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)

aquablue Dec 18, 2012 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaizer007 (Post 5942203)
^^^ Yea, to each their own but there's nothing aesthetically pleasing about that Trump Tower. As far as best designed tower since the turn of the century in the US i'd take the Hearst tower or even NY by Ghery over that. As far as this tower, although I would've preferred Herzog & De Meuron to design it, I think Adrian Smith seems to be pretty good at designed really tall towers, but I hope for something more cutting edge considering the location of the building and how much it needs to stand out from the competition besides its height.

I would say that the Greenland Center and Kingdom Tower have pretty cutting-edge designs. I don't consider H de M's work more cutting edge, it is just more creative and artsy, but not more modern. Some of Smith's new Asian proposals would be worthy of a sci-fi fantasy city they are that forward looking.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork Dec 18, 2012 6:39 PM

Im crossing my fingers for a Greenland Center type of tower here.

babybackribs2314 Dec 18, 2012 6:44 PM

Greenland Center is a heinous phallus. I would be quite upset if NYC had something similar. It isn't a developing city so I doubt it sees something like that, anyways.

NYguy Dec 18, 2012 7:01 PM

Remember, whatever the design, it will likely be built within existing zoning. A somewhat straightforward design in form, nothing too extraordinary. But so was One57, and that turned out great.

Crawford Dec 18, 2012 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 5942062)
Trump Tower was also supposed to be a lot taller than it was, shortened because of 9/11.

Trump Tower Chicago is actually much taller than Trump wanted, at least if you're going by official height by spire.

Chicago's former mayor Richard Daley insisted that Trump included a huge spire, which was not in the original plans.

Trump did talk about building even taller prior to 9-11, but he never submitted anything officially.

Dale Dec 18, 2012 7:33 PM

I seem to recall that Trump totally freaked out after 9/11.

BraveNewWorld Dec 18, 2012 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 5942210)
Trump Tower is the most "aesthetically pleasing" tower in Chicago. Hearst is nice but there's nothing that remarkable about it, Ghery's looks like a huge piece of twisted metal. I had hopes for the design but have come away underwhelmed. But to each his own...

I don't know if it's the most aestetically pleasing in Chicago or NY, but it's near the top, it's an gorgeous building.

http://i.imgur.com/LuV9P.jpg

aquablue Dec 18, 2012 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 (Post 5942806)
Greenland Center is a heinous phallus. I would be quite upset if NYC had something similar. It isn't a developing city so I doubt it sees something like that, anyways.

No its not, don't exaggerate. It's a beautiful futuristic tower. I suppose you think the Gherkin is heinous too b/c it is a phallus shape? Quite extraordinary that you could be upset over an amazing tower like that coming to NY just because it looks like a penis. Actually, its mind boggling for those of us who are bored with boxy towers.

NY Guy: You really are lowering expectations for this tower with your talk of straightforward and nothing extraordinary. According to you I should just expect another boring NY art-deco tower with setbacks or typical box? Is NY always going to be conservative and never build anything 'extraordinary'? How exciting.:yuck: If so, NY has a serious zoning issue that is constraining innovation in design and it needs to be addressed unless the city wants to end up like Tokyo, corporate and dull gray office box towers everywhere.

The trump does not work due to its setbacks, they make the tower look awkward and off-balance. I would be extremely upset if a tower like that was built here. :)

Crawford Dec 18, 2012 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 5942984)
If so, NY has a serious zoning issue that is constraining innovation in design and it needs to be addressed unless the city wants to end up like Tokyo, box city.

I certainly hope that NYC remains primarily a city of boxy skyscrapers. That's the reason that NYC has such an amazing urban feel.

Weird, non-boxy footprints are inherently antiurban, which is why all those Asian mega-skylines (with a few exceptions) are all horrible at street level, and basically function as vertical suburbs.

Now a few non-boxy buildings are fine, but if too many proliferate, the pedestrian-oriented streetscape would be destroyed.

aquablue Dec 18, 2012 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5943004)
I certainly hope that NYC remains primarily a city of boxy skyscrapers. That's the reason that NYC has such an amazing urban feel.

Weird, non-boxy footprints are inherently antiurban, which is why all those Asian mega-skylines (with a few exceptions) are all horrible at street level, and basically function as vertical suburbs.

Now a few non-boxy buildings are fine, but if too many proliferate, the pedestrian-oriented streetscape would be destroyed.

I agree, but I'm talking about having a few stand out pieces that are there just to be different and iconic and NY zoning makes it difficult.

A tower can have an urban boxy base, but go crazy above street-level without impacting urbanity.

Also don't knock those 'vertical suburbs', would you rather them do US sprawl everywhere? Perhaps Chinese people like spread-out skyscraper towers rather than a hyper dense urban fabric in all parts of their cities.

NYguy Dec 18, 2012 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 5942984)
NY Guy: You really are lowering expectations for this tower with your talk of straightforward and nothing extraordinary. According to you I should just expect another boring NY art-deco tower with setbacks or typical box? Is NY always going to be conservative and never build anything 'extraordinary'? How exciting.:yuck: If so, NY has a serious zoning issue that is constraining innovation in design and it needs to be addressed unless the city wants to end up like Tokyo, corporate and dull gray office box towers everywhere.

You misunderstand. It's not a "lowering" of expectations to say a building will fit within zoning guidelines. To make it simple, lets just say don't expect anything freakishly out of place. Whatever is built here will be something special, but something that also fits in. "Stand out" doesn't always equal "great design".

nycaddict Dec 19, 2012 3:30 AM

Since they only just selected an architect to design the building does this mean we are still months off from when we will see a rendering?

Hudson11 Dec 19, 2012 3:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycaddict (Post 5943606)
Since they only just selected an architect to design the building does this mean we are still months off from when we will see a rendering?

The architect in charge probably already made a design, there was a design competition awhile back (one of the proposals by SHoP was made public) it's only a matter of time before we know what this one will look like. That amount of time might stretch out until after construction begins.

NYguy Dec 19, 2012 5:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11 (Post 5943610)
The architect in charge probably already made a design, there was a design competition awhile back (one of the proposals by SHoP was made public) it's only a matter of time before we know what this one will look like. That amount of time might stretch out until after construction begins.

That was before Nordstrom was on board. We pretty much have an idea of what the massing will be like from the construction permit, but as we've seen with 432 Park, that isn't neccesarily final.





http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/12/...pment-for-70m/

Extell, liquidating assets ahead of new tower, sells Riverside Center development for $70M


http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/up...arnett-5-2.jpg
Gary Barnett, 1780 Broadway, the site of the new tower, and a rendering of Building 2


December 19, 2012
Christopher Cameron


Quote:

Extell head Gary Barnett and partner the Carlyle Group yesterday sold the Building 2 site at the Riverside Center development for $70 million, as Extell begins raising capital for its new 57th Street tower — currently poised to become the tallest residential building in the United States, the New York Post reported.

The buyers of the complicated $420 million development were Dermot and AFL-CIO Building Investment Trust. The project calls for 616 residential rentals, retail space and a school and has a $275 million state Housing Finance Agency bond mortgage with credit enhancements through Bank of America and Capital One. The 640,000-square-foot Building 2, which is located at the southwest corner of West 61st Street, it will be known as 21 West End Avenue.

“We think we paid a fair price and the overall costs make this an excellent opportunity for us,” Stephen Benjamin, Dermot COO, said. The site was marketed by Andrew Scandalios of HFF.

On Monday, Extell announced that it would be hiring Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, the designers of the world’s tallest building, the 2,717-foot Burj Khalifa in Dubai, to design its new 1,550-foot 57th Street tower. In preparation for the massive project Extell appears to be liquidating select assets, according to the Post. For instance, Extell is closing this week on a $66 million deal for its 182-unit Westbourne apartment complex on West 137th Street. Bonjour Equities is the buyer and Georgia Malone of Georgia Malone represented Extell.

Extell also recently sold the leasehold on 175 Varick Strett for $32.75 million to WeWork and AEW Capital Management and Massey Knakal, on behalf of Extell, is marketing a garage, at West 24th to West 25th streets between Sixth and Seventh avenues, for about $85 million. In fact, Knakal has been marketing 59 of Extell’s buildings and is closing this month with 27 of those properties sold, according to the Post. “This is the best month in my career,” Robert Knakal said.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...6Bht8rWU7fBVRJ

Setting the ‘Barnett’ high

By LOIS WEISS
December 19, 2012

Quote:


Gary Barnett is busy shedding unwanted assets and amassing capital as he concentrates on skyscrapers such as the 1,550-foot Nordstrom tower on West 57th Street that will be the tallest US residential building.


Yesterday, Extell founder Barnett and partner the Carlyle Group sold the Building 2 site at the Riverside Center development to the Dermot Cos. and AFL-CIO Building Investment Trust.

The $420 million development, which calls for residential rentals, retail space and a grade school, has a $275 million state Housing Finance Agency bond mortgage with credit enhancements through Bank of America and Capital One.

Documents show the site sold for $70 million, but the equivalent land cost would be closer to $100 million as the developers have the added costs of building a school.



http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/51934

Adrian Smith+Gordon Gill’s First Manhattan Skyscraper Among the City’s Tallest

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/...02-550x407.jpg


December 18, 2012
Branden Klayko.

Quote:

Extell Development made waves as when they announced their 1,004-foot-tall skyscraper One57 by Christian de Portzamparc on Midtown Manhattan’s 57th Street (which made headlines most recently for crane troubles during Hurricane Sandy), but their next project a few blocks down the street looks to climb even higher. Developers announced in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday that Chicago-based Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture will design an 88-story, 1,550-foot-tall tower on West 57th Street just east of Broadway, an area quickly becoming known for skinny skyscraper proposals.

Adrian Smith, a former design principal at SOM’s Chicago office, and Gordon Gill, a former design associate at SOM, are two of the leading authorities on supertall buildings, while at SOM and at their own practice. While at SOM, Smith was the designer of the world’s current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. In more recent years, AS+GG has retrofitted Chicago’s Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower), designed the Quintai International Tower in China, the Dancing Dragons towers for Seoul, Korea’s Yongsan Business District and the Federation of Korean Industries Tower, and taken on what could be the world’s next tallest tower, the kilometer-high Kingdom Tower in Saudi Arabia.

AS+GG’s new tower for Extell, their first in Manhattan, will stand 300 feet above the Empire State Building and taller than the World Trade Center excluding its antenna. It will house the city’s first Nordstrom department store with a hotel and residences above. The architects were selected from a pool of top name architects including SHoP and Herzog & De Meuron, who both are already working on towers in New York City. Extell president Gary Barnett told the Journal that Seattle-based Nordstroms actually recommended AS+GG for the job. No groundbreaking has been set and financing must first be secured, but the tower could be complete as soon as 2018.

tdawg Dec 19, 2012 11:23 PM

it's such an exciting time to live in NYC if you're a skyscraper and architecture fan.

NYguy Dec 20, 2012 2:15 AM

^ Yeah, we may never witness a decade like the coming one in our lifetimes, in terms of dramatic changes to the skyline.


Here's a view of the site looking down from One57...


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc...xyqo1_1280.jpg
http://13thwitness.com/post/33875246541/one57-2012

Onn Dec 20, 2012 6:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 5944888)
^ Yeah, we may never witness a decade like the coming one in our lifetimes, in terms of dramatic changes to the skyline.

You're probably right about that, this boom could end up lasting a decade+. The stock market isn't supposed to hit its stride again until the late teens, and you know that's going to be another opportunity for new large scale projects. Banks, investors, and other financial services will be looking for more space that they lost during the recession. It's just a shame that all the other major US cities are missing out. Maybe that's because New York City's economy is such a juggernaut that no one else can keep pace anymore.

J. Will Dec 20, 2012 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5943004)
I certainly hope that NYC remains primarily a city of boxy skyscrapers. That's the reason that NYC has such an amazing urban feel.

Weird, non-boxy footprints are inherently antiurban, which is why all those Asian mega-skylines (with a few exceptions) are all horrible at street level, and basically function as vertical suburbs.

Now a few non-boxy buildings are fine, but if too many proliferate, the pedestrian-oriented streetscape would be destroyed.

The pedestrian-oriented streetscape has nothing to do with the shape of the tower. It has to do with the shape of the podium the tower sits on. As long as the podium is built to the lot line, the pedestrian experience should be fine (usually).

Crawford Dec 20, 2012 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Will (Post 5945199)
The pedestrian-oriented streetscape has nothing to do with the shape of the tower. It has to do with the shape of the podium the tower sits on. As long as the podium is built to the lot line, the pedestrian experience should be fine (usually).

Yeah, I agree with this. The base needs to be aligned to the street. Obviously there can be occasional exceptions, but if too many buildings aren't aligned to the pedestrian, you start to have a crappy streetscape.

And, yeah, if the base is aligned, the top can technically do whatever, and doesn't need to be boxy. But, in most cases, if you have a boxy base, that means the tower itself will be more likely to have a similar shape (because the zoning code has tough rules about setbacks and the like that means the base to some extent dictates the remainder of the tower).

I certainly want variety, like everyone else, but I don't want a Dubai-style mix of buildings, where there's no relationship with the street, or with the existing architectural landscape.

aquablue Dec 20, 2012 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5945252)
Yeah, I agree with this. The base needs to be aligned to the street. Obviously there can be occasional exceptions, but if too many buildings aren't aligned to the pedestrian, you start to have a crappy streetscape.

And, yeah, if the base is aligned, the top can technically do whatever, and doesn't need to be boxy. But, in most cases, if you have a boxy base, that means the tower itself will be more likely to have a similar shape (because the zoning code has tough rules about setbacks and the like that means the base to some extent dictates the remainder of the tower).

I certainly want variety, like everyone else, but I don't want a Dubai-style mix of buildings, where there's no relationship with the street, or with the existing architectural landscape.

Dubai didn't have much 'architecture' of any consequence to have a relationship with before their boom. If they did, the city would have been all low rise and not very impressive. Dubai wanted to create a sensation, stand-out and create a global brand. You don't do that by 'fitting in with the existing architectural landscape unless its Paris or something.

Also, people don't walk much in Dubai due to the weather half the year (their bus-stations are AC'ed), so I don't think creating a dense urban walking grid of buildings with a street wall ever really mattered to them!

As for NY, if it wants to have some more architectural flair, it needs to be more daring in its design. The street wall can be kept, but the buildings could easily have more interesting shapes without ruining the urbanity. Zoning can always be modified which it should to fit the modern age IMO.

NYguy Dec 20, 2012 7:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 5945487)
As for NY, if it wants to have some more architectural flair, it needs to be more daring in its design. The street wall can be kept, but the buildings could easily have more interesting shapes without ruining the urbanity. Zoning can always be modified which it should to fit the modern age IMO.

Buildings don't necessarily have to abide by zoning rules, but if they don't, approval must be granted on a case by case basis. That's what the 6 month process is for. I really don't care what is going up in Dubai, because New York isn't Dubai, nor should it pretend to be. So let's leave what's going up in Dubai to Dubai and concentrate on what's going up here.

New York's is a skyline that evolved naturally, and the pieces fit together like a puzzle. There are no isolated skyscrapers surrounded by open space, the buildings tend to meet at the street. It's for this reason there are streetwall requirements - both in length from the street and in height - written into City zoning. Everything works together, as opposed to an "experimental" piece here or there. A talented architect can have a "daring" design, yet meet the City as a part of it. There can be new things introduced, yet not feel totally alien to the City. Yet, at the same time, there is a practicality to what get's built in New York. These are not merely "statements", but the natural evolution of the skyline.

So, what you will get here is a large store at the base. Nordstrom wants large, column free floors, so the tower will most likely be offset somehow. The units will be maximized so that they will sell. Whatever architectural flair there is will come after this.

J. Will Dec 20, 2012 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5945252)
And, yeah, if the base is aligned, the top can technically do whatever, and doesn't need to be boxy. But, in most cases, if you have a boxy base, that means the tower itself will be more likely to have a similar shape

In Canadian cities it is very common for multiple towers to share the same base, and more often than not these towers are not boxy. Especially the newer ones.

Crawford Dec 21, 2012 1:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Will (Post 5946114)
In Canadian cities it is very common for multiple towers to share the same base, and more often than not these towers are not boxy. Especially the newer ones.

Maybe the zoning codes are more flexible? Who knows.

Anyways, I am fine with an unconventional tower, as long as the base is totally pedestrian friendly, and respects the streetscape.

NYguy Dec 27, 2012 7:18 PM

Another permit filed today....


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

Quote:

PROVIDE EXPLORATORY TEST PITS AS PER PLANS FILED, TO INVESTIGATE SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS IN PREPARATION OF PROPOSED NEW BUILIDNG 121328205.

nycaddict Dec 27, 2012 7:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyguy (Post 5951368)

wait!! Did this get cut to 150 feet!?!?!

Crawford Dec 27, 2012 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycaddict (Post 5951373)
wait!! Did this get cut to 150 feet!?!?!

That's the height of the existing building. This is a permit for alteration, not a new building permit.

NYguy Dec 27, 2012 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycaddict (Post 5951373)
wait!! Did this get cut to 150 feet!?!?!

The permit number for the new building is in the quote. What the latest permit is for is also quoted.

nycaddict Dec 27, 2012 8:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 5951464)
The permit number for the new building is in the quote. What the latest permit is for is also quoted.

so its an entirely new different site?

-Filipe- Dec 27, 2012 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycaddict (Post 5951476)
so its an entirely new different site?

the permit is about the building that is already their..so its the building thats getting torn down..

nycaddict Dec 27, 2012 9:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Filipe- (Post 5951483)
the permit is about the building that is already their..so its the building thats getting torn down..

Oh okay, Thanks! i got scared for a second hahaha

NYguy Dec 28, 2012 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycaddict (Post 5951476)
so its an entirely new different site?

If you read that far down, you must have seen the job description (partially quoted here). There are two other permits referenced, one for a building that stood, and another for a new building. The latest permit is not a building permit, but an action related. See the new building permit for info on it.

NYguy Dec 28, 2012 4:27 AM

December 27, 2012


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052980/large.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052981/large.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052983/large.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052985/large.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052980/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052981/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052983/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148052985/original.jpg

Onn Dec 28, 2012 1:57 PM

So it terms of size, how does this site compare with One57?

scalziand Dec 28, 2012 3:50 PM

^Bigger, by about a third.

NYguy Dec 28, 2012 4:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 5952088)
So it terms of size, how does this site compare with One57?

A comparison of sites according to documents filed. Keep in mind that the Nordstrom filings aren't complete.

One57

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148058184/original.jpg


Nordstrom

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148058186/original.jpg



The Nordstrom tower plans are preliminary, and we still don't know a whole lot about it. But from the one permit that was filed, we can gather a few things. According to the permit, there will be 4 sublevels (2 for the store). The main or ground level floor of the Nordstrom has almost double the capacity for all of the other floors in the store.

Store floors and person capacity
SL 2..................532
SL 1..................589
1st fl.................938
2nd fl................462
3rd fl.................474
4th fl.................474
5th fl.................429

That gives the store 7 total floors. The ground floor will also have the residential and hotel lobbies.

Floor 6 is mechanical.

Floors 7 through 12 are for the hotel, with the 7th floor having the hotel sky lobby and lounge, offices, and a nail and hair salon.
The 8th floor would have an exercise room as well as hotel rooms.


Floor 13 is mechanical.

Floor 14 is a residential lounge.

Floors 15 through 20 have 4 units.
Floors 21 through 32 have 3 units.


Floor 33 is mechanical.

Floors 34 through 49 have 3 units.

Floor 50 is mechanical.

Floors 51 through 66 have 3 units.

Floors 67 through 68 are mechanical.

Floors 69 through 83 have 2 units.

Floors 84 through 88 are mechanical.

Floor 85 also has storage units and a 100 person capacity sky lounge.

Of course, this can and probably will change.

Onn Dec 28, 2012 5:45 PM

^I see, okay, that seems to make sense.

NYguy Jan 2, 2013 1:33 PM

A look at the landmark next door, one of the sites that contributed air rights to the development of this tower...


http://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/real-e...th-street/7741

Extell buys air-rights from Art Students League on West 57th Street


http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/u...6_artsstu1.gif


February 9, 2006

Quote:

The Extell Development Group has acquired about 140,000-square feet of unused air rights from the Art Students League at 215 West 57th Street. Ira Goldberg, executive director of the league, told CityRealty.com today that the proceeds from the sale will be used to support its programs. He said he was "not at liberty" to say what the purchase price was of the air-rights.

Criag Evans and Nicola Heryet, both senior managing directors of Colliers ABR, represented the league in the transaction. Mr. Evans told CityRealty.com today that "the negotiations required sensitivity to the unique light and air requirements of the Art Students League," adding that "we were happy to negotiate a sale that addressed the concerns of the League while allowing Extell to move forward with the development in the area."

Extell controls the former Hard Rock building just to the west of the League and property extending through the block to 58th Street. The Hard Rock Cafe was founded in London in 1971 and was located in the base of the 12-story building at 225 West 57th Street where its entrance canopy was a late 1950's black Cadillac converting with rotating wheels. Hard Rock recently relocated to the former Paramount Theater space at 1501 Broadway.

The league's building is an individually designated official city landmark rich in the city's cultural and artistic history. It was completed in 1892 and designed by Henry Jane Hardenbergh, who would become the architect a few years later of the nearby Plaza Hotel.

The air-rights will likely enable Extell to erect a very tall, mid-block, condominium tower on the site of the former Hard Rock building.


(January 1, 2013)


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148125409/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/148125408/original.jpg




Meanwhile, Extell gets an award from the NY Post...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...ZT1ew2PZdi4MFI

January 2, 2013
by Lois Weiss


Quote:

To start the New Year, we present our Golden Bricks to the best and worst of the city slickers:

Grinch Award: Gary Barnett (inset lower right) of Extell Development for convincing Nordstrom to buy into his spot on gritty West 57th Street so he can develop the tallest tower in the US while being the Grinch that continues to tie up the garage under Vornado’s future development that would block some of his tower’s views.


miesian Jan 2, 2013 4:47 PM

Barnett is more Santa than Grinch....;)

NYguy Jan 2, 2013 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miesian (Post 5956244)
Barnett is more Santa than Grinch....;)

For us, at least....:cheers:

sbarn Jan 2, 2013 9:51 PM

I just hope congress doesn't decide to kill the economy and bring this project with it. :(

Dale Jan 2, 2013 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn (Post 5956753)
I just hope congress doesn't decide to kill the economy and bring this project with it. :(

I'm no fan of Congress but I somehow doubt they'll manage to kill this.

NYguy Jan 3, 2013 1:26 PM

Demo permit...

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

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

sw5710 Jan 4, 2013 8:38 PM

Thanks for posting the Demo permit NYguy. If all is good do you know how long it could be before we could see them show up and start the demo.:yes:

NYguy Jan 4, 2013 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw5710 (Post 5959661)
Thanks for posting the Demo permit NYguy. If all is good do you know how long it could be before we could see them show up and start the demo.:yes:

As far as I know, they're working on it now. Those demo permits have all been approved, and the store was being gutted, last we saw.

NYguy Jan 8, 2013 8:31 PM

As not unusual, the first filing was disapproved...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

sbarn Jan 8, 2013 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy (Post 5964804)
As not unusual, the first filing was disapproved...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

Yeah all "disapproved" means is "not yet approved". I'm sure it will be an iterative process with the DOB, particularly on a project of this size and scope.

nycaddict Jan 8, 2013 9:18 PM

can someone with experience on this subject tell me is they actually think this tower will ever be build to it planned 1,550 feet?

Crawford Jan 8, 2013 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycaddict (Post 5964888)
can someone with experience on this subject tell me is they actually think this tower will ever be build to it planned 1,550 feet?

You mean as opposed to 1,700 ft? (the other reported height)?

We don't know the exact height. We know it will be at least 1,550 ft., because that's what the permits indicate.

NYguy Jan 8, 2013 9:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 5964895)
We don't know the exact height. We know it will be at least 1,550 ft., because that's what the permits indicate.

Yeah, at least is the best way to put it. Barnett said the design was very preliminary, and they've only recently announced architects who will push the design into its final form. It's very likely the tower is higher, but 1,550 feet is good either way.

NYguy Jan 9, 2013 9:28 PM

http://observer.com/2013/01/57th-hea...ionaires-belt/

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.c...h_09.jpg?w=600


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 AM.

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