SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 10 of 84
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

UrbanImpact Nov 4, 2013 9:13 PM
Yahoo News has done a news article on the building with a video that includes the model.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/future-i...9219.html?vp=1

Hypothalamus Nov 4, 2013 9:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanImpact (Post 6326719)
Yahoo News has done a news article on the building with a video that includes the model.
Nice video!

JayPro Nov 5, 2013 12:08 AM
Direct east-west views and anything as close as possible to them are gonna blow minds away.

The one thing I just thought of is the stuff of dreams till everything, especially this amazing tower, gets done:

The MidTown tunnel approach IMO offers a bafflingly prodigious view of the entire city (i.e. IMO the best by far), such that a true appreciation of the City's size can be taken in.

You think this is true now? 111 in her full glory will be just a piece of it.

NYguy Nov 5, 2013 1:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanImpact (Post 6326719)
Yahoo News has done a news article on the building with a video that includes the model.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/future-i...9219.html?vp=1

Some good stuff...


Quote:
The tower is expected to have only 3 high-speed elevators, and each floor will be its own ultra-luxe 5,000 square foot apartment.

The building has roughly 45 apartments and the tower floors. Our first residential floor starts at about 260 feet in the air, so that every single apartment in the tower has a spectacular unobstructed view of Central Park,” says Stern. “You really get this floor-through experience that you’re floating in the city. That was really what we were going for and we think it will be really special.”

And the views from this extraordinary perch in the sky? They’re likely amongst the best in Manhattan.

“The penthouse sits almost twelve hundred feet up in the air. It enjoys commanding views of [Central] Park, across into Long Island City, Queens, and out to Long Island. There’s just going to be nothing like it across the entire cityscape. It’s going to be truly spectacular.”


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232743/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232744/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232745/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232746/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232747/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232748/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232749/original.jpg




http://www.architectmagazine.com/arc...kyscraper.aspx

SHoP Goes Skinny
The model-thin design 105–111 West 57th Street is the next tallest tower in New York City.

By Philip Nobel
November 4, 2013

Quote:
....New York City has a skyscraper complex. Once the undisputed leader in producing buildings of that type, the city has fallen far behind. There’s little hope of ever matching the heights reached regularly now overseas, and even the city’s contender for Tallest Building in the Nation—the recently structurally complete One World Trade Center—is unlikely to overtop its rival in Chicago since its transmission tower was stripped of its planned white radome by some cost-cutting chicanery.

So it was with some relief last week when New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission gave final approval to the design of a new tower planned for 105–111 West 57th Street. At 1,350 feet, it’s no slouch—that height, in fact, will put it higher than the roof of the Empire State Building (sans mooring mast) and, at present, a respectable number 26 on the list of tallest proposed buildings anywhere in the world.

.....The tower’s short walls will be finished with low-iron glass (to the north, overlooking Central Park) and various sun-beating systems (to the south). But the side walls, incorporating the lion’s share of the concrete and steel structure, are a new take on something old. And they will also be very New York: a system of terra-cotta blocks, to be supplied by craftsmen at venerable Boston Valley Terra Cotta in 26 distinct profiles, ranging in shape from the nearly traditional to the almost-futuristic. The blocks will be stacked in strips between tall windows to create a kind of wavering, rippling effect—a challenge to the lingering blobitectural impulse still seen in so much new construction. I’m looking at you, Frank Gehry.

The new take on terra-cotta, and the sensitive way the tower interacts with the adjacent historic Steinway Building, no doubt warmed the hearts of the Landmarks Preservation Commission overseers. And that updating of a native New York way of building sets a worthy precedent.

"It's Art Deco meets CATIA," says Chris Sharples, AIA, a partner at SHoP involved with the project. "The idea here was, how could we design a truly New York skyscraper? Not just something that you could take from Beijing or Shanghai or Dubai and plant here."

Blaze23 Nov 5, 2013 2:28 AM
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232743/original.jpg

It's funny that they incorporated TV in that render; to put a building that hasn't even started construction yet and put it in focus from the rest of the skyline by making it green is almost a way of saying "we're in the same league!". Rightfully so I might add.

generalscarr Nov 5, 2013 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze23 (Post 6327135)
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153232743/original.jpg

It's funny that they incorporated TV in that render; to put a building that hasn't even started construction yet and put it in focus from the rest of the skyline by making it green is almost a way of saying "we're in the same league!". Rightfully so I might add.
That looks like a wind tunnel test. For that TV has to be included as - considering it`s height and volume - it can significantly affect wind patterns.

franktko Nov 5, 2013 10:32 PM
Or maybe both projects got together to split the costs of the wind tunnel tests...

scalziand Nov 6, 2013 2:49 AM
^^I doubt that. The engineering for Verre was done years ago, before the project went on hold.

plinko Nov 6, 2013 6:10 AM
Interesting. I hear 'terra-cotta' and get kind of excited. It's an incredibly versatile building material and not used nearly enough anymore.

This should be fun to watch.

NYguy Nov 9, 2013 1:02 AM
I posted these photos in the One57 thread. I don't think the renderings show just how dominant in height this will be for the area.

For comparison...

http://distilleryimage1.s3.amazonaws...0a1fb04e_8.jpg
alexanderbank


http://distilleryimage3.s3.amazonaws...ed24a06d_8.jpg
drakedesignassociates


Resized view...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153286498/original.jpg
alexanderbank


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153286499/original.jpg
drakedesignassociates

King DenCity Nov 9, 2013 1:23 AM
^it's just mind blowing...

baseball1992 Nov 9, 2013 5:27 PM
Did they give any idea on when construction will begin on this?

King DenCity Nov 10, 2013 3:26 PM
^ first quarter of 2014 I believe.

ILNY Nov 11, 2013 4:44 AM
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3790/1...5fda3427_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7301/1...bc25001a_b.jpg

lakegz Nov 11, 2013 11:58 AM
Unbelievable how it's gonna rise through that tiniest sliver of space.

tommaso Nov 11, 2013 11:53 PM
This is gonna be a delight to witness!!:cool:

sbarn Nov 12, 2013 1:59 AM
I wonder how much demo needs to happen in order for this one to move forward. So eager to see this building rise! :cheers:

wilfredo267 Nov 12, 2013 2:17 AM
Does this project have financing? l'm eager to see this built.

NYguy Nov 12, 2013 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 6335457)
I wonder how much demo needs to happen in order for this one to move forward. So eager to see this building rise! :cheers:
Less than originally planned. They altered that to appeal more to Landmarks during the approval. What will be demolished is the lowrise at the back of the courtyard (which you can barely see).

chris08876 Nov 12, 2013 3:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakegz (Post 6334630)
Unbelievable how it's gonna rise through that tiniest sliver of space.
Going to be a different experience looking at it from the street. And its funny how at one point we all though 432 Park Ave was small.

King DenCity Nov 12, 2013 6:32 PM
When it goes up i will feel like i'm looking at a game of jenga and wondering which crane is gonna knock it down ;)

NYguy Nov 19, 2013 1:23 PM
http://shoparc.com/mediaitems/all


Quote:
Gregg isn't the only one building with Legos at SHoP, check out Chris Sharples's Lego model of our 57th street tower


http://shoparc.com/sites/default/fil...00698892_8.jpg

King DenCity Nov 19, 2013 7:54 PM
^Haha! That's so cool!

NYguy Nov 22, 2013 2:03 PM
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...top-featured-2

Central Park, and the billionaires' shadow

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/...es/one57_1.jpg


By Jim Windolf
Nov. 22, 2013


Quote:
.....I was walking through Battery Park on my way to the Skyscraper Museum, founded in 1996 by Carol Willis, an architectural historian who teaches urban studies at Columbia University. She was leading a 3 p.m. tour of her latest exhibit, "Sky High: The Logic of Luxury," which focuses on the advent of tall, skinny buildings throughout Manhattan, with an emphasis on the ones at Central Park's south end.

My interest in the subject had been stoked by "Shadows Over Central Park," an Oct. 28 New York Times op-ed by Warren St. John. I was trying to determine for myself whether the shadows to be cast by the supertowers were worth worrying about—or was this just a micro-concern for urban wusses who like to complain about almost any change?

Willis is an energetic woman in her sixties. The color of her loose, curly hair is academic white. She launched into an enthusiastic, slam-bang history of skyscrapers for me and the five other men who had shown up before hitting her main topic: the new breed of unusually thin towers.

One of these is the nearly completed glass tower called One57, a 1,004-foot residential building at 157 West 57th Street. This is the structure made famous during superstorm Sandy, when a crane dangled from an upper story, causing an evacuation. It made news once again last month, when one of its apartments, a duplex penthouse, reportedly sold for more than $90 million. Gary Barnett's Extell Development Company is the builder, working from plans by Christian de Portzamparc, who won the 1994 Pritzker Prize for architecture.

The developer Harry Macklowe is deep into construction of another such building, 432 Park, not far to the east of One57; it will reach a height of 1,396 feet—technically higher than the new World Trade Center, which tops out at 1,368 feet, before its spire hits the magic number of 1,776.

Another residential tower—this one to come in at 1,350 feet, developed by Michael Stern's JDS Construction Group—will rise between the Macklowe and Barnett buildings. The Skyscraper Museum's exhibit features large-scale models of all three, and Willis seemed house-proud as she showed them off.

"Engineers could have built slender buildings for decades," she said. "In effect, there's nothing very special about the technology of them. It's the land value of New York, and it's New York's characteristic zoning and air-rights transfers of property that allow for the buildings to become very tall. And it's the view of Central Park that creates the high prices. When a developer thinks about his projects, he knows how much money he is going to make. Today we have an excited market, and these buildings are commanding $6,000 to $8,000—even $13,000—per square foot, sales prices that allow you take the next step in development logic of these buildings, which is the logic of luxury."

After the tour, Willis told me to think of the towers as special entities similar, in a way, to "rare flowers that can grow only in the Galapagos Islands," because a combination of special factors (an exuberant market, the rise of the billionaire class, the Central Park views) has made made them specific architectural creatures native to Manhattan. Buildings in Dubai, to which they are often compared, are actually fatter, Willis said; the only similar structure is in Hong Kong.

When I asked her, in a phone interview, about the issue of the Central Park shadows, she said: "It's really important to know how slender these buildings are. People imagine the shadows will be huge and overbearing, but the shadow for 111 57th Street is going to be 50 feet wide and it's going to travel very quickly. The super slender towers are a new form in the history of the skyscraper. Once we begin to appreciate that part of it, and get away from the outrage of the $90-million penthouses and the resentment that rich people are going to throw shadows onto Central Park, then they become something special, rather than just another mundane tower."

The next morning it was sunny and 36 degrees. I stood in Central Park to see One57's shadow with my own eyes. At 10:45 it lay diagonally across the park's southwest corner and it was 45 paces wide. A bearded British tourist stood within its bounds, aiming his camera at One57. He snapped a picture, and I asked him what he thought of it. "It's awesome, isn't it?" he said. I told him it had just been built, and he said, "Really?" To him, One57 was not an interloper. It belonged to the cityscape as much as the Essex House, with its charmingly cheesy sign.

An old man with a white beard sat on a smooth glacial rock in the sun. I watched him as he removed his jacket and lay down, now using the jacket as a blanket. He scratched himself and seemed to fall asleep. Ten minutes later, the shadow took him in. He sat up and looked around with an attitude of, "What the hell just happened?" He stood and walked north, where the One57 shadow was stretching into the Heckscher softball fields.

By itself, the shadow of One57 may be no big deal. But it struck me as unfair that, sometime next year, someone who paid $90 million for a glass-walled, floor-through residence will lounge in full sunshine while the old man will have less light of his own. And it will be more unfair when other shadows join that of One57 in a race across the park. In addition to the three buildings I have mentioned, Barnett (of Extell) hopes to build yet another needle tower, at the corner of Broadway and West 57th Street. And it has been reported that a sale is pending for the rather homely Helmsley Park Lane Hotel, which stands even closer to the park's edge, at 36 Central Park South. Steven Witkoff's Witkoff Group has offered some $660 million for it.

The logic of luxury, followed to its extreme, would suggest that Witkoff tear down the 46-story Park Lane and replace it with a needle tower capable of fetching, oh, $8-13,000 per square foot. (Less clear is whether he can.) But the more certain thing is just down the block, at 220 Central Park South: Madave Properties, a partnership of Steven Roth's Vornado Realty Trust and Veronica Hackett's Clarett Group (these names!), has emerged from a legal duel with Barnett and hopes to put up a slim condominium of its own, at 920 feet, to be designed by Robert A.M. Stern, the architect of the nearby 15 Central Park West. Real-estate gods willing, a total of six towers will stand between the sun and the park—meaning six shadows will creep across the rocks and grass.

Perklol Nov 22, 2013 2:09 PM
That picture makes the problem look 10x worse. Is it really that bad?

NYguy Nov 22, 2013 2:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6349096)
That picture makes the problem look 10x worse. Is it really that bad?
I don't know what you mean. At any time of the day there are going to be shadows over Central Park because it's ringed by skyscrapers. New Yorkers are used to it, nobody goes to Central Park for sun. Of course, the further away you get from the tallest towers, the more sun you will find. I'm in Central Park a lot, and the sun is hardly of any concern to me - regardless of the time of year. There are times I could do without it (for photography).

JayPro Nov 22, 2013 2:35 PM
This piece is just more anti-development, NIMBYist twattage on display, as if dummying up a propagandized editorial's going to turn back the clock on progress.
SMH.

Submariner Nov 22, 2013 3:11 PM
Yeah, NIMBY's will use any excuse and latch on to any scare tactic. Nothing new here, just some grade A insanity.

Perklol Nov 22, 2013 3:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6349116)
I don't know what you mean. At any time of the day there are going to be shadows over Central Park because it's ringed by skyscrapers. New Yorkers are used to it, nobody goes to Central Park for sun. Of course, the further away you get from the tallest towers, the more sun you will find. I'm in Central Park a lot, and the sun is hardly of any concern to me - regardless of the time of year. There are times I could do without it (for photography).
I meant the photograph with the article makes this shadows over the park look like "doom and gloom" situation to prove their point. I'm pretty sure those shadows on the park have nothing to do with nearby buildings.

I agree that this is a scare tactic.

Crawford Nov 22, 2013 4:09 PM
The shadows in Central Park are 99% from trees and structures in Central Park. Obviously tall buildings outside the park are not a major contributing factor, and the article is just NIMBY idiocy.

Guiltyspark Nov 22, 2013 5:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6349233)
The shadows in Central Park are 99% from trees and structures in Central Park. Obviously tall buildings outside the park are not a major contributing factor, and the article is just NIMBY idiocy.
Yeah, why is it the crazy shadow people never advocate removing all the trees? lol

ablerock Nov 22, 2013 5:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eveningsong (Post 6349202)
I meant the photograph with the article makes this shadows over the park look like "doom and gloom" situation to prove their point. I'm pretty sure those shadows on the park have nothing to do with nearby buildings.

I agree that this is a scare tactic.
I know what you meant. The bottom half of the picture is practically black.

It's obviously not an accurate representation of what any shadow in Central Park looks like to the human eye, because the camera has underexposed the bottom half in response to being blown out by the bright sun in in the top half.

NYguy Dec 2, 2013 6:15 PM
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articl...-skinny-tower/

The skinny on SHoP’s new skinny tower: Architecture review
The JDS and Property Markets Group’s 57th Street tower is ushering in a new era of spindly and iconic structures


http://s12.therealdeal.com/trd/up/2013/12/Gardner.jpg


December 01, 2013
By James Gardner


Quote:
In the course of reviewing architecture in New York City and elsewhere, I find that most buildings inspire in me either appreciation of their beauty, anger at their ugliness, or indifference to their banality. But the new condo tower planned on 57th Street between Sixth and Seventh avenues inspires something very different in me: fear.

From a 60-foot-wide base (roughly the width of two row-house lots), this structure will rise 1,350 feet and will be 100 feet taller than the Empire State Building, whose base — let us remember — stretches the full block from 33rd to 34th streets.

I suppose that SHoP Architects (the firm that designed 107 West 57th Street), as well as the developers (Kevin Maloney’s Property Markets Group, Michael Stern’s JDS Development and Atlantic Investors LLC), know what they are doing. But it’s difficult to look at the renderings of this pencil-thin structure without imagining that a strong wind might cause the entire thing to come tumbling down. Heretofore, SHoP, which designed the Barclay’s Center in Brooklyn, has been more apt to build wide than tall.

Nearby, at Extell Development’s high-profile One57, the base is far wider and sturdier, as is the case with 432 Park Avenue, which is cast in a concrete frame. But this newest project looks to be confected of little more than some twig-like bits of steel and glass.

That said, since I am not likely to be able to inhabit the building, given the astronomical prices it will command, I do hope that this latest project reaches completion in something like the form of the renderings. It will be something to see! Heretofore, one had to go to places like Hong Kong to find such a pencil-thin ratio of width to height.

Indeed, our local authorities had prohibited it, precisely because of the dangers involved. But now that construction techniques have advanced, we’re starting to see more of these super-tall and ultrathin structures.

Perhaps the best example to date in the city is the unfairly maligned One Madison on 23rd Street. Completed, more or less, in 2010, this fine structure from the architecture firm Cetra/Ruddy looks almost squat compared to what is now being planned. And One Madison is nothing compared with 432 Park Avenue, which is being developed by the CIM Group and Harry Macklowe and designed by Rafael Viñoly. The Park Avenue building is already on the rise, and though it’s far from being topped out, once completed, it will stand out with a distinctiveness that will immediately command attention.

Surely 107 West 57th Street will be very different from 432 Park Avenue. It consists of glass curtain walls rather than a modular concrete frame, with setbacks rather than the uniform ascent of the Park Avenue building. But 107 West 57th Street promises to be equally distinctive and, when completed, will be only 48 feet shorter.

The developers of this planned skinny tower purchased Steinway Hall, which neighbors it immediately to the west. Designed by Warren & Wetmore, this landmark structure afforded them the air rights to build a 1,350-foot building, and although they could have built it as-of-right, they designed it to recede in stages above the midpoint. The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted almost unanimously to approve the design.

According to the renderings, the skyscraper will have a luminous, eight-story glass-enclosed atrium with a view of the eastern flank of Steinway Hall. (This was never possible before, but it is now that the neighboring building has been demolished to make way for the new skyscraper.)

Once the eastern façade of Steinway Hall has a few new windows punched into its side, and a lovely expanse of dressed stone fitted into its base, it will look better than ever.

The skyscraper itself will be a continuous curtain wall with views in all directions, articulated by the strong textural presence of its bronze-and-white terra-cotta infill. Other than the building’s staggered set-backs, the treatment of the surface promises to be uniform throughout its height. Though the great aesthetic thrust of the new building will consist in its height and thinness, there promises to be skill in the detailing of its surface as well.

Together with the likes of 432 Park, this planned building suggests that, for the first time in nearly 80 years, we are at the dawn of a new age like the one that Rem Koolhaas described in a book titled “Delirious New York.” Published in 1978, the book was referring to the Art Deco aesthetic that accounted for some of the most exorbitant and distinctive structures of the early 1930s, among them the Empire State and Chrysler buildings, as well as the Waldorf Astoria on Park Avenue and the Squibb Building at 745 Fifth Avenue.

In fairly short order, I expect the skyline of Manhattan, certainly of Midtown, will begin to look very different, and to be defined by the spindly and iconic structures. They will stand out not only by virtue of their perilous thinness, but also by virtue of rising in relative isolation. If the high-rises of the past amounted to a forest of clashing and competing structures, the newest crop will suggest something more in the nature of a Japanese garden in which each of the plants seems to rise in glorious isolation, with its place in the sun and all the air and light it needs to live.

It’s always been one of the paradoxes of skyscrapers that their aesthetics can best be appreciated when they are allowed to rise — like the 2,700-foot-tall Burj Khalifa in Dubai — alone, with no tall buildings near them. In Manhattan, where it’s most necessary to build vertically, it’s usually impossible — because of the density of tall buildings — to see any building but the tallest.

That, however, is unlikely to be a problem in New York in the future, certainly not along Central Park South, which is being redefined by such tall and skinny towers as 107 West 57th Street. Because of their thinness, and because of the abundance of landmarked buildings in their midst, they will never be clustered together with the same density that we see near Wall Street.

Indeed, 57th Street, especially west of Fifth Avenue, is being fundamentally transformed. Quite aside from the development that’s taken place west of Eighth Avenue, the area from Park to Eighth Avenue is — a few exceptions aside — not only becoming far more residential, but apt to be the most expensive residential area in the city. Into this new environment, 107 West 57th Street will be shoe-horned, and will contribute greatly to the appeal of this crucial stretch of Manhattan.

hunser Dec 5, 2013 11:54 PM
New York’s New Delirium

Quote:
At 111 West 57th, the extreme slenderness ratio of 1:23 on the 1,350-foot-tall, 60-foot wide tower may prove to be a record-breaker. But the point is not to set a record, even though the building will take advantage of 15,000 PSI concrete, once a rare commodity, and a pendulum damper to achieve this feat, according to Michael Stern, managing partner of JDS Development.

“It’s all about the views,” Stern said, articulating the well-considered if tight mechanics of building on a through lot that narrows to 43 feet on the south side in order to provide apartments views up and down the island. Forty-four boutique apartments will be served by two passenger and one service elevator all the way to the top – and will be sure to command the same upper-eight-figure prices of its nearby neighbors.

Nevertheless, the building doesn’t want for architectural panache – Stern hired SHoP Architects to create what he calls a “modern version of a classic New York skyscraper, with feathered setbacks.” JDS wanted to do something different than the glassy towers that have risen of late – something “more Woolworth’s than Dubai – somehow we’d gotten away from the romance, and we want to get back to that,” Stern said.
Although he hired SHoP on the strength of their “nerve” for cladding the contentious Barclays Center in Kor-Ten steel, he insists he is not a big risk-taker.

“New York City multifamily housing is the most stable asset class in the world,” he said, citing his lengthy experience with mid-rise towers. “No one pays attention until you do a tall one.”

Guiltyspark Dec 7, 2013 5:34 AM
I have a question for your New Yorkers. What is the transpiration/economic/crime situation at the north end of Central Park? Is that area technically Harlem? It does not look very Manhattanish on Google Earth. If these super tall, super slim high end residential towers are going up to take advantage of the views where the lots are tiny... well then it seems to me that it would be easier to build a more massive high end residential tower on the north end. Something with wide floorplates east to west, but narrow north to south (ala, John Hancock) Then residents would have a view not only of the park, but Midtown as well.

scalziand Dec 7, 2013 8:58 AM
There's no crosstown subway lines north of Central Park, just the ones that run north/south under the avenues. It would be preferable to see a cross town line be built, probably at 116th or 125th street, before massively building up the Harlem area. Personally, I think that 125th street would be best, because it's a wide street like 57th, 42nd or 34th, so it's already something of a focus of activity, and it would tie in with the 125th street MetroNorth commuter rail station. The under construction 2nd avenue subway line will have a spur onto 125th street, so it shouldn't be too hard in the future to extend it further west across the island. Once that's done, the several blocks north and south of 125th could be massively up zoned like the Hudson Yards, and another supertall row could be developed.

Of course I haven't seen a plan this ambitious being seriously considered by the city, and it's not really worth considering, until the WTC and Hudson Yards are built out. By the Yards, I mean not just the yards themselves and the boulevard, but also redeveloping the Javitts Convention Center, and the blocks south of the yards, which are equally underutilized, but haven't been rezoned yet. Infrastructure wise, a 125th street subway wouldn't be built until after the second ave line is completed, and at the rate it's going, its not going to be fully funded never mind built for another couple decades.

As for northern Manhattan looking different than the rest of the island, that's partly because of the geology of the island, and partly because of how it was developed. The northern end is much hillier, with occasional steep cliffs which mirror the Palisades in New Jersey. The rugged terrain made it harder to maintain the street grid when the streets were laid out. As for the development pattern, that's because development started at the southern tip, and grew northwards. The chaotic jumble of streets in the southern financial district is from the colonial era, before the city was formally planned. Moving north into tribeca, soho, smaller sections of grid start emerging, as entire areas were being planned and developed in a haphazard manner. In 1811, the city adopted a new master plan that stopped the piecemeal development and established the present grid, allowing development to march orderly northward. At first, the plots marked out by the surveyors were rather narrow, resulting in the common tenement. Over time, the grid has been broken up by public housing projects and co-ops, and developers have built bigger towers by assembling the small tenement lots into larger plots.

There's a variety of reasons way Harlem hasn't been developed as intensely as Midtown or the financial district. The density of development was influenced by the transportation infrastructure (Before 1961, developers had free reign to build however big they wanted, so zoning wasn't an issue). At first, the subways (first built as elevated lines) were built for commuting between the predominantly residential neighborhoods that were growing steadily northward, and the southern financial district(wall street), and the industrial area directly north of that(docks, meatpacking district, garment district, newspaper row, etc). These lines were only for local transportation though. When New York Central RR and Pennsylvania Central RR wanted to build terminals for their interstate rail lines, the city had already forbidden steam powered trains south of 42nd street, so that's where New York Central built Grand Central Station. What would eventually become the Mid town business district grew around the terminal. Penn Central didn't want to be left with out a Manhattan terminal though. Since the tunnel under the Hudson required that they use electric trains anyway, the steam prohibition below 42nd street was not an issue, and they had more flexibility locating the station. Land near the financial district would have been too expensive, as would land directly adjacent to the NY Grand Central Station, so they split the difference by building Penn Station several blocks south of Grand Central, where the land was still cheap. Northern Manhattan never got a rail terminal to act as a an anchor for intense commercial development like Midtown did, so it stayed mostly lowrise residential well into the mid 20th century. By then, economic issues like white flight and redlining led to urban decay in Northern Manhattan (which isn't to say that other parts of the city weren't seeing their share of decay too). In 1961, NY adopted zoning regulations which for the first time limited the maximum bulk allowed to be built. This effectively locked in the existing development patterns, ensuring that it would be focused around downtown and midtown, and disallowing major projects except for the public housing projects I mentioned earlier else where.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125th_Street_(Manhattan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pal..._(Hudson_River)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...7_Plan_of_1811
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Manhattan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
http://www.worldcat.org/title/seeing...=brief_results

Oh dear, this post ended up rather long.

gttx Dec 7, 2013 5:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6366612)
I have a question for your New Yorkers. What is the transpiration/economic/crime situation at the north end of Central Park? Is that area technically Harlem? It does not look very Manhattanish on Google Earth. If these super tall, super slim high end residential towers are going up to take advantage of the views where the lots are tiny... well then it seems to me that it would be easier to build a more massive high end residential tower on the north end. Something with wide floorplates east to west, but narrow north to south (ala, John Hancock) Then residents would have a view not only of the park, but Midtown as well.
The previous post is a really nice history of lots of things (I suggest reading it all!) - but if you want a short answer:

- Primarily it is a residential district with a similar feel to adjacent neighborhoods east and west of the park, compared to the huge business district south of the park
- Subway connections aren't great as you just have the C on the western edge and the 2/3 serving Central Park North, both of which shuttle people uptown/downtown but not crosstown (only buses for this)
- Historically the connection to Harlem has made this area slower to develop than its UWS and UES neighbors, but rent pressures are starting to change that. I think you will see a big boom in new residential buildings here.
- Height is limited by very different zoning requirements than you have in Midtown, due to the way the neighborhood has been built historically
- Crime is still somewhat of a problem, but that is changing as housing prices push people out.
- The nature of the park is different here too. It is more of a residential amenity and less of a grand civic/tourist space....partly by design and partly just because of the way midtown interacts with the southern edge.

Guiltyspark Dec 7, 2013 6:53 PM
^Thanks guys. Lots of good info.

Crawford Dec 7, 2013 7:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6366612)
I have a question for your New Yorkers. What is the transpiration/economic/crime situation at the north end of Central Park? Is that area technically Harlem? It does not look very Manhattanish on Google Earth.
Yes, it is Central Harlem, transit is excellent (Harlem has terrific subway service, express and local) and economic and crime are both fine. The area is quite desirable but obviously nowhere near the desirability on the other end of Central Park.

Does not look Manhattanish? You mean in terms of highrises? There are some but most of Manhattan is not covered with highrises, but rather very dense midrise, which is also the norm around Central Park North. They are planning many taller buildings along Central Park North and environs, but the zoning does not allow for real skyscrapers.

ILNY Dec 7, 2013 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6366612)
I have a question for your New Yorkers. What is the transpiration/economic/crime situation at the north end of Central Park? Is that area technically Harlem? It does not look very Manhattanish on Google Earth. If these super tall, super slim high end residential towers are going up to take advantage of the views where the lots are tiny... well then it seems to me that it would be easier to build a more massive high end residential tower on the north end. Something with wide floorplates east to west, but narrow north to south (ala, John Hancock) Then residents would have a view not only of the park, but Midtown as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/re...ark-north.html

How the Word ‘North’ Affects Prices. Living Along Central Park North
By JOHN FREEMAN GILL
Published: November 12, 2013


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

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...-map-popup.png

Quote:
“This is why I live here,” he said the other day, standing on his balcony and gesturing expansively at the park and the glorious cityscape of Manhattan, clear down to 1 World Trade Center. In the evenings, he said, the individual buildings on Central Park South soften into a purplish-gray mass whose craggy profile reminds him of the view of the Rocky Mountains from his childhood balcony in Denver.

Central Park North, also called West 110th Street, is bookended by circles, each commanded by a monument to an African-American legend. At the park’s northwest corner, the abolitionist Frederick Douglass gazes northward up the gentrifying boulevard that bears his name. At the northeast corner, the jazz composer Duke Ellington looks east past One Museum Mile, a Fifth Avenue luxury condo designed by Robert A. M. Stern Architects, and toward a public housing development.

The uptown side of Central Park North is lined primarily by low-slung prewar apartments, many of them rent-stabilized. The street level of No. 111 is home to the Cooper-Hewitt Design Center, as well as a Dunkin’ Donuts.

The area’s population, historically dominated by blacks, has diversified at an even faster clip than Central Harlem as a whole. A 2007-to-2011 census survey estimated that 6,489 people lived in an area comprising the blocks along northern Central Park and a small wedge of land running north from there to 114th Street west of Lenox. Half of these residents were black, a 17 percent drop since 2000. In that time, the white population nearly quadrupled, to 19 percent; the share of Asians grew to 5 percent; that of Hispanics dropped slightly, to 23 percent.

But long before the gentrification of the 1990s, Central Park North was known as a more stable strip than the streets above it, said Larry Young, a Central Park North resident who grew up on 111th in the 1960s. Mr. Young, a program director for a nonprofit, recalled that back then kids from 111th or 112th played football in the street against 110th Street kids, whom he describes as typically better educated, with parents in better jobs, often the Civil Service.

Later, into the early ’80s, when Harlem in general grew more troubled, “drugs didn’t go so much in that part of town,” he said of Central Park North. “The families were more together, and even now it’s family-oriented.”

Residents often say that Central Park feels like their backyard. The street lacks the crowds and traffic of counterpart boulevards on its other sides, and at the Farmers’ Gate at Lenox Avenue and the Warriors’ Gate at Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard, the park throws its arms open wide.

“I never feel it’s garbagey, and I never feel unsafe; it’s just picturesque,” said Ellen Anthony-Moore, a professor who has lived on Central Park North since 1999. “There are a lot of international families and a lot of people from Columbia University, and it just feels very down-to-earth.”

NYguy Dec 8, 2013 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark (Post 6366612)
I have a question for your New Yorkers. What is the transpiration/economic/crime situation at the north end of Central Park? Is that area technically Harlem? It does not look very Manhattanish on Google Earth. If these super tall, super slim high end residential towers are going up to take advantage of the views where the lots are tiny... well then it seems to me that it would be easier to build a more massive high end residential tower on the north end.
Short, simple answer, and then we can all get back on topic.

The towers rising south of Central Park are in an area (the so called "special midtown district") that allows for greater density, which means basically larger buildings, and no height restrictions. You won't see supertalls or anything close to that rising north of Central Park. In fact, you won't see that east and west of Central Park either. I lived on W. 112th St years ago, and the area has changed a lot, but it won't be Central Park South. And yes, it's very Manhattan still.

manchester united Dec 10, 2013 12:56 AM
1350 foot tall and 60 foot wide for an incredible ratio of 1:23 !!!!!!

NYguy Dec 10, 2013 12:58 AM
Permits filed in preparation for work on the landmark...


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

Quote:
PERMIT ISSUED - ENTIRE JOB/WORK 12/09/2013

INSTALLATION OF 146 LINEAR FEET OF HEAVY DUTY SIDEWALK SHED DURING BUILDING ALTERATION


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

Quote:
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO PLAN EXAMINER 12/09/2013

FILING FOR APPROVAL OF REPAIRS/REPLACEMENT OF LIMESTONE, THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING FACADE AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS FILED HEREWITH.

NYguy Dec 16, 2013 11:24 AM
Enlarged this pic from...http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...ough_intro.php


The day when we can look up and see this...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153802688/large.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153802688/original.jpg

uaarkson Dec 16, 2013 2:41 PM
This is in the top tier of new architecture in the city, along with the likes of Tower Verre, 56 Leonard, the BIG Pyramid, 2WTC, and the Hudson Yards towers among others. Instant classic.

Submariner Dec 16, 2013 3:11 PM
Yes, this is a special building for sure. 432 Park, TV, One 57 and this are magnificent. Maybe it's making them rethink the design between 225W 57th street!

JayPro Dec 16, 2013 7:17 PM
I'm still (aren't we all, though?) waiting for the due East/West money shot...as well as our first looks at some nighttime profiles.

WonderlandPark Dec 16, 2013 8:32 PM
Is there a timeline on this published yet?

NYguy Dec 17, 2013 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner (Post 6375680)
Maybe it's making them rethink the design between 225W 57th street!
Things have been quiet on that front. I'm taking that as a good sign.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6376051)
I'm still (aren't we all, though?) waiting for the due East/West money shot...as well as our first looks at some nighttime profiles.

I haven't seen any night profiles, but the east-west profile will be pretty much the same as this...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152820786/original.jpg

JayPro Dec 17, 2013 12:37 AM
Well, yes...but I meant by way of clarification how this'll look superimposed on the skyline from more or less the same vantage point.
Fellow forumer ILBY posted this on the 432P thread:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5495/1...2b11439e_c.jpg
...which will be a sight to behold when both that and this are ready to open.
BTW I was going to chime in on the Nordstrom IMO; but discretion, as they say........


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:14 AM.
Viewing Page 10 of 84
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.