NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by aquablue

It doesn't matter. Unless you have gone over all the financial plans and all the inner workings of the deal, you have no idea or not. You are just going on past evidence. It is probably the most valuable development site in NYC, and the location right in the center of NY's business district counts for something. The location is special and unique, which makes comparisons to other sites unreliable.

In addition to *that*, I'm sure there were people who consulted with Sr. Viñoly on the engineering aspects of making a building of this unique width habitable. IIRC JWalpole mentioned that this is why the square gridding is an exterior element...or ostensibly so from what I can see.
PS: If you want to see slender, take a gander at the topmost setbacks of Burj Khalifa. They must've engineered the entire structure to allow for such slenderness at that height. Yes, this building is essentially one continuous upper setback on BK; but again, engineering considerations---as with any highrise and supertall---*must* be addressed. There's no room for error...and it's something that can open up a huge legal can of worms if ignored.

[NYguy]

We'll just have to wait and see, but given current activity on the site, all signs point to this thing getting the green light.

[1Boston]

yea i doubt they would go to these lengths in site prep w/o good reason to believe they were going to be able to build this.

[THE BIG APPLE]

^ Or they would start the foundations, while at the same time be securing financing.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

^ Or they would start the foundations, while at the same time be securing financing.

That's pretty much what happened with the One57 development. Exactly the same thing is happening here.

[NYguy]

Cam shot, Feb 16


www.432park.com

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

3) i'll be shocked if it's financially feasible.

Obviously none of us have access to their pro-formas, but you could probably get more per square foot at this site than at any other development site on the planet.

If Barnett wants $115 million for the penthouse at One57, I can't imagine the asking price at 432 Park, which is a vastly better location and much taller building.

[NYguy]

This one will have about 128 units, One57 will have about 95. Being located at Park Avenue and 57th Street is about as good as you can get in Manhattan, though the current most expensive is at 15 Central Park West. A lot depends on the product, but I can't imagine this one being any less spectacular than the latest developments as far as buyers are concerned. A simple rendering doesn't tell us anything, but we know the views alone will be great.

[MrSlippery519]

A lot of activity going on today, looking at the cam the building on the left is just about gone and the one in the top right was taken down another level today.

[NYguy]

Now you begin to see how small, but expansive the site is...







www.432park.com

[aquablue]

New York Housing Market Could Still Collapse

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46310822

[yankeesfan1000]

That was a good laugh. You should post in the Skybar section as well.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by aquablue

New York Housing Market Could Still Collapse

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46310822

Or a giant monster could rise from the depths of the ocean to ravage the city. (It could happen). No sense worrying about it though.

Listen, this thing is far from certain. But let's watch, and let it play out.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by aquablue

New York Housing Market Could Still Collapse

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46310822

Stupid report by another dumb "analysis" who said this last year. And the year before. And the year before.

Even if he's finally right, which he isn't, greater New York area is far more than Manhattan. It includes New Jersey, Long Island, Westchester, SW Connecticut, Rockland, etc. His premise is a problem with foreclosures but there are practically no foreclosures in Manhattan compared to other places.

Manhattan will always be safe.

[THE BIG APPLE]

fDMow

[Guiltyspark]

A lot of the conversation in this thread seems to be going in this circle.

1. The building is not aesthetically pleasing, it is too tall for its width and is just the kind of big boring box that we all thought architecture had grown out of by the 80s.

2. But it is so tallllllllll!

Repeat steps 1 and 2 for eternity.

What would solve it would be to keep the basic plan but to just do SOMETHING interesting with the roof. I don't think that is to much too ask. If this building was built in 1975 I think it would be ok, or at least the norm for the time. As the plans stand now, I think it is a bit of a national embarrassment compared to the supertalls going up in China and the Middle East. If we are going to steal architecture from a decade, could it at least be the 30's and not the 60's or 70's please?

Now I just need someone to reply with point of view #2 and the cycle can continue.

[DrNest]

Good point, especially for a building so, so tall!!

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

A lot of the conversation in this thread seems to be going in this circle.

1. The building is not aesthetically pleasing, it is too tall for its width and is just the kind of big boring box that we all thought architecture had grown out of by the 80s.

2. But it is so tallllllllll!

Repeat steps 1 and 2 for eternity.

What would solve it would be to keep the basic plan but to just do SOMETHING interesting with the roof. I don't think that is to much too ask. If this building was built in 1975 I think it would be ok, or at least the norm for the time. As the plans stand now, I think it is a bit of a national embarrassment compared to the supertalls going up in China and the Middle East. If we are going to steal architecture from a decade, could it at least be the 30's and not the 60's or 70's please?

Now I just need someone to reply with point of view #2 and the cycle can continue.

We can only dream of some sort of non-boxy top....

[hunser]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

A lot of the conversation in this thread seems to be going in this circle.

1. The building is not aesthetically pleasing, it is too tall for its width and is just the kind of big boring box that we all thought architecture had grown out of by the 80s.

2. But it is so tallllllllll!

Repeat steps 1 and 2 for eternity.

What would solve it would be to keep the basic plan but to just do SOMETHING interesting with the roof. I don't think that is to much too ask. If this building was built in 1975 I think it would be ok, or at least the norm for the time. As the plans stand now, I think it is a bit of a national embarrassment compared to the supertalls going up in China and the Middle East. If we are going to steal architecture from a decade, could it at least be the 30's and not the 60's or 70's please?

Now I just need someone to reply with point of view #2 and the cycle can continue.

Looking at the Dubai Marina and some other supertalls in China, I would say it could be a lot worse. Better having this box than a hyper- fugly- gaudy tower a la Dubai.

And btw 432 PA is soooo taaaall!! j/k

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

What would solve it would be to keep the basic plan but to just do SOMETHING interesting with the roof. I don't think that is to much too ask. If this building was built in 1975 I think it would be ok, or at least the norm for the time. As the plans stand now, I think it is a bit of a national embarrassment compared to the supertalls going up in China and the Middle East. If we are going to steal architecture from a decade, could it at least be the 30's and not the 60's or 70's please?

Something as simple as adding a little flourish like the Setai did would be enough to satisfactorily terminate the roof. It doesn't mess with the basic form of the tower, but it does acknowledge that that's where it ends.


http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/portf...?job_id=200604