I keep hearing that the views of Central Park are to die for. Don't blot out the sunlight with too many supertalls now, otherwise you'll kill all the trees.:haha:

I'm not sure I understand what all the fuss is about regarding central park views. Obviously people are willing to pay a lot of money for it, so the market should provide what the market wants; so I realize lots of people clearly disagree with me. Nevertheless, as for me, a park view from the south side of the park is only interesting for the first few hundred feet, where you can appreciate the park as framed by the relatively modest towers (in terms of height) on the upper east and west sides. Once I'm up 500 or more feet, personally, I'd much rather have a city view, not a park view.

Of course, I realize that these slender towers allow for units that have views on all sides, which would be amazing, and means you don't have to make a choice if you are up high enough and not blocked by neighboring buildings. But if I had to choose between the two...being blocked by a tower on the park side or being blocked by a tower on the midtown side, I would choose to be blocked by a tower on the park side.

That said, if I lived on the north side of the park, I'd most definitely want a park view. Imagine living in a tower on 110th, with the park in the near view and the emerging midtown skyline in the distant view. Spectacular, I would think, day and night.

Reading this post it seems you understand exactly why people want park views!! ^^

Except that I don't understand the fuss over park views from roughly 500 feet up for the buildings on the south side of the park. All other things being equal, if I bought a unit at roughly 500 feet or higher, I'd rather be in a 57th street tower with city views and a blocked park view, than in a 59th street tower with park views and a blocked city view.

Have you been up in these towers? I suspect you would have a different opinion if you spent time on the higher floors in towers right along Central Park.

The views from the north side of the park are least impressive (though still great) because you're too far from Midtown to really appreciate. The most notable buildings are frankly quite far at that point.

The views from the south side of the park are most impressive because you have the most interesting part of the park framed by landmark towers on all three sides. And the higher you go the better the views. The Midtown-facing views aren't nearly as impressive from 57th or CPS.

Park views will always be most valuable, and the higher the floor, the higher the price (though directly on CPS the relative height is less important beause there's nothing blocking views at any height).

Clearly it appears most people agree with you, given the price that units with parkviews command. And I definitely agree that being near the park is wonderful...my friends who live on/near the park (including the ones without views of it) love their proximity to it and I can understand why. Also, I work just a few blocks from the park (though not with a park view).

Yet, to the extent that I've been in park-view buildings for meetings, or visiting friends in hotel rooms, or friends with parkside apartments, or drinking at rooftop/upper floor bars along the park, I generally enjoy the parkviews on the lower floors more than I do on the super high floors. High views of the park were impressive the first few times I saw it, but not so much after, relative to city views. With city views, I never tire of things to look at, and I like the way that the downtown skyline is off in the distance even as the midtown skyline is right in your face. And the city looks so completely different at different times of day in different kinds of light. That's true of the park and its frame, too, but not as much, in my opinion.

I agree that the views from 110th street currently aren't nearly as good because the buildings are short, so you can't get up high enough. I'm simply guessing what those views would be from a 700ft+ tower on 110th (if one existed). I'm quite sure I would like it very much indeed, even given the distance from midtown.

But I'm a brooklyn boy, and live near the east river, so I guess perhaps I'm biased toward skyline views and water views more than park views.

This tower isn't even being marketed yet. So it doesn't make sense to say that 200 CPS fast sales means it's a more desirable tower. You're comparing a tower that is selling units with one that isn't.

Both towers will be have many units with completely unobstructed views, as well as many units with partially obstructed views.

There are huge still columns rising out of the pit. Photos later!!

PS: Senior guys from LL once again confirmed Yimby's rendering.

Which rendering? Spire or no spire?

Spire, but that doesn't mean that the spire will be included (though they said it would). It just means that the basic design shown by Yimby, subject to minor changes (e.g., 1,520' vs. 1,550' parapet, etc) is what will rise.

Earlier today with 220 CPS looming in the background!

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5703/...d9989495_b.jpg

^Let's Go! This Unequivocally the most exciting project to me.
Due to the hight no doubt. ;)

I think, while the roof height is awesome and will be amazing with the midtown elevation vs. downtown, the spire was a nice element and I am hoping it stays. The peaks and points, especially when lit with different colors, make the skyline really diverse and interesting. A flat top 1500' tower would look great, but with 432 in the same area and 0ne57 not all that lit, the area could use another large bright spire.

Is One57 ever gonna be lit up at night as shown in the renders?

I totally agree, the spire was a nice addition, but I wouldn't be surprised if for financial reasons it was done away with. Like I said before, if he doesn't plan on passing 1WTC for whatever stupid reason anyway there's no need for it.

A 1,550 roof height would make up for that though, although I would guess they would just build 1,522 and forget about the spire.

While mildly upsetting it's still a record breaking tower :)

There's no indication there isn't a spire.

And if there weren't a spire, it would have nothing to do with "financial reasons"; it would be a design change related to whatever the developer thinks works best for marketability.

There is an indication! The most recent architectural drawings I saw ;)

1550', no spire. Although I'm hoping they bring it back :shrug:

Exactly, I'm not sure if it was posted here but it was at SSC, although it remains uncertain if it's accurate or not.

Of course it would have to do with financial reasons, the spire material/construction isn't free so it's extra money. And like I said (and Barnett said) if he doesn't plan on passing the WTC in height, there is no point (no pun intended) in adding a spire (other than design, but money trumps that these days).

Of course it's not 100% certain it was done away with, but I wouldn't be too shocked either. While I'm usually not much of a spire person I really love the one on this building though, it looks badass in the detailed photos.

Transmitter instead?
 

Is it possible that the spire may b deleted so they can put up an antenna at a later date??????? I mean a 1,550 sum odd foot roof is a good starting off point 4 a broadcaster?

WHAT WERE, ARE, AND WILL BE NEW YORK'S TALLEST RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?
http://skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/TEN_TOPS/nyc.php#

http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...al/records.jpg

These two charts, created by The Skyscraper Museum, line up buildings with the highest living spaces (and often prices!) in Manhattan’s competitive environment. Looking at past, present, and future residential towers The Skyscraper Museum compiled a list of the tallest residential skyscrapers in New York City.

Included in the definition of “residential” are several types of buildings where people live and sleep. Condominiums and cooperative apartment houses are one type. Another, hotels, are generally short-term residences, but historically in New York high-class hotels, such as the the Sherry-Netherland and the Waldorf-Astoria, have offered long-term leases, like apartments. Some buildings are hybrids, mixing hotels and apartments, offices, and retail within one structure. The towers in this “top ten” are color-coded according to their program: blue for residential, purple for hotel, green for office, and red for retail.


http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...ential/all.jpg

This chart illustrates the consecutive towers that claimed the record for New York’s tallest residential building. As a “top ten” they encompass the 1920s to today and range from the 560 ft. Sherry-Netherland (1927) to the topped-out 1,396 ft. 432 Park Avenue, and the Central Park Tower, projected to be 1,775 ft.

http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...cordsnames.jpg

TALLEST RESIDENTIAL SKYSCRAPERS - CURRENT OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION

For this chart, The Skyscraper Museum included residential skyscrapers that are completed or under construction as of August 2015, even if they are in the earliest stages of foundation work. Most are to be completed by 2018. Several other projects that we are confident will reach a height of 1,000 ft. or taller are rumored in the press but lack definitive designs: to represent these buildings, we have placed a “?” to reserve a place in the line up.


http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITION...ential/HOF.jpg

Another way to count building height is by the highest occupied floor, as opposed to the architectural height. You’ll notice that these heights don’t necessarily correspond to the building’s place in the line-up when listed by architectural height. For example, 111 West 57th street is taller than 432 Park Avenue, but its highest occupied floor is about 150 ft. lower. The Central Park Tower, which will be the tallest residential building in the world at 1775 ft. tall, also has the highest occupied floor on this list despite its over-200-foot-tall spire.

The towers can also be ranked by their gross floor area (GFA). This reordering reveals the distinction between big and tall buildings and makes clear the strategy of slenderness that many of the tallest residential towers use to achieve their elevated height and valuable views. The most extreme example is 111 W. 57th St., which although the second tallest tower on our list, falls in tenth place in terms of floor area. It uses extraordinary slenderness and full-floor units to create unique properties.

(More in link)

I predict another very tall tower on this site:

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/08/...-looming-fees/

The owners of the land, obviously need to buy all of the apartments, but it seems that they can get them at fire sale prices.