NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS - Page 30

NYguy · #**581** Posted **Jan 23, 2013, 1:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCrules

Holy 🞵🞵🞵🞵!!!
Just 2 buildings? I was assuming some 4 buildings gonna get demolished.
So this time again one more skinny building (like 432 Park) or it is gonna enclose at least the footprint area of One WTC???

Try reading up on the thread a bit. If you're gonna post, its the least you can do. And there have already been a couple of buildings demolished.

NYCrules · #**582** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Try reading up on the thread a bit. If you're gonna post, its the least you can do. And there have already been a couple of buildings demolished.

1780 Broadway and 117 west 57th street are either demolished or will get demolished one day, i'm sure about that. What are the other buildings that will get torn down or are already torn down?
Can you please name them?
If more than 2 buildings is it gonna enclose footprint area at least equivalent to One WTC???
Please let me know generously...

scalziand · #**583** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 12:51 AM**

Form the very first page:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

Here's the rough footprint of 225w57

1780 Broadway has been landmarked and isn't going anywhere.

NYguy · #**584** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 3:14 AM**

It's a large footprint. The lower floors of the tower will be for the large Nordstrom.

Some older shots of the block from google earth...

(outline minus the Broadway portion)

And here is the breakdown of the floors as per the last permit...

Quote:

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.

Onn · #**585** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 4:07 AM**

Barnett should buy those kind of puny low level buildings next door to his space. Then he could build the mega tower, on top of the mega Nordstrom. Although I suppose that wouldn't be in keeping with the 'Neo-Skyscraper' theme of tall and skinny.

NYguy · #**586** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 4:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Barnett should buy those kind of puny low level buildings next door to his space. Then he could build the mega tower, on top of the mega Nordstrom. Although I suppose that wouldn't be in keeping with the 'Neo-Skyscraper' theme of tall and skinny.

Barnett has already purchased the air rights of his neighbors, including from the landmarked lowrise next door...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5955995&postcount=537

Onn · #**587** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Barnett has already purchased the air rights of his neighbors, including from the landmarked lowrise next door...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5955995&postcount=537

Ah got it! So does that mean they'll build right over that building or incorporate it into the base design?

NYCrules · #**588** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 11:48 AM**

Hey, I hear that its footprint's coming around to be 40000 square feet in area and that is almost exactly equal to One WTC's.
So it's coming impressive and really big unlike 432 P.A

hunser · #**589** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 11:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCrules

Hey, I hear that its footprint's coming around to be 40000 square feet in area and that is almost exactly equal to One WTC's.
So it's coming impressive and really big unlike 432 P.A

The base may be big, but you won't see a tower like the ICC Hong Kong here. As the tower rises it will taper, that's for sure.

NYCrules · #**590** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 12:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

The base may be big, but you won't see a tower like the ICC Hong Kong here. As the tower rises it will taper, that's for sure.

Really? But there's a new rendition yet to make a splash.
I really wish something like ICC tower here for NYC gonna have many skyscrapers with tapering top.

NYguy · #**591** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Ah got it! So does that mean they'll build right over that building or incorporate it into the base design?

Why would they incorporate it into the design?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCrules

I really wish something like ICC tower here for NYC gonna have many skyscrapers with tapering top.

The ICC is not a residential tower. Stop useless worrying about what gets built elsewhere and wait like the rest of us for a rendering.

sbarn · #**592** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Ah got it! So does that mean they'll build right over that building or incorporate it into the base design?

Generally, in NYC, you can't build on top of a Landmarked building.

Onn · #**593** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Why would they incorporate it into the design?

Well if they bought the air rights over the space couldn't they build on top of it. My point in saying before was that Extell could have bought that lot to expand the tower's footprint.

sbarn · #**594** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Well if they bought the air rights over the space couldn't they build on top of it. My point in saying before was that Extell could have bought that lot to expand the tower's footprint.

Air rights can be transferred to adjacent properties. All air rights do is allow the developer to build additional FAR on their own property, not on top the Landmarked property.

Onn · #**595** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbarn

Air rights can be transferred to adjacent properties. All air rights do is allow the developer to build additional FAR on their own property, not on top the Landmarked property.

Okay, my whole point was that it would be great if Extell had the lot next door because this tower could be much larger. Apparently having air rights and the entire building are two different concepts.

NYguy · #**596** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Well if they bought the air rights over the space couldn't they build on top of it. My point in saying before was that Extell could have bought that lot to expand the tower's footprint.

It is a landmark, I'm not sure if you know what that means. But in either case, expanding the footprint means very little if the goal is to put apartments up higher into the sky. And Extell has assembled the air rights to do just that. The lot is t-shaped, with a spur extending to Broadway. The Broadway facade will remain, but that site will be assimilated into the tower as well.

Onn · #**597** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

It is a landmark, I'm not sure if you know what that means. But in either case, expanding the footprint means very little if the goal is to put apartments up higher into the sky. And Extell has assembled the air rights to do just that. The lot is t-shaped, with a spur extending to Broadway. The Broadway facade will remain, but that site will be assimilated into the tower as well.

Of course I know what a landmark building is, but how would I know its that from a google earth view?

NYCrules · #**598** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Why would they incorporate it into the design?

The ICC is not a residential tower. Stop useless worrying about what gets built elsewhere and wait like the rest of us for a rendering.

If luck swung around and Mr. Barnett just happened to read our article he could wind up to fulfilling our wish, so you never know if there's a chance for something like that to get built if it should really outstand.
NY guy!!! Since you've grabbed a whole lot of info and as a experienced guy unlike (probably) most of us here, could you assure me it won't halt its construction or even cancel like Chicago Spire did in Chicago that went by the by too far and suddenly silent.

Crawford · #**599** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 6:00 PM**

NYCRules, maybe follow the thread first, and take it all in. Your answers are almost all available in this thread.

UTEPman · #**600** Posted **Jan 24, 2013, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCrules

If luck swung around and Mr. Barnett just happened to read our article he could wind up to fulfilling our wish, so you never know if there's a chance for something like that to get built if it should really outstand.
NY guy!!! Since you've grabbed a whole lot of info and as a experienced guy unlike (probably) most of us here, could you assure me it won't halt its construction or even cancel like Chicago Spire did in Chicago that went by the by too far and suddenly silent.

The Chicago Spire was sort of a pipe dream to begin with. The developer went along with it but financing was never fully established.

This tower is probably a little different. For one, NY's demand for high end condo's is crazy. That means that this tower is actually practical. Plus, you have Nordstrom already lined up for space.

The Chicago Spire was to be built without any demand needed for such a tower. Two different scenarios.