NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS - Page 48

THE BIG APPLE · #**941** Posted **Jan 15, 2012, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 88madri

I have one question. All the building will be in the area they are working now?? Or they have to demolish some of the building close to it?? I mean the ones we can see in the webcam

Thanks

The property that is marked by the number 33 is what's being excavated right now. 46, 145, 45, 44, 43, 42, and 41 are to be demolished.

gramsjdg · #**942** Posted **Jan 15, 2012, 8:34 PM**

A 19 to 1 height to width ratio works out to a 75' x 75' footprint for a 1420 ft tall structure. That would easily fit inside the existing lot. They clearly have the space to go to 150' x 150' with the demolitions included... The extreme narrowness is obviously intentional and not in any way a result of limited footprint space. (Is this the design where each floor constitutes one condo or is that a different condo proposal?) Clearly the views are paramount with this design.

gramsjdg · #**943** Posted **Jan 15, 2012, 8:38 PM**

Actually, 75' x 75' would result in 5625 sq ft per floor (gross) minus elevators, columns, walls and such...

gramsjdg · #**944** Posted **Jan 15, 2012, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I suspect that it's called 432 Park because it's 432m tall. Recall that The Drake's site, on which this tower will sit, had an address of 440 Park.

That's what I was thinking...

scalziand · #**945** Posted **Jan 15, 2012, 10:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

The property that is marked by the number 33 is what's being excavated right now. 46, 145, 45, 44, 43, 42, and 41 are to be demolished.

Don't forget that #44 has already been demolished.

THE BIG APPLE · #**946** Posted **Jan 15, 2012, 10:34 PM**

^ Oh my bad. I KNEW I forgot a building that got demolished. I think he already owns all of them except one. Or I think he also owns that last one he was trying to buy off,

NYguy · #**947** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 12:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

I suspect that it's called 432 Park because it's 432m tall. Recall that The Drake's site, on which this tower will sit, had an address of 440 Park.

I wondered about that because 432 park is the block before. The old 440 address is not in use anymore (retired along with the hotel I guess). I believe this tower would be better served with a Park Avenue address (its on 3 different streets), but 57th Street is not all that bad either, especially with the up and coming developments.

Also, you can clearly see in the model that the tower is set back from the streets on all sides, with the glass cube being on Park Avenue.

www.elitedaily.com

koops65 · #**948** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

WOOT WOOT!

I was ambivalent about the design at first but whoever did the diagram here improved my opinion a million times over; it actually makes the building look quite fantastic (conservative, but fantastic). It will be very good having a supertall with a facade that is more than just glass!

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=94370

NYC is not only getting a NEW tallest residential, but a tower with a roof height GREATER than the new WTC... and the WTC isn't even done!!

I made the diagram, based on the photo of the model, and I didnt use any measurements, I just made it look like the model.

Zapatan · #**949** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 8:52 AM**

If the building ends up the same height as the massing model it will be 1420 feet as it is more than double the 682 foot four seasons hotel in the renderings.

RobertWalpole · #**950** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 11:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I wondered about that because 432 park is the block before.

Yes. I believe that the building on Park -- just to the south -- with the car dealership in the ground floor has an address of 432 Park.

1Boston · #**951** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 6:36 PM**

Check out the livestream, it looks like theyve taken out almost all the dirt that was on the lower left side of the stream

http://432park.com/

NYguy · #**952** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 6:58 PM**

Cam shot from today, 1:55 pm

www.432park.com

Gearing up for foundation work...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/WorkPe...n2=0001872827&allbin=1088583&requestid=4

aquablue · #**953** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 1:55 AM**

The one good thing that will come of this, it will draw the eye away from that ugly dominating gray box that lies just in front, as it soars high above the fray. Sorry, I do not recall the name of that 60's style building.

RobertWalpole · #**954** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 2:06 AM**

This will be a great building. If it were being built in any other city, residents thereof would be fawning over it.

599GTO · #**955** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 3:48 AM**

When will construction start on this tower?

I really hope it's 1,420 ft. It's conservative but at least it's handsome, super skinny and tall. It will do wonders for relatively flat skyline in that area, IMO. Hopefully the success of this and One57 (if they are indeed successes..which i'm predicting they'll be) will help spur other super-tall, super-posh super tall towers in Manhattan. Hopefully more flamboyant looking ones.

I wonder if the apartments in this building will be cheaper or more expensive than One57..

Crawford · #**956** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO

I wonder if the apartments in this building will be cheaper or more expensive than One57..

I would imagine they would be much more expensive.

Both are good locations, but Park/57th is a vastly better location.

Guiltyspark · #**957** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

This will be a great building. If it were being built in any other city, residents thereof would be fawning over it.

I slightly disagree. This buildings only chance of working is due to the fact that it is in New York and will just be one of many very tall buildings. It also would work in Chicago or maybe LA or Miami. If it was built in my hometown of Detroit, it would be three times taller than the next tallest building and would look silly.

NYguy · #**958** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

The one good thing that will come of this, it will draw the eye away from that ugly dominating gray box that lies just in front, as it soars high above the fray.
Sorry, I do not recall the name of that 60's style building.

450 Park?

http://www.taconicinvestments.com/portfolio/450_parkavenue.html

http://www.glasshill.co.uk/CONTEXT/Glass_Hill_450_Park_Avenue_Phillips.html

Inkoumori · #**959** Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 1:02 AM**

The problem I have with this tower (as proposed) is that it's childish. Imaginative only in its overwhelming height and slenderness, childish in both form and function. It's almost like the personification of Ayn Rand writ large on the skyline of NYC. Its function is to provide mansions in the sky for the wealthy, which is fine, NYC is the ultimate capitalist city, but I feel it fails to provide any visual delight to anyone below.

It's the ultimate expression of contempt for the city, while providing the ultimate views from within for those few who can afford it. No joy to look at, like an armored Mercedes.

Crawford · #**960** Posted **Jan 19, 2012, 1:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

The one good thing that will come of this, it will draw the eye away from that ugly dominating gray box that lies just in front, as it soars high above the fray. Sorry, I do not recall the name of that 60's style building.

450 Park Avenue was designed by Emery Roth, and is considered an architectural standout.

It's probably among the most valuable towers on the planet. When it was sold a few years ago, it smashed all U.S. records for price per square foot.