I don't understand why you guys are so up in arms. Gary Barnett was just sharing his thoughts on the design process in general, and his thoughts on how it relates to this building.



The building is still in development. Barnett has always had the option to build lower, you just get the words from his mouth now. By no means is he saying he's going to cut the height.

Well we'll have to wait and see, but to me, it sounds like we should expect a shorter building just because of that excerpt.

Maybe and hopefully I am wrong. :)

The thing is, people here, and especially New York forumers, have some bad experience regarding approved buildings. So I can't blame them. New York buildings tend to get a height decrease instead of a height increase. On the other side of the globe it's the other way around.
But let's end this discussion here, it's too OT.

Yes, exactly why I was saying what I was saying. It's a US thing, although worse outside of New York.

Well, I just got word from Barnett. He's thinking he may cancel the tower altogether and just build the Nordstrom. But nothing is certain at this point. :sly:

:runaway:

There's really no point for speculation at this point, especially when there's a motive for obfuscation: i.e. why hype up your unbuilt building when you've got to sell a building under construction.

Any reason why? If so, that's too bad.

He wasn't serious. ;)

Caveat: The following is most likely to be construed as a grand-mal overreaction on my part; but here goes nothing............................

I'm praying that Barnett's playing head games here. And I hope NYGuy's "4-1-1 straight from the proverbial horse's mouth" post is somehow reflective of that same sort of psychological gamesmanship. This alone concerns me greatly.

Given the worst possible scenario, I suggest this: If the tower deal falls though, despite many an already approved permit to carry on as per schedule, I blame Nordstrom's alone. If they didn't want to bring their mothership store to the Big Apple, they should've just kept their HQ tent pitched in Seattle and not wasted Mr. Barnett's tim...or, for that matter, annihilated our collective emotional stakes in seeing this grow into a potentially striking mark on our beautiful skyline, and a commercial figurehead worth extensive praise and plaudits all around.

That said, I'd dare think that N's presence would most gladly--and perhaps with minimal, if not token, civic and local government resistance--be welcomed by a 300-to-500' squat box on the fringes of the Emerald City's CBD.
Then again, this is the same town that was too damn chintzy to build a stadium to keep their pro hoops team. But that's Oklahoma City's gain...and look at the *beautiful* tower they put up no sooner than the franchise relocation happened, never mind their sudden rise of fortunes on the court. QF, I really mean this: if Seattle wants to shoot themselves in the foot a second time, more power to them...I suppose. But might I first suggest indemnifying the City of New York from whatever enterprise-based masochistic tendencies they still might have?

The preceding brief (writer's emphasis) topical deviation serves my purpose to conclude with this:

If Nordstrom's *really* wants be a "playa" in NYC's continued unprecedented rise in at the very least commercial prestige, it should do more than merely set up nominal bases of operation. Indeed, the only thing that the true entrepreneurial spirit of New York demands in this case needs doing: Set up those offices on a *grand* scale and stop pussyfooting around with our developers who only want to make your damned task easier.

In the end, Mr. Barnett's desire to build the tower--which for all intents is ready to break ground--can only be measured by and conflated with Nordstrom's willingness to partner with him in all aspects of this venture. If they don't want to help him do this--to wit, essentially sabotage beyond repair any chances to significantly increase their own bottom line--their own corporate wishy-washiness alone will be cited as what ultimately will have done in all hopes for the tower going forward.

So if this three qaurter-baked, half-a-bubble off plumb prophecy of mine somehow actually comes to pass, it should never be allowed to get around that Mr. Barnett somehow balked at any stage in this process. People like him can do a helluva lot for any large business that wants to set up shop in the Apple; indeed we welcome whoever is ready for the challenge. In turn, though, that business must be steered by and armed with the forward-thinking collaborative sort needed to establish an abiding presence worthy of this great City.

Otherwise, to be blunt, either stay home, or don't bother. Or else go to boom-towns like Houston or Austin who can even further benefit from your trade. Just don't come to NYC with visions of literal castles in the sky, only to see them dissolve into ether no thanks to reality, and then blame the developer for this or that gone wrong.

I am still amazed people are talking about a real estate puff piece article. The author doesn't even know what air rights are, and people are debating hidden meanings in the prose.

The building could be taller, it could be shorter, it could be fatter, it could be thinner. All we have are the official zoning documents, and they have all been filed at 1,550 (per NYC DOB height measurements, not top of structure).

Why don't we wait and see what happens; the building is already coming, with Nordstrom opening by 2018 at the latest.

It happens too often in Toronto too. Some decent proposals, with significant height are often forced to chop 20, 30 or even 50m off their height. Rarey is height added other than a couple of floors.

I would agree with the interpretation that Barnett is saying he could have to build lower, but not necessarily will do. And even if the final design is, say, losing 200 ft off the air rights it would still be a 1350ft tower. I'd be more than happy with that.

I appreciate your citing the opening to my admittedly neurotic post. I was perhaps too hasty in my reaction to NYGuy's post earlier on, perhaps out of not being quite sure what to make of it. Ah hell; I overanalyze by force of nasty habit anyway. One lives and learns, no?

I can only hope going forward that everything proceeds according to script and we're around to see something magnificent that compliments 432P.

Latest demo update:

225 West 57th June 2013 Demolition Update

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/...06/225w571.jpg

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...799658464.html

Building Backer? Try China


By ELIOT BROWN and LINGLING WEI
June 20, 2013

I guess that makes sense after Barnett looked to Abu Dhabi for the One57 loan. Barnett may not be as nationally connected yet as, say, Harry Macklowe is, but he's still going to get the money to get the job done. The $1 billion loan is probably only half of the total costs.

C'mon banks, give the loans to Extell, please.

this tower isn't entirely residential is it?

If so it would be the world's tallest.

It's mostly residential aside from Nordstrom in the lobby if I'm not mistaken.

To be classified as a residential tower, more than 85% of the building's space has to be residential (according to the CTBUH rules). Nordstrom is going to occupy at least 1/6 of the available space, so most likey this tower will be mixed-use (officially).