking away. JDS and Property Markets Group are the developers, and SHoP is the architect.

Fresh progress at The Steinway Tower means that work has now begun at all major ‘supertall’ sites on 57th Street. Excavation is further along on western rivals at 217 West 57th Street and 220 Central Park South, but the smaller scope of initial work at 111 West 57th Street — given the project’s confines — could mean that all three developments begin rising out of the ground simultaneously, either late this year or in early 2015.

New signage is also up at the site, indicating that construction is expected to be complete by June of 2017. 111 West 57th Street will eventually stand nearly 1,400 feet to its pinnacle, and contain approximately 80 residences.
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...h-vertical.jpg
111 West 57th Street, image via SHoP

nyc_alex May 15, 2014 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypothalamus (Post 6579573)
New York YIMBY:
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...h-vertical.jpg
111 West 57th Street, image via SHoP

The gap in the glass facade on the right kind of reminds me of One Madison Park... except this will be over twice the height :slob:

NYguy May 17, 2014 9:37 PM

Filing for revised drawings, assuming they are the current plans...


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=02

Quote:

HEREWITH FILING PAA TO SUBMIT REVISED DRAWINGS.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=02

Quote:

HEREWITH FILING PAA TO CHANGE LENGTH OF SIDEWALK SHED TO 144 LINEAR FEET AT JOB DESCRIPTION, SECTION 11 AND 15 AND TO SUBMIT REVISED DRAWINGS.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Quote:

FILING FOR APPROVAL OF TEST PITS AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS FILED HEREWITH

kenratboy May 18, 2014 6:30 PM

Are there any better floorplans (with or without units shown)? Glad the poster showed what is on page 33, but would love something a bit clearer/more detailed.

Any help would be appreciated!

Busy Bee May 18, 2014 8:22 PM

115 & 117
 
Alright, so this is a pretty left field theory i have but it has to be thrown out there. I mentioned at the infancy of this project what a shame it was that those lousy squat buildings to the west of Steinway Hall could not be acquired for this tower.

Now we have this peculiar DOB sidewalk scaffold filing for a total of 143 running feet of shed. Does anyone find it a bit unusual or coincidental that this lenghth happens to be almost exactly the length it would be if 115 and 117 were included? And its an alteration filing! What are the chances we've got an expanded building on our hands. One that is now wider taking FULL advantage of the site and straddling Steinway Hall? I for one think a wider structure would be even better than the current proposal because it eliminates the almost freakish proportions of the design that has the potential to look almost absurd.

WHY would scaffold be needed for 115 & 117 W 57?
Thoughts?

Perklol May 18, 2014 10:34 PM

Are there pics of all of this?

I think if it becomes wider then it could be a good thing. I normally wouldn't say this but it looks dangerously thin from these models.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCLuver (Post 6445692)
My friend and fellow forum member Danielson27 made these models and I just took the screenshots of them, sorry for them not being clad!!! One57, 432 Park, Torre Verre, 111 W57, 225 W57, 220 CPS are all there.

From Central Park:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...psbb5c81ba.jpg

From the West:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps2ef511c1.jpg

From the Empire State Building:
http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/y...psd17a597f.jpg

This is from the 220 thread.

Danielson27 May 19, 2014 1:02 AM

that's my model I made a while back. I made a mistake with 111 west 57th street. In that model i mistakely made it 40' by 60'...I later fixed it into it's proper dimensions 58'-9" by 79'-3". Here one of the pics of the final product I posted about a couple months back in various threads.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2898/...14323ca3_o.jpg

Perklol May 19, 2014 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danielson27 (Post 6583087)
that's my model I made a while back. I made a mistake with 111 west 57th street. In that model i mistakely made it 40' by 60'...I later fixed it into it's proper dimensions 58'-9" by 79'-3". Here one of the pics of the final product I posted about a couple months back in various threads.

Good work!:tup:

Ok then it doesn't look dangerously thin. :)

NYguy May 19, 2014 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6582911)
And its an alteration filing! What are the chances we've got an expanded building on our hands. One that is now wider taking FULL advantage of the site and straddling Steinway Hall? I for one think a wider structure would be even better than the current proposal because it eliminates the almost freakish proportions of the design that has the potential to look almost absurd.

WHY would scaffold be needed for 115 & 117 W 57?
Thoughts?

We already know that the design was revised due to the footprint and agreement with landmarks. They are just now filing the plans for the changed design, and we also know that the tower will be taller than previous plans. The whole thing is basically an alteration to Steinway Hall.

NYguy May 23, 2014 4:17 PM

Not the most accurate piece, but nice to get a better look at that rendering...


http://www.6sqft.com/construction-be...ominium-tower/

Construction Begins on Manhattan’s Tallest Condominium Tower


http://www.6sqft.com/wp-content/uplo...h-Street-2.jpg


April 18, 2014
By Diane Pham


Quote:

Construction on the SHoP Architects-designed tower at 111 West 57th Street has finally begun! Yesterday evening, one of 6sqft’s reporters walked past the site and took a quick snap of the newly arrived construction vehicles and equipment.

The Manhattan giant, which will also be the world’s slenderest tower, will rise 1,300-feet high, above a floor plate of around 60-feet wide. The building will host three elevators and each floor will be its own 5,000-square-foot apartment with 15-foot ceilings. And for those worried how wind load will affect the 76-story structure, a huge steel weight will be suspended within the top of the building to keep it from swaying (yikes).

King DenCity May 23, 2014 4:58 PM

1300? Probably just the article. Here we go!

tyleraf May 23, 2014 7:38 PM

Its exciting that this is starting construction. Hopefully someone can head down there soon and take some pics.

chris08876 May 23, 2014 7:40 PM

Poor One57. It was only the tallest in the area for a little bit. Now 432 Park is rising like its on meth to the top, and now this. Hopefully this tower will rise like bamboo quickly like 432 Park Ave. Unlike bulky towers, the skinnier they are, the taller they look. This one will catch people by surprise as the local folk probably has no idea. Well, except the ones hearing the construction right next to their window. :haha:

Submariner May 23, 2014 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King DenCity (Post 6589237)
1300? Probably just the article. Here we go!

I wouldn't worry too much. Most of the reputable sources put this closer to 1400 feet.


And I love the way the building shines, at least in the rendering. Can't wait to see how it plays out in person.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/155785274/original.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:35 AM.

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