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)

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Mar 12, 2015 6:51 PM

Quote:

Of Course SHoP's 57th Street Tower Will Have $100M Condos

Not to be outdone by the rest of the super expensive towers coming to Manhattan, the SHoP-designed skinny mini at 111 West 57th Street will also have condos that will join the Nine-Digit Club. According to filings obtained from the Attorney General's office, the most expensive units in the 1,421-foot tower, developed by JDS Development Group and Property Markets Group, will ask around $100 million. The preliminary price list shows that there will be homes available in the landmarked Steinway Hall, as well as the tower. The "landmark units" will be smaller and cheaper, starting at $1 million for a studio, while the "tower units" will start at $13 million for a three-bedroom.

The landmark portion of the project will hold studios to four-bedrooms, with the priciest apartment being a three-bedroom that will list for around $24 million. The tower will hold two- to five-bedroom units, and interestingly, the largest units will not be the most expensive. The price list shows five-bedrooms maxing out at $75 million, while the range for two- and three-bedrooms tops out at $100 million. Perhaps this is due to the tower's tapering design?

A full offering plan has not yet been filed with the Attorney General's office, but this preliminary price list confirms what we all assumed: that this tower will be, like all of its supertall friends, ridiculously expensive.
http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Screen%...19.39%20PM.png
http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/Screen%...19.39%20PM.png

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...ew%20north.jpg
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...ew%20north.jpg

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...ew%20north.jpg

Design-mind Mar 13, 2015 1:31 AM

Not at all surprised at the pricing given what units went for in One57 as well as 432 Park.

pico44 Mar 13, 2015 3:27 PM

is there financing for this beaut'?

NYguy Mar 13, 2015 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44 (Post 6949527)
is there financing for this beaut'?


More on that...


Quote:

December 18, 2014

http://www.rew-online.com/2014/12/18...im-the-winner/


...They are currently looking for a $500 million construction loan, with Maloney saying they have “a couple of offers” from banks.


Quote:

January 4, 2015

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...ting-headwinds

Kevin Maloney, a co-developer of the 60-foot-wide, 1,400-foot-tall tower at 111 W. 57th St., offering views of Central Park, believes his project can double the $3,000 per square foot he needs just to break even. At least one big financier agrees with him: Mr. Maloney said they're finalizing a deal to secure a half-billion-dollar construction loan from a major financial institution.


Excitement is expected to ramp up sometime this summer...


Quote:

In September, an in-house crew of construction managers and nonunion subcontractors began pouring the property's elaborate foundation. By the summer, the developers are planning to begin raising the tower's reinforced cast concrete frame

pico44 Mar 13, 2015 4:47 PM

:goodpost:

Thanks

ILNY Mar 13, 2015 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6949573)

Excitement is expected to ramp up sometime this summer...
Quote:

In September, an in-house crew of construction managers and nonunion subcontractors began pouring the property's elaborate foundation. By the summer, the developers are planning to begin raising the tower's reinforced cast concrete frame

They were pouring foundation in September? Are we talking about the same building here because 111 W just started excevation/demo (not counting that one guy that was working with mini excavator last year)


https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8561/...9de4d2eb_o.jpg

NYguy Mar 13, 2015 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6950055)
They were pouring foundation in September? Are we talking about the same building here because 111 W just started excevation/demo (not counting that one guy that was working with mini excavator last year)


I have no idea. That was from a Crains article, the info apparently coming from the source.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...shatter-record


It's a very complicated development, very little of which is visible from the street. It's possible they could have just meant "working" on the foundations.

Submariner Mar 13, 2015 9:38 PM

To the very right, in the back, it appears as if there is a low wall of fresh concrete. That could be what the article is talking about.

NYguy Mar 17, 2015 12:20 AM

Another slight bump in height...


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=05

Quote:

03/16/2015

AMENDMENT FILE TO REVISE PLANS PW-1 (SECT. #9, 12, 13) AND SCHEDULE A, TO SHOW ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING BONUS.


Quote:

Building Height (ft.): 1424
Building Stories: 82
Dwelling Units: 60


hunser Mar 17, 2015 1:31 AM

^ At least we know now they are going with the taller version.

gttx Mar 17, 2015 1:28 PM

60 units!

This is yielding a new metric for development. Instead of units/acre or FAR we can talk about height/unit. This is a multi-family building at 23'-9" per unit!

meh_cd Mar 17, 2015 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx (Post 6953518)
60 units!

This is yielding a new metric for development. Instead of units/acre or FAR we can talk about height/unit. This is a multi-family building at 23'-9" per unit!

50 years from these buildings will represent the decadence of the 2010s, as the Chrysler building represents the 1920s.

Of course, I'm happy we are getting these buildings. This one in particular is a favorite of mine, but I can't say that it is sustainable development.

Busy Bee Mar 17, 2015 2:50 PM

^
http://www.troll.me/images/debbie-do...ot-approve.jpg

NYguy Mar 18, 2015 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd (Post 6953590)
50 years from these buildings will represent the decadence of the 2010s, as the Chrysler building represents the 1920s.

Of course, I'm happy we are getting these buildings. This one in particular is a favorite of mine, but I can't say that it is sustainable development.

I wouldn't say that. These type of buildings have a relatively small footprint and in the overall scheme of NYC development, don't really amount to much of it. The height of these buildings and the money they generate get a lot of attention, but truthfully, if this is money that was being spent instead on townhouses or co-ops, or the relatively "unknown" corners of Downtown (which is also attracting a lot of money btw), we wouldn't really be talking about it. Think of it as multiple townhouses stacked on top of each other, as the units here will be multi-level. Also, there is a finite number of these towers that will be built at any one time.


There will be unoccupied wind breaks on floors 45, 65, and 80...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES211281994

Onn Mar 18, 2015 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6954462)
I wouldn't say that. These type of buildings have a relatively small footprint and in the overall scheme of NYC development, don't really amount to much of it. The height of these buildings and the money they generate get a lot of attention, but truthfully, if this is money that was being spent instead on townhouses or co-ops, or the relatively "unknown" corners of Downtown (which is also attracting a lot of money btw), we wouldn't really be talking about it. Think of it as multiple townhouses stacked on top of each other, as the units here will be multi-level. Also, there is a finite number of these towers that will be built at any one time.

You have to be honest though, these are billion dollar+ buildings. They might be small, but they're uber expensive. I mean they build similar towers in Dubai at probably half the cost. I think that's what so unique about them. Most wouldn't even try to build a residential tower that expensive, just one for that amount of money. They are most like very high-end office buildings in their prices.

The outlook for the office market, by the way, seems pretty hot far into the future. Not the least of which is because the office market in New York City was dormant for so long, but also major companies/banks/real estate nationally and internally seem to be feeling its critical to have an office in New York. Smaller banks and businesses that are not so well known today in the US (like from Asia) will gain interest in the real estate market as they expand their operations.

Crawford Mar 18, 2015 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6954835)
I mean they build similar towers in Dubai at probably half the cost.

They don't, though. The residential market in Dubai is very different, and they don't have similar types of residences as you're seeing along 57th Street.

Onn Mar 18, 2015 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6954844)
They don't, though. The residential market in Dubai is very different, and they don't have similar types of residences as you're seeing along 57th Street.

Your forgetting the labor is dirt cheap in Dubai, it's not like New York City at all. The price of the Burj Khalifa was $1.5 billion, 432 Park wasn't much cheaper at $1.25 billion. And the buildings (although both impressive) are in entirely different categories. One being a Megatall.

Crawford Mar 18, 2015 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6955231)
Your forgetting the labor is dirt cheap in Dubai, it's not like New York City at all. The price of the Burj Khalifa was $1.5 billion, 432 Park wasn't much cheaper at $1.25 billion. And the buildings (although both impressive) are in entirely different categories. One being a Megatall.

Onn, you need to read people's posts before responding. Nothing you just wrote has anything to do with the conversation, or my previous post.

Onn Mar 18, 2015 4:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6955240)
Onn, you need to read people's posts before responding. Nothing you just wrote has anything to do with the conversation, or my previous post.

Read it completely and responded completely. You said the residences weren't similar, but they're very similar.

Crawford Mar 18, 2015 5:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 6955245)
Read it completely and responded completely. You said the residences weren't similar, but they're very similar.

No, they're completely, utterly different, and your response didn't discuss whether they were similar or different residential markets, you just wrote random sentences on labor costs, building heights, and the Burj Khalfia, none of which have anything to do with the topic.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:27 PM.

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