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)

NYguy Dec 17, 2013 1:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6376425)
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.

Well, it depends, but using the your imagination, it will be about 300 ft or so taller than One57. The picture you posted is an extreme view, you won't see many pics from that exact vantage point, but it will be about as tall as 432 Park and nearly as tall as the Nordstrom tower.

Submariner Dec 17, 2013 1:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6376405)
Things have been quiet on that front. I'm taking that as a good sign.

In a way, it makes sense. Look at 56 Leonard, 39 Park Street, 432 Park, One57, 111W 57th, Tower Verre, etc. All of these ultra-high end buildings come with architectural flair and style. Even if you're not a fan of the design, they're certainly not bland glass boxes. If I were in that market, and sadly, I am not, I would like by building have a bit of style to it, especially if I am laying out anywhere between 5 and 90 million.

NYguy Dec 17, 2013 1:35 AM

^ The way that market is shaping up, in that particular area of Manhattan, you really do need an attention grabber. Height alone won't do it, because they're all tall.

JayPro Dec 17, 2013 3:52 PM

@NYGuy:
I agree with you on all that. It's just that sometimes people take skyline pics from odd angles that make everything line up "just right".
That pic will demonstrate this phenomenon to the proverbial tee once both towers are well towards completed.

King DenCity Dec 17, 2013 6:45 PM

This is my favorite NYC building as of now. Sorry to you TV lovers but this is the best for me ;)

Blaze23 Dec 18, 2013 2:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King DenCity (Post 6377276)
This is my favorite NYC building as of now. Sorry to you TV lovers but this is the best for me ;)

No offense taken, this tower's a masterpiece. It's not like you're picking that disaster of a rendering of the Nordstrom tower over TV. The thing that makes this and TV stand out is the level of details on those towers; TV with its dark metal and glass facade that exposes the structure of the building as well as the artful interiors, Steinway for its undulating Terra cotta and glass facade along with that lean figure and how it integrates the Steinway building to the design. You don't see that amount of details in new buildings these days, where the sole focus is on creating something over the top that catches the public's eye. This in fact is the only reason I have TV ahead of Steinway, along with its level of details, its frame is as unique as it gets, while the stepped facade of Steinway is not necessarily new, tho it looks stunning and is quite well executed. But either way, I'm glad both of those masterpieces will be rising in the city.

King DenCity Dec 18, 2013 6:07 AM

^Good! If anyone said Nordstrom tower will be the best tower (not that I think anyone would.) i would slap them through the computer. And TV is also pretty amazing. This just has a more classic NYC look to it and TV is more of a "Fresh New Angular NYC" look.

NYguy Dec 19, 2013 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro (Post 6377023)
@NYGuy:
I agree with you on all that. It's just that sometimes people take skyline pics from odd angles that make everything line up "just right".
That pic will demonstrate this phenomenon to the proverbial tee once both towers are well towards completed.


I know what you mean, I've taken a few pics myself from the 57th street angle. what I'm saying is that it's a very specific point you have to get to in order to get that exact vantage point. The Manhattan skyline is so large that most people won't go through the trouble of trying to get that specific shot. But the canyon (close up) views of it will be fantastic.

ILNY Dec 23, 2013 6:22 AM

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7329/1...e6bf1711_b.jpg



This lot is scary small. If you think 432 is skinny this footprint looks much smaller.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5544/1...49b7af87_b.jpg

King DenCity Dec 23, 2013 3:15 PM

at first when this goes up people will be thinking it's just a little highrise or something, and then, BOOM it gets taller than all the buildings right around it and they'll be all like WHAT!? the same wil happen with nordstrom tower except it's not as nice.

Busy Bee Dec 23, 2013 5:01 PM

The tower is wider than the lot width, it overlaps into the Steinway lot behind it's protected section.

Design-mind Dec 24, 2013 2:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6383193)

ILNY the updates from yesterday - Phenomenal!:worship:

Did you happen get the completion date off this sign June 201?:???:

NYguy Dec 24, 2013 3:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6383494)
The tower is wider than the lot width, it overlaps into the Steinway lot behind it's protected section.


That's correct.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152531302/original.jpg

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Dec 24, 2013 5:49 AM

Did it get thicker?

NYguy Dec 24, 2013 4:14 PM

^ No, it's always been that way since they moved to the taller tower.

Perklol Dec 25, 2013 10:42 AM

Hmm when did they get financed? It's good to go with the TV and 220.

ILNY Dec 25, 2013 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Design-mind (Post 6384146)
ILNY the updates from yesterday - Phenomenal!:worship:

Did you happen get the completion date off this sign June 201?:???:

Thanks, Unfortunately I did not get clear picture of this board but start date is 2014 and completion date states 2016. I think it will not be before 2017 that this tower is ready for tenants.

supertallchaser Dec 25, 2013 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILNY (Post 6385200)
Thanks, Unfortunately I did not get clear picture of this board but start date is 2014 and completion date states 2016. I think it will not be before 2017 that this tower is ready for tenants.

that sounds like a good time frame it will be a great landmark when finished :tup:

Onn Dec 25, 2013 10:53 PM

Wonderful to see the progress on site! Always feels good to have a render on the fence! Can't wait for this, so exciting! :D

wilfredo267 Dec 26, 2013 3:54 PM

ls this financed? l love this building.

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.

supertallchaser Jan 3, 2014 12:08 AM

^twinning

tyleraf Jan 3, 2014 2:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMGarcia (Post 6391662)
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.

You guys need a system like San Diego has downtown. In Sd each of our proposals has a design review by a community board where design suggestions are made and then it goes before the downtown development group board which then will either approve the project or tell the developer to make changes and reapply. It works out pretty well.

NYguy Jan 3, 2014 3:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Minimis NY (Post 6391490)
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.

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 problem with all of that is you simply can't regulate "taste". People from around the world liked and came to see the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Would the design of those buildings have survived any architectural review board? Most likely not.

Skyscrapers aren't anything new in this city that has been building them for well over a century without any type of review board, and yet it's the most iconic skyline in the world. The skyline needs to evolve naturally, as it always has. There's no way to guarantee that we are going to like everything that gets built, whether there is any type of review board or not.



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.

It could be argued that the MAS has more of an argument there, though that argument too is one that has failed. That battle played out in the 15 Penn Plaza saga.



Quote:

Originally Posted by JMGarcia (Post 6391662)
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.

They certainly would. Understand that architects themselves have opinions on what is good design, and what is not. And as you can see from a lot of the work being put out, more times than not, we are critical of what they see as "good" design. I put no more faith in architects than I do the average man on the street.

New York has enough regulations on what can be built. Just look at the hoops that a tower like the Tower Verre had to go through, only to be cut down. I don't know how many people here are really aware of it, but the special permit process for that tower relates more to the design than the actual height of the tower. They could always build a taller tower, but the special permits that allow them to build a tower outside design regulations wouldn't be issued. Those permits will only be issued at the 1,050 ft height. Now you have to ask yourself, would the Empire State itself have survived such a process? How about the Chrysler? We can't say for certain about back then, but I do know if such towers were proposed today as the tallest, there certainly would be pushback.



Quote:

Originally Posted by tyleraf (Post 6391779)
You guys need a system like San Diego has downtown. In Sd each of our proposals has a design review by a community board where design suggestions are made and then it goes before the downtown development group board which then will either approve the project or tell the developer to make changes and reapply. It works out pretty well.

See the reply above. But beyond that, such a proposal won't work for New York. There's too much going on for one thing.

NYguy Jan 7, 2014 7:25 PM

From the schedule A, it appears floors (17-33) will be single floor units(18 being mechanical), floors (34-35) mechanical, floors (36-54) will also be single floor units, floors (55-56) mechanical, floor (57) is amenity space, floors (58-59) are a duplex unit, floors (60-63) single floor units, floors (64-71) duplex units, and floors (72 -75) will be a 4-level penthouse. Floors (76-77) will be mechanical. Those are actual floor numbers, they will probably change to higher counts with marketing.


You can see the changes in the plan to demolish part of the Steinway building in the rear...


before

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152531300/original.jpg


after

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154054066/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154054067/original.jpg

NYguy Jan 11, 2014 12:25 AM

New permit...


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=04


Quote:

INSTALL STRUCTURAL WORK AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS FILED HEREWITH.

supertallchaser Jan 11, 2014 1:01 AM

^great ,cannot wait for this to be done.

NYguy Jan 13, 2014 10:14 PM

More of the same...

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


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

NYguy Jan 16, 2014 9:44 PM

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

Quote:

INSTALL NEW STANDPIPE SYSTEM. INSTALL SPRINKLER HEADS AND RELATED PIPING AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS FILED HEREWITH.

NYguy Jan 20, 2014 5:23 PM

January 19, 2014


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154192922/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154192925/original.jpg

Hypothalamus Jan 24, 2014 7:12 PM

The quality is stupendous-- thanks Babybackribs! I won't post the whole thing, but everyone should take a few minutes to read @ YIMBY!

New York YIMBY:

Interview: Michael Stern of JDS Development
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON JANUARY 24TH 2014 AT 1:00 PM

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...4/01/stern.jpg
Michael Stern -- image from JDS

Quote:

111 West 57th is your tallest project to date, and the initial design was by CetraRuddy. What’s the back-story on that project — getting into it, did you see it turning into something that would end up 1,350 feet tall?

Initially we only owned the vacant lot and some air rights from an adjacent building, so we designed a roughly 680-foot tower with CetraRuddy that was more slender than what’s going up. We are doing this project with a great partner — Kevin Maloney and Property Markets Group, who was also our partner on Walker Tower.

It was more slender?

It was, the original was only 43 feet wide. You know, it wasn’t a very efficient building; it worked and we were ready to break ground on it, but then we found out the Steinway Building was available, and we knew that incorporating Steinway would make the building much better, much more efficient; it would be wider, taller, and have more commanding views. We sort of stopped when we were ready to go, and rebooted with the Steinway Building. It’s a vastly better project — very happy we didn’t start with the original. It was a great tower, but the one we’re building now is better; it’s 60 feet wide, almost 80 feet deep, and almost 1,400 feet tall. It’s a spectacular tower, it really is. And the floor-plans it has produced are no-excuses terrific — it’s going to be exciting.
http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...01/111w572.jpg
111 West 57th Street — image from SHoP

More details on 111 West 57th at New York YIMBY


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:34 AM.

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