Nothing's certain at this point. It could end up shorter, but also way taller.
I wonder though that Barnett would not exploit the tower's full potential. It just doesn't make any sense.

"way" taller would put this tower in the 2000+ foot range, that isn't happening.

way taller could mean anything 1650 ft 1700 ft anything..people stressing over an article 5 months old is ridiculous

I don't think so. You know, at any given time, there are projects being worked on that we don't know about. But I do believe that it's more likely he was talking about plans for this tower. It's also more likely that the reason they haven't revealed plans for this building is because the design has been in a state of flux, and there is no final design yet. The NB permit hasn't been altered, it's still in process, but it will be in time if called for. Expect nice renderings when the design is final, as both Extell and Nordstrom want this building to shine.


I don't think there will be setbacks for the store, the floorplates are small enough as it is, and Nordstrom had specific design instructions for open floors.



It is ridiculous. We don't know what the height is going to be, for now it's officially going to be over 1,500 ft according to the building permits filed (taller than the 1,250 ft we thought we were getting). I wouldn't get too worked up over an offhand quote like the one in that article. It's the same as getting worked up over what Barnett said about using development rights.

So, for those inclined to get worked up, at least wait until you have something to be worked up about.

The difference between a 1550 ft building and a 1650 ft building would hardly be noticeable let alone big but I agree people shouldn't jump to conclusions

^Either way it's a major landmark in the making.

Unlike even 432P, WTC2, Tower Verre and everything either slated or approved for the West Side---and until the planned MidTown East re-zoning kicks in with 1 Vanderbilt as its presumptive centerpiece--we can say the following about this tower.
This project, both in size and scope, is a virtual game-winner (never mind *changer*) that has the potential to redefine the *North American* skyscraper in ways that till now were relegated to "what if" status.
What if one could actually erect without political impediment a super-iconic giant that combines the best elements of 30's-era gems like ESB, Chrysler, GE/RCA, 40 Wall, 20 Exchange Pl. etc. with *just enough* avant-gardism to respect the building's environment?
Well, now it's possible. And here's that once-in-a-more-than-one-generation chance to see what it's gonna look like.
This will indeed turn heads, perhaps with enough force to snap necks á la Will Sasso's Seagal parody.

They better not reduce the height regardless of the news. This building has to bring New York to new heights.

Does anyone have demo updates of the piano building Extell recently acquired?

I don't think so. There's so much development going on in the city, if this one doesn't claim a new tallest to roof, another one will eventually. Of course, on a street of supertalls, which 57th will be, that extra height would give it a little something more and create a little more variety in height. We really don't want too many buildings of nearly the same height too close together. With this particular tower, most people will be concerned with the Nordstrom, but making it the highest skyscraper in the city makes it more than that. Whether it does or not though, by no means do I look at it as the only game in town.

^^ I will be very disappointed if they reduce the height of this building. It may not be our only bet for a skyline busting tower, but it certainly is our best bet for the near future.

I'm with Nyguy on this, regardless of how this tower turns out, there's so much momentum in NYC real estate that I'm sure we won't have to wait too long to see buildings reaching to new heights. Just look at the building a block down which was supposed to be a 700 footer not that long ago but may turn into a 1200 footer. Developers seem to be maximizing as much of the space they can build on as they can, and considering how scarce land to build on is getting in the city, I can only expect this trend to accelerate as demand is still strong for residential towers and office space is more and more outdated.
That said I will be quite disappointed if the building turns out shorter than advertised, this might be one of the most anticipated building in the city and all the anticipation is predicated on its height since there are no renderings. Unlike let's say a Tower Verre (which height deduction I still can't get over), most of us skyscraper enthusiasts are still quite exited about it getting built because the design is so bad ass, we can't say the same when it comes to the Nordstrom tower cause we just don't know what it looks like, so the excitement is constrained to what we expect will be the tallest building by roof height in the city; so yea I'll be very disappointed if it turns out shorter but that has no bearing on NYC and how it's skyline is evolving cause I'm pretty sure other tower will reach those heights sooner rather than later.

This part of what u said reminded me that this tower could end up as a glassed-up shiny new take on gothic and art deco (awesome!). The ways u can prove it is that trends always comeback... the only thing we can hope is that they also comeback in the architecture world.

Do you know of any more supertall proposals for 57th street except for 432 Park Ave and One57 under construction and possibly Nordstrom tower and 111 57th?

I guess, but I don't want any project being limited from its full potential. This happened to Tower Verre and I don't want it to happen to this tower.

RobertWalpole (still wish he wasn't banned from here, but oh well) listed some potential sites on SSC. Not all of these are on 57th.

I don't even know about that. Remember, we didn't expect this tower to go that high until permits were revealed. We didn't expect 109 W. 57th to top 1,000 ft, but it seems it will do that. But keep in mind that there are always towers in development in Manhattan, and we can see what the trend is for these residential buildings.


There are no "official" developments on 57th street in the supertall class at the moment.

Solow Group has a big development site on the south side of 57th Street between 5th & 6th.

There's another sizable development site owned by Durst on the south side of 57th Street near 6th.

Then there's the CBS Superblock, which is the entire south of 57th Street between 10th and 11th. Ave.

On the East Side, there are also two development sites near the u/c 250 E. 57th Street.

Getting closer to reality, slowly but surely...

http://http://m.nypost.com/p/news/bu...Xy9bOqQ8Ox1BvJ

Nordstrom buys its 57th St. store, jumbo skyscraper pending

Sorry to say, but if this one doesn't live up to its full height then you all may be screwed.

The way I see it, there is a massive assortment of office space going up (Hudson Yards, WTC, etc) and certainly a ton of high end residential. Now, I know residential is hot right now, but how many super-lux condo's can NY absorb? It will slow eventually (and probably soon with so many supertalls being built).

There aren't gonna be many more supertall office complexes going up soon (since it will take some time to absorb all the previously mentioned space). I also imagine that their aren't going to be too many more supertall residentials going up (at least not many going over 1100ft).

So all in all I think this is the best chance NY has of getting something over 1500ft for a very long time (and maybe forever). I mean really, in a century NY has only built a few buildings over 1200ft (to roof).

This is why I hope this building goes to it's proposed height and beyond.

This is view from 56th Street looking north around 6th. Is this Solow's or Durst's lot? Are they waiting to buy 5 story building in NE corner? This is a large property on one of most prestigious streets in Manhattan just sitting there undeveloped and gathering dust.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2807/9...7dabec28_b.jpg


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7297/9...22148415_b.jpg

^ Send them an email.


One of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on this forum, and there have been many.



It will be interesting to see how this shapes up over the store. The article also mentioned there would be a store entrance on Broadway, which I kinda figured there would.

That's a fair assessment but it's incomplete. Nobody in their right mind believes that we can build infinite amounts of high end condos even in a city like NY and i'm sure at some point demand for condos used as actual residences will fall, but you have to consider the market we're in. A large portion of of people buying those condos buy them as investments as the global economy is still shaky and some of them seek to diversify their portfolios and the US even at its current state is still the most stable place to invest in compared to other places (Europe being in constant stagnation and Developing countries like the famous BRICS are showing signs of decline) and NYC is at the forefront. So this leads a lot of investor to seek safe spots where they can park their money, i.e. NYC real estate and a decline in the global economy actually increases the appetite for such investments, since real estate has always been seen as safer than let's say stocks and developers know that, that's why you see so many of them moving forward with those kind of project; and don't forget, inventory is still pretty low in NYC. So will we see a drop in demand for high end residentials at some point, sure, but as long as the economy remains shaky, which it might for some time, there will be a market for those developments.
As far as office towers, with so much office space in the city outdated, there's going to be growing need for new buildings, so there will be demand for new office space, maybe not as pronounced as high end residentials but the WTC and HY eventually won't be enough and as we can see with plans like 425 Park and 1 Vanderbilt, developers are planning ahead

This is Durst's lot. Durst has been buying up adjacent properties, and is trying to create a major assemblage.

The Solow assemblage is very close to 5th Ave. There's also an Extell-owned lot in the middle of the Solow assemblage, but Solow is reportedly trying to buy the site.

Not sure why you say this. Why would this "screw" the NYC housing market?

If anything, if you're claiming there's too much luxury product, then it would be good for other developers if this project were delayed or downsized.

But I don't think your premise is correct. NYC does not have that much up-to-date luxury product relative to demand. And Gary Barnett doesn't mess around.

This project will be very tall and iconic, and every building permit filed so far shows 1,550 to roof. If it ends up taller or shorter, I don't see why that would matter for the overall NYC market, which isn't dependent on one building or one developer.

I am not familiar with this firms designs so I was wondering what the general census is on styles likely to be used on this building? I am hoping for some modern take on the gothic style (a la tower verre), or maybe some glassed up version of art deco. So what do u guys think?

PS. as long as it's not some abstract random shape with rooms I won't die of a heart attack. :D

Well, don't I feel so foolish for having drawn the disdain of ny guy.

I'd like to know what is so ridiculous about my statement. How often does NY (or any city in this country for that matter) get proposals that are 1550ft or more? Even in the midst of a building boom of sorts out there, you still have yet to see many proposals that break the 1,200ft mark.

This isn't China or the Middle East. Proposals that are above 1500ft (at least one's that can be taken seriously) are a rarity in this country, and will continue to be in the foreseeable future.

And yes, I realize there are proposals in the preliminary stages that promise to go to great heights in New York. Fact is, most projects don't live up to their full hype.

If this project doesn't get there, then it will probably be a decade (at least) before any other developer attempts to build that high.

I probably chose my words badly. I meant that NY may be screwed from getting that plateau breaking skyscraper that i'm sure everyone is looking forward to. A skyscraper of this height would be pretty significant, as it would most likely end up being over 1600ft in the end. Serious proposals like this aren't going to come around very often.....

maybe not at the moment, just like people said that a few years ago about buildings 1000ft didn't come around often..you have to build your way up higher and higher a few of each not like china you cna have a 2 story building next to a 120 story..doesnt make sence.

I agree with u to some extent, but I believe there is a serious demand for residental as was said by crawford.

It won't. With all of the development proposals in the pipeline, things are really just getting stirred in the market for these types of towers. The ability to get financing will decide where the line is drawn. Even at the 1,550 ft height, this tower is tall, but not an extremely large building, with somewhere around 1.2 msf.


It's ridiculous for a variety of reasons, the first of which is your assertion that anyone would be "screwed" by a tower not reaching a certain height. I have to say it again, ridiculous. The last few years alone should have shown you something. When Extell's One57 was being planned to become New York's tallest residential (forget about Silverstein's 30 Park plan to take that title), did we have any idea or reason to believe that 432 Park would take it? No. With 432 Park's plan to become the new tallest, did we think anything would top it? No, and certainly not as soon. We don't know what the future holds, so it is ridiculous to say with any type of certainty that this could potentially be the only tower to top that height.

Now, for sure, we don't even know what the height of this tower is yet. There's still a lot on the table. But just keep in mind that although these towers are tall, they are hardly the tallest proposals to come around in Manhattan.


http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/08/...-58th-st-home/

After Extell windfall, piano maker finds new West 58th St. home


http://s12.therealdeal.com/trd/up/20...58thStDeal.jpg


August 28, 2013
By Hiten Samtani

Wow, he came out $15MM ahead and ended up with a far nicer building.

I think every one of your posts is full of badly chosen words. Badly chosen words, sentences, paragraphs, thoughts and ideas. You need to work on that.

^ I think he's just stating an opinion, it just came off the wrong way with the wrong words. It's obvious that we don't know what the future holds, we couldn't have predicted the towers we see rising now. Especially when only a few years ago, virtually nothing was rising in this part of town. New York is a world capital. People will always have big ideas on what to build in the City, and they won't always come from New York. So, while we can't predict anything, we really shouldn't be shocked whenever a new tallest is proposed for the City.

As far as this proposal goes, we're talking about a height reduction that may not even be. Will there be some disappointment? Yes, there always is whenever there is a height reduction. However, disappointment won't be on the scale of the 200 ft height chop of the Tower Verre, because there we had an actual design to know and love. Here, it's really just a number.

They won't release any designs until its final. It won't be like the Hudson Yards, where various renderings are released showing changes in design as the process works its way out.



Meanwhile, Nordstrom has taken it's ownership in the building, as was mentioned earlier...


http://www.law360.com/articles/46804...extell-project

Nordstrom Puts Down $102M To Own Space In Extell Project


By Kaitlin Ugolik
August 27, 2013



As expected, the store will have openings on all 3 sides.


http://www.globest.com/news/12_679/n...nt-337003.html

Extell Issues Statement on Nordstrom


http://cdn.globest.com/media/newspic...arnett-new.jpg

Extell’s Gary Barnett plans to make 225 W. 57th St. one of the world's tallest buildings.


By Rayna Katz
August 27, 2013

Well, thinking doesn't seem to be one of your stronger attributes so I'll take your suggestion with the little regard it deserves.

UTEP, your initial comments were pretty silly, and you're not doing yourself any favors by insulting people who questioned your comments.

^why fight when u have urbanism?

Anyone? don't make me resort to the all so awful... "personal research":yuck:
;)

I disagree that my comments were silly, although I rightfully had to address what I meant by NY possibly getting "screwed" in my previous comment. I believe I made the opinion more clear in my later post. And I never insulted anyone until the same was given to me.

Anyways, let me be clear as to why I think this tower may be the best hope (at least for a long while) at getting a 1500ft+ tower. I think we can all agree that NY doesn't build "look at me" towers like China and the Middle East. They build for demand and for good business. I still think that 1550ft+ towers will be rare for developed countries in the near future. It is expensive, and there is rarely a need for such a tower.

Now, NY has a lot of proposals in the pipeline but these are based on an assortment of future unknowns (none of which I care to get into).

This project seems to have all the right things going for it. It has the available FAR, the financing, a developer who wants to go big, and it's coming at the peak of a super-lux real estate boom. Things don't usually line up so nice for huge towers like this. This is simply the right tower at the right time.

That is why I made the comment I made. I'm sure others believe that these types of towers will be more common in the near future, and they're probably based on good logic as well. I certainly wouldn't insult anyone for having such an opinion, just don't insult me for my own on the matter.....

And yet, somehow in your logic you don't think that it can be replicated in Manhattan of all places. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. This tower isn't in the ground yet, though financing appears to be on the way. No one is insulting your logic, just pointing out why it doesn't make sense. If it's the right time for a tower like this, it can certainly be the right time for others. That's not to say that there will be, just that we can't say for certain there won't. That's just the way it is, and I think we've wasted enough energy in this thread hashing and rehashing it. It's a discussion better suited to this thread...http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194273


Now that all the final pieces are in place, the development of this tower can move forward as planned, so let's focus on that.



http://chainstoreage.com/article/sky...imit-nordstrom

The Sky’s the Limit for Nordstrom


August 28, 2013
By Katherine Boccaccio

You're incorrect on all this, though.

The site doesn't have particularly unusual FAR (many Manhattan sites offer far more FAR), the developer isn't particularly unique (of all the proposed supertalls, this is the only current one by this developer), and there's no way to tell the peak of a boom until the boom has passed.

The point is, there are many, many sites for supertalls, and Manhattan has the economics to make supertalls work. There's no reason to think that this is a particlarly unique situation.

Folks, keep this discussion on this tower. I've provided the link for the discussion on supertalls in New York...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=194273

forgive my memory... but what is the size of this lot?

The lot size was listed as 90,915 sq, ft,. but that was before the transaction that added 232 W 58th Street (Beethoven Pianos) to the lot. That probably added 1,200 sq. ft. to the lot (assuming 20 X 60).

The building looks more like 16 feet wide to me, but the demo permit says 20 feet of street frontage.


Hard to say how far the Beethoven Pianos building does back from the street:

http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/...6.jpg~original


So the question is: how much additional floor space can Barnett add to the tower from the Beethoven purchase? He paid $25 million, so he probably has to add another full floor to the building to re-coup that. If the FAR is about 13.5 right now (90,915 X 13.5 = 1.227 million, very close to the stated 1.211 million sq. ft. from Extell's pre-Beethoven filing), adding 1,200 sq. ft. to the lot would add 16,200 sq. ft. of floor area. That's equal to 2 floors of a tower 90 feet square (similar to 432 Park in floor plate). Two such floors added to the top of the tower would certainly re-coup the Beethoven investment many times over.

Of course, Extell might decide to allocate the additional floor area differently.

McSky, you posted my image that I submitted on Jul 28, 2013, 3:45 AM.
I do not mind when my pictures are reposted on this forum but proper credit must be given to owner of a picture.

This is from forum rules: "Images. When posting images in the forum which are not your own you are required to provide credit to the originating website of each image."

Deleted your image. My impression was that when people post images of theirs directly to these threads, they don't have to be attributed each time they are re-posted. I share dozens of photos per week on message boards, some of which are rare vintage images from my own collection, and I don't insist on attribution when people re-use them in an on-topic, "working thread" like this one.

As for the "originating website" of your photo, I found it on this very thread.

Agreed. Some on here act as though reposting an every day run of the mill photo of theirs is somehow costing them money or fame. :rolleyes:

Any way I can't wait for renders of this building

No need to get offended and you don't have to delete my picture.I attribute every image that I repost here and when you look at this and other threads, you will notice that most of forum members do the same. Sure, it's not a big deal but helps to avoid any misunderstandings or perhaps it is "good manners". Also, you gave credit to NYguy when you reposted his image. If you don't want to do it that's fine but at least be consistent.

It's standard to credit photos or at least quote already posted photos if they belong to someone else.

http://sourceable.net/nordstrom-buy-...al-skyscraper/

Nordstrom Buys Site for Manhattan’s Tallest Residential Skyscraper
Nordstrom will open its first New York department store in the bottom seven floors of a future Midtown skyscraper.


http://sourceable.net/wp-content/upl...strom-Site.jpg


03 September 2013
Angela Fedele





( September 2, 2013 )


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152161806/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152161808/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152161809/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152161810/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152161811/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152161812/original.jpg

Quote:

Hi all, new renderings for 212/225 West 57th Street will be released by the end of September. The tower was in redesign in the last couple of months by Adrian Smith & Gordon Hill. The height will be listed as 1217'4'' (blueprints), and officially as 1253 feet (including the crown). All I can say is, it will be a very fine tower and a gift to the evolving Manhattan skyline. Regards, James

Posted on SSC site. Take it for what it's worth. Looks like a complete letdown (at least in terms of height).