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)

Submariner Dec 26, 2013 6:43 PM

:P
Quote:

Originally Posted by wilfredo267 (Post 6385573)
ls this financed? l love this building.

I believe so.

wilfredo267 Dec 27, 2013 2:14 AM

2014 will be the beginning of the biggest transformation of the skyline since the original twins. AMAZING

NYguy Dec 27, 2013 8:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilfredo267 (Post 6385573)
ls this financed? l love this building.


Don't recall anything about financing. But like One57 and 432 Park, it could potentially start without it.


New permit filed (excavation). Also, there are 3 extra floors.


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

Quote:

SUPPORT OF EXCAVATION AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS FILED
Work on Floor(s): SUB,CEL,ROF 001 thru 077


Original filing:

Quote:

Work on Floor(s): SUB,CEL,ROF 001 thru 074

McSky Dec 28, 2013 9:12 PM

I had this as 62 floors for some reason.

NYguy Jan 1, 2014 2:30 PM

Happy New Year. 2014 promises to be more exciting than the last. We shall see.

But let's get right into it.

The Municipal Arts Society (MAS) has put forth their study, titled "The Accidental Skyline". (Aren't the best skylines "accidental" though?)

While the MAS usually has the best interests of the City in mind, this ill-conceived study is just that, ill-conceived. It's very alarmist in nature, and it's not something high on the radar of concern for most New Yorkers (thus, the alarmist nature of the report).

I am at least grateful for the graphics though...



1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981039/original.jpg


2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981040/original.jpg


3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981042/original.jpg


4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981043/original.jpg


5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981044/original.jpg


6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981045/original.jpg


7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981046/original.jpg


8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981048/original.jpg


9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981049/original.jpg


10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981050/original.jpg


11.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981051/original.jpg


12.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981053/original.jpg


13.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981054/original.jpg


14.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981055/original.jpg


15.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981056/original.jpg


16.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981057/original.jpg


17.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981058/original.jpg


18.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981059/original.jpg


19.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981060/original.jpg


20.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981062/original.jpg


21.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981063/original.jpg


22.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981064/original.jpg


23.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981065/original.jpg


24.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981072/original.jpg


25.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981073/original.jpg


26.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981074/original.jpg


27. Prior park battles of the MAS

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981075/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981076/original.jpg


28.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981077/original.jpg


29.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153981078/original.jpg

mrnyc Jan 1, 2014 3:04 PM

eh. its the municipal ARTS society, not johns hopkins or the hadron collider.

NYguy Jan 1, 2014 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc (Post 6390191)
eh. its the municipal ARTS society, not johns hopkins or the hadron collider.

They do have an influential voice in the City. But its not only them, I've been posting articles recently by people trying to draw attention to the potential shadows these buildings may cause, as if that's something new to a city of skyscrapers. But the MAS is the one to watch. We're talking about changes that may affect future development, not buildings already in the works.

Perklol Jan 1, 2014 3:27 PM

Most of Central Park is covered by shadows anyway based on #22-23 in post #525.

gttx Jan 1, 2014 10:02 PM

Hey, the graphics are nice anyway. And it's the most detail I've seen for the 225 w 57th massing.

jayden Jan 2, 2014 3:23 AM

Wow at this building's height.

sbarn Jan 2, 2014 3:56 AM

That MAS study makes me sick to my stomach. If their wish came true, there would be practically no changes to the Manhattan skyline in the future, which is frankly an appalling prospect. Hopefully their proposal for public review of buildings over 1000 ft doesn't come true. If it does, I think it would have a catastrophic affect on the real estate industry.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Jan 2, 2014 9:00 AM

Eh i wouldnt worry, money is the language of development and NYC and developers have plenty of money.

antinimby Jan 2, 2014 5:09 PM

The Municipal Arts Society and Historic Council are nothing more than NIMBY organizations disguised as cultural and arts organizations. They're there to fight developments, building heights and density but in those few times when you actually do need them to speak up to save a historic building in a commercial district (where few NIMBY's actually live) they're nowhere to be found.

antinimby Jan 2, 2014 5:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork (Post 6390862)
Eh i wouldnt worry, money is the language of development and NYC and developers have plenty of money.

Money and even the clout of the MoMa didn't help the Tower Verre. Oh, things will still get built but the City has shown that they will cave into moneyed NIMBY's too.

NYguy Jan 2, 2014 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby (Post 6391089)
Oh, things will still get built but the City has shown that they will cave into moneyed NIMBY's too.

I'm still mystified about the fate of the Tower Verre. The tower with the best design gets cut down, but that's the chance taken when entering the ULURP process. The MAS would have all buildings of such height enter that process, knowing full well that there is a chance they won't make it out at full height. In other words, the MAS would like to cut down the height of tall buildings. It is ironic that an organization supposedly so dedicated to preserving the qualities of New York would be so vested in killing one of its best known and most visible qualities, the skyline.

It was reassuring today to here the new comptroller, Scott Stringer, saying the City's skyline must and will change.

Meanwhile, 2 more permits filed today...


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

Quote:

FILE BUILDERS PAVEMENT PLAN AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS FILED HEREWITH.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=03

Quote:

INSTALL MECHANICAL DUCTWORK. INSTALL PLUMBING FIXTURES AND RELATED PIPING

Work on Floor(s): SUB,CEL,ROF 001 thru 077


De Minimis NY Jan 2, 2014 9:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6391334)
In other words, the MAS would like to cut down the height of tall buildings. It is ironic that an organization supposedly so dedicated to preserving the qualities of New York would be so vested in killing one of its best known and most visible qualities, the skyline.

I understand some of the concerns that the Municipal Arts Society brings up, I just think that they are going about it all wrong. NY Magazine recently wrote a piece on the Affordable City (link copied below for those interested) in which it stated that building costs in NY were twice that of Chicago, attributing a material amount of those costs to permit processes. The last thing we need in this city is more of that.

At the same time, however, I am enraged that Extell can alter the skyline with the garbage they have planned at 255 W 57th while Torre Verre has been stunted from making the impact that it deserves. These kinds of missed opportunities make it hard for me not to sympathize with those that would like to see greater public control over the city's most prominent projects. People come from all over the world to see our skyline, it's one of the primary factors that make NY such a desirable place to live and visit. As such, the aesthetic appeal (or lack thereof) of these towers has a real economic impact on the city and thus the public at large.

A developer is only going to spend extra money on a project when it will yield greater rents/sales prices. Unfortunately, tenants generally don't care that much how their buildings look from the outside (at least not enough to pay much more per square foot), they just care about the views they will enjoy. Over time, though, all buildings will enjoy greater views/prices if everyone avoids putting up bad quality designs. It's a classical tragedy of the commons problem where the incentives of the individual are misaligned with the costs to the group--think of it as a type of visual pollution.

The way to fix it is to create a commission that rewards quality design with a grant of additional air rights (similar to what is proposed for the re-zoning of midtown east, but applied throughout the city and on an ad hoc basis) and thus incentivize developers to create projects that benefit everyone. Under such a system, a developer would voluntarily choose to apply to an architecture board for the grant of air rights in lieu of (or in addition to) buying air rights from other sources. The basic idea is that the most prominent building in any neighborhood should be beautiful. This would apply equally to granting an extra 50 feet of height to a landmark-worthy design in Soho as it would to granting an extra 350 feet to a massive tower in midtown.

None of this would prevent an ugly as of right tower from going up, but it would at least allow for better quality architecture to eventually swallow it up.

http://nymag.com/news/features/affordability-2014-1/

KevinFromTexas Jan 2, 2014 10:30 PM

I'm less bothered by supertalls around Central Park than I am seeing them surround and hide the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings.

reencharles Jan 2, 2014 10:46 PM

This article is a trash. If they want to shadow, move to the Bronx, Queens, Jersey City, and others. Manhattan is a mega city, can not be stopped in time because of people like that, with a small mind.

jsr Jan 2, 2014 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 6391533)
I'm less bothered by supertalls around Central Park than I am seeing them surround and hide the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings.

They may hurt some of the park views from Top of the Rock a bit. Nordstrom and One57 are far enough off to the side that they shouldn't matter much. 111 and Verre are more prominently centered.

JMGarcia Jan 2, 2014 11:58 PM

The problem with public review processes is that it really isn't a "public" review but a "special interests" review, usually a facade for politicians for shaking down the developer. Developer donates to campaign fund: politician's operatives don't make much of a stink at a "public" review. I'm sure you can figure out the opposite of that. The second segment of the "public" that will bother to pay attention is those that will lose their view, be inconvenienced by the construction, or will be afraid of crowding in the area because of increased density.

The best that could be hoped for is an independent board or architects to review proposals. I'd bet though that even they would disappoint a lot of people.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:08 AM.

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