SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

MightyYoda Jun 7, 2013 4:27 PM

I would also think that Extell wouldn't want to bring too much attention to this project while trying to sell multi-million dollar condos in One 57.

antinimby Jun 7, 2013 4:47 PM

^ yup.

No need to upstage 157 just yet since this one won't be on the market for at least a few more years.

NYguy Jun 7, 2013 6:02 PM

One57 is nearing the endgame, Barnett expects the success to flow directly into this one.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/re...ewanted=1&_r=0

Looking Down on the Empire State


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ticleLarge.jpg



By JULIE SATOW
June 7, 2013

Quote:

Not since builders stuck a dirigible mooring mast to the top of the Empire State Building, eclipsing the Chrysler Building as the world’s tallest tower, have developers been engaged in the type of skyscraper war that New York City is now witnessing.

But unlike the rivalries of the early 20th century, when buildings pierced the clouds to house corporate headquarters, this one involves no fewer than three alpine condominiums with penthouses on the 90th floor and higher, which are being built to woo big-spending American hedge funders, Chinese magnates and Russian oligarchs. Two of them will rise above the 1,250-foot-high Empire State Building, by 300 feet and 146 feet, respectively (although the Empire State Building officially tops off at 1,454 feet when its lighting rod is included).

There is the often arduous and lengthy process of buying up air rights — or unused development rights — from adjacent properties; borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars in financing; and engineering architecturally unique structures that can rise 90 stories or more. The construction, meanwhile, includes costly techniques to prevent the towers from swaying in the wind, and thicker support walls and columns that can scuttle some layout plans. Then there is the pure physicality of hoisting materials and laborers 1,000 feet into the air, sometimes creating safety hazards and delays.

Considering these complexities, and the fact that the real estate market is just now recovering from one of its biggest crashes in decades, the pace of this skyscraper competition is breathtaking. Trump World Tower, opening in 2001 at 861 feet high — its black edifice looming above the East River on First Avenue — held the title of city’s tallest residential building until 2011, with the opening of 8 Spruce Street, the 870-foot undulating rental building at the base of the Brooklyn Bridge. Since then, developers have begun six separate projects that will shatter 8 Spruce’s record. And even those that don’t quite break that record are marketing their height as a selling point. At 56 Leonard Street, for example, the Herzog & De Meuron-designed condominium is just 821 feet in height, but it has made much of the fact it will be the tallest residential building in TriBeCa, charging as much as $50 million for a penthouse. The competition is even spreading beyond Manhattan, with the tallest tower in Queens, a 50-story condominium in Long Island City, now under way.


It is not surprising that in a city known for its outsized personalities, many of these projects involve New York’s most conspicuous developers. Harry B. Macklowe, for example, is developing 432 Park Avenue, the 96-story condominium in Midtown that, at 1,396 feet, will be the tallest residential tower in the Western Hemisphere when it is completed in 2015. Best known for his buccaneering style, Mr. Macklowe is a poster child for the last real estate boom and bust, mostly because at the cycle’s pinnacle in 2007, he spent an astounding $7 billion to acquire seven Midtown towers, only to lose them in the crash. Mr. Macklowe began envisioning 432 Park in 2006, when he bought the former Drake Hotel. But he loaded the property with debt and was soon facing foreclosure. CIM Group, a private equity firm, eventually stepped in to save him, although he remains a co-developer. More than one-third of the units are now in contract for nearly $1 billion in potential sales, including a $95 million penthouse that could set a price record if it closes. The sales office, on the 21st floor of the GM Building on Fifth Avenue, sits 100 feet shy of the lowest floors of 432 Park’s condominium residences, giving potential buyers just a hint of the views to come.

Where Mr. Macklowe is brash — he performed in the Off Broadway show “Old Jews Telling Jokes” and sometimes reverts to a period accent while telling stories — Gary Barnett, the developer of the tower that may eventually eclipse 432 Park for the Western Hemisphere record, is understated. Mr. Barnett is by some measures the city’s most active developer. Indeed One57, the 90-story, 1,004-foot-tall tower he is building at 157 West 57th Street, was to have taken the hemisphere record until it was supplanted by 432 Park. But he may yet reclaim the title with his planned 227 West 57th. Just west of One57, the tower has enough air rights to rise 1,550 feet; a feature will be the city’s first Nordstrom department store.

The process can take years, and requires slow and deliberate strategizing. For One57, for example, Mr. Barnett began buying the air rights some 16 years ago. “Building tall is not about bragging rights,” he said recently, during a conversation in the nondescript conference room of his offices on Third Avenue; he was wearing slacks and a mock turtleneck. “What drives the building is design, the views, the economics.” He built One57 to its full height “because we couldn’t get in all the air rights any other way — once you have it, the ability to build it, I didn’t want to just throw it away.”

Still, deciding a building’s height is a judgment call, and “there have been times that I had air rights but I didn’t end up using them,” he said. Extreme height adds time and uncertainty to a project, as well as construction costs. One57, for instance, was waylaid when Hurricane Sandy snapped off a crane boom and left it dangling far above the street. Mr. Barnett is weighing these considerations for his Nordstrom property, he said, and said he may choose to forego the full 1,550 feet.

Zoning in Midtown also helps, since it can allow for extremely tall buildings. In the case of 432 Park, for example, the floor plate was 8,500 square feet and Mr. Macklowe had some 500,000 square feet to utilize. “So the height was just a matter of arithmetic,” he said.

“We didn’t start out by saying we wanted to build the tallest residential building in Manhattan,” he added, “but as we got there, and saw it was within the zoning, we went for it. It was only later that we recognized the significance of using this as a tag line.”


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/150652446/original.jpg

Zapatan Jun 7, 2013 6:37 PM

Air rights to 1550 feet?

So this means it won't be taller? :shrug:

Oh well, that's still high enough I suppose

NYguy Jun 7, 2013 6:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6157029)
Air rights to 1550 feet?

So this means it won't be taller? :shrug:

Oh well, that's still high enough I suppose

Try not to overreact to everything. Air rights don't include mechanical space (which Barnett said would be the top 3 levels). Also, what was stated in the article is not exactly what that means. Extell has enough air rights to go to 1,550 ft because that is what was planned. They could push that higher, or they could pull it back. It's a matter of design, and apparently the design is still in development (which we figured) and we won't be seeing a finished product anytime real soon.

babybackribs2314 Jun 7, 2013 7:05 PM

Can we please stop talking in this manner, as it is incorrect? 225 West 57th - and NYGuy, I know you know this - has ~1.3 MSF of air rights, and the design just so happens to rise close to 1,550 feet. Barnett will certainly use all of his air rights, but whether the tower rises 1,550 feet or not remains to be seen; it can be built within a zoning envelope that extends up to 2,000 feet as-of-right, and a 1,000' tower doesn't necessarily have 'less air rights' than a 1,500 tower, rather the designs may just afford more space on lower floors in the shorter building.

This debate is ongoing and incredibly annoying, and the incorrect terminology used has to be quite confusing for some people.

NYguy Jun 7, 2013 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6157074)
whether the tower rises 1,550 feet or not remains to be seen; it can be built within a zoning envelope that extends up to 2,000 feet as-of-right, and a 1,000' tower doesn't necessarily have 'less air rights' than a 1,500 tower, rather the designs may just afford more space on lower floors in the shorter building.

Exactly stated above.

babybackribs2314 Jun 7, 2013 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6157089)
Exactly stated above.

I know, but it was cloaked in layering - not to get picky - but this ->

"Extell has enough air rights to go to 1,550 ft because that is what was planned"

is semi-misleading on its own because some will still interpret that as 'Oh, Extell has 1,550 feet of air rights!"

Sorry, just a pet-peeve, especially as the same people (not you) seem to be making the same incorrect statements over and over again... Air rights should not be a hard concept to grasp, yet seemingly, they are.

NYguy Jun 7, 2013 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 6157094)
"Extell has enough air rights to go to 1,550 ft because that is what was planned"

is semi-misleading on its own because some will still interpret that as 'Oh, Extell has 1,550 feet of air rights!"

It's not misleading if you read the article, which it was a reference to.

Quote:

But he may yet reclaim the title with his planned 227 West 57th. Just west of One57, the tower has enough air rights to rise 1,550 feet
That statement is factually accurate, but it doesn't mean exactly what Zapatan or someone else who doesn't understand it thinks it means.

The 1,550 height figure is how the building is currently configured. So yeah, he does have enough air rights to rise that high. As I've said, they could go higher or lower. But this tower won't be as slender as a tower like 432 Park. The top will be very substantial, Barnett had planned an outdoor deck and storage space for the top (followed by 3 levels of mechanical space).

Crawford Jun 7, 2013 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6157029)
Air rights to 1550 feet?

There is no such thing as "air rights to 1550 ft." The term is being used incorrectly.

Air rights are allowable floor space. It has nothing to do with height.

Again, this site has no height limit, and air rights have no relationship to height. They only dictate how much space you can build (whether one floor or 1000 floors).

babybackribs2314 Jun 7, 2013 9:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6157108)
It's not misleading if you read the article, which it was a reference to.



That statement is factually accurate, but it doesn't mean exactly what Zapatan or someone else who doesn't understand it thinks it means.

The 1,550 height figure is how the building is currently configured. So yeah, he does have enough air rights to rise that high. As I've said, they could go higher or lower. But this tower won't be as slender as a tower like 432 Park. The top will be very substantial, Barnett had planned an outdoor deck and storage space for the top (followed by 3 levels of mechanical space).

I mean, it is technically accurate, but I would say it is factually misleading - technically any project lacking height restrictions could reach 1,550 feet, or even 2K feet, the FAA limit.

225 West 57th has 1.3 million square feet of air rights; air rights =/= height and the two really need to be distinguished, IMO - using the terms interchangeably causes unnecessary confusion.

The correct statement would read:

225 West 57th Street has 1.3 million square feet of air rights, and the lot's only height restrictions are the FAA imposed-limit of 2,000 feet; initial plans on-file with the Department of Buildings indicate the tower will rise 1,550 feet, though Barnett has yet to confirm an exact number.

It's a silly error, but it is confusing to some.

franktko Jun 7, 2013 9:23 PM

I wanted to ask a question about air rights when NY announced they would sell air rights in east midtown but I didn't want to go off-topic. Since you guys have been at it for a while, let me squeeze another one in there :)

How did they get their 1.3M sqf of air rights? Is it zoning that says for each sqf of land, you get x sqf of air rights? Or is it more complicated than that?

Also, is this a max air rights zone in manhattan or are there other areas that have more air rights sqf per land sqf? (if that's how it works)

Zapatan Jun 7, 2013 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 6157039)
Try not to overreact to everything. Air rights don't include mechanical space (which Barnett said would be the top 3 levels). Also, what was stated in the article is not exactly what that means. Extell has enough air rights to go to 1,550 ft because that is what was planned. They could push that higher, or they could pull it back. It's a matter of design, and apparently the design is still in development (which we figured) and we won't be seeing a finished product anytime real soon.

Well obviously, blame that on the person who wrote the article and not my "overreaction" :rolleyes:

Crawford Jun 7, 2013 9:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktko (Post 6157251)
IHow did they get their 1.3M sqf of air rights? Is it zoning that says for each sqf of land, you get x sqf of air rights? Or is it more complicated than that?

It's complicated, and there are all sorts of exceptions and caveats, but you basically have an allowable floorspace on the land you own.

You may be able to increase this floorspace by buying air rights from adjacent properties (up to a certain limit), or, in some cases, by doing things like providing transit improvements (subway entrances and the like), public plazas, or affordable housing (either on-site or off-site).

Zapatan Jun 7, 2013 9:49 PM

Quote:

Still, deciding a building’s height is a judgment call, and “there have been times that I had air rights but I didn’t end up using them,” he said. Extreme height adds time and uncertainty to a project, as well as construction costs. One57, for instance, was waylaid when Hurricane Sandy snapped off a crane boom and left it dangling far above the street. Mr. Barnett is weighing these considerations for his Nordstrom property, he said, and said he may choose to forego the full 1,550 feet.

Well darn, hopefully it at least ends up higher than 1WTC and 432.

I always thought 1550 feet seemed too good for Manhattan, especially for a residential tower.

I do however think not building it to the full height would be stupid considering the enormous demand for amazing views from billionaires around the world. :/

Crawford Jun 7, 2013 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6157278)
I do however think not building it to the full height would be stupid considering the enormous demand for amazing views from billionaires around the world. :/

I still don't think you're getting the point. There is no full height. The article doesn't add anything to what we already knew.

It could be taller than 1,550 ft., or shorter than 1,550 ft. All we have is a building permit.

MarshallKnight Jun 7, 2013 10:40 PM

Yeah, this boils down to a question of diminishing returns. The higher Extell builds, the more cost-intensive the construction. 1550 ft was calculated based on what they think they can sell their units for, weighed against those increasing costs. Clearly the ultralux market is hot -- if the penthouse at One57 went for $95MM, you would think that the higher units on 225 W57th could gross a whole lot more. But higher than 1550 ft, apparently, the added cost negated the added gain. The market being fluid, the projections will change as time goes on, and so until they're really ready to build this thing, we probably won't know the final decision on height. But if the market continues to stay this hot (or gets hotter), it's more likely that it will stay at 1550 ft (or get taller) than not.

So what I think we wall really want to say is, it would be stupid not to build to whatever height will allow the maximum return on investment.

Zapatan Jun 7, 2013 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 6157310)
I still don't think you're getting the point. There is no full height. The article doesn't add anything to what we already knew.

It could be taller than 1,550 ft., or shorter than 1,550 ft. All we have is a building permit.

He just said he might consider cutting the height because of easier construction/financing etc.

Of course not having seen the final design we can't know.

NYguy Jun 10, 2013 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktko (Post 6157251)
I wanted to ask a question about air rights when NY announced they would sell air rights in east midtown but I didn't want to go off-topic. Since you guys have been at it for a while, let me squeeze another one in there :) How did they get their 1.3M sqf of air rights? Is it zoning that says for each sqf of land, you get x sqf of air rights? Or is it more complicated than that?

Also, is this a max air rights zone in manhattan or are there other areas that have more air rights sqf per land sqf? (if that's how it works)

It's all in the zoning. Zoning varies from site to site in Manhattan. If I'm not mistaken, this site sits within two different zonings. But you can transfer development rights (air rights) from properties nearby, thus increasing the amount you have to build. Barnett has said it took him 16 years to assemble enough for One57. I don't know how long it took to put this one together.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6157261)
Well obviously, blame that on the person who wrote the article and not my "overreaction" :rolleyes:

There is nothing or no one to blame. What was written was accurate. If I tell you I have enough money to buy a hamburger, it doesn't mean that's all I can buy. It simply means I can buy at least the burger. I could probably purchase a shake as well with it, but that's irrelevant because we're just talking about the burger. In this case, we're talking about the 1,550 ft figure on the permit.

Quote:

the tower has enough air rights to rise 1,550 feet


Quote:

Originally Posted by MarshallKnight (Post 6157367)
So what I think we wall really want to say is, it would be stupid not to build to whatever height will allow the maximum return on investment.

Barnett is no fool, it will be a "high quality" building, but economical also. I also believe that if they want to boast having the highest residences in the city, they could take the exact height off the table for a while, you never know who else wants that option. If you notice, most of these developers try to downplay it. "Oh, it was never about the height". But when they get it, its all over the place.

Crawford Jun 10, 2013 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6157431)
He just said he might consider cutting the height because of easier construction/financing etc.

I don't see that anywhere in the article.

He said the exact height hasn't been determined. There is no "cutting the height", because we don't have a height.

There is no reference to construction or financing.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:21 AM.

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