NEW YORK | 111 W 57th St | 1,428 FT | 85 FLOORS - Page 9

JayPro · #**161** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 1:29 AM**

@UTEPMan;

::channelling Quickdraw McGraw::
"Now hooooooold on thar........."

Let's not quite jump the — and assume that a redesign with a classic NYC twist won't look nice with LED's. I give you Lady ESB post-refurbs as an example of how 1929-1939 Gotham and cutting edge illumination work together.

If they go the Art Deco route with this tower *with LED* (and I don't see why they *can't*) expect a dazzling edifice.

NYguy · #**162** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 2:38 AM**

Quote:

We are just beginning our design process for that building; we have not yet selected an architect.

Steinway Hall is a beautiful landmark and we’re incredibly respectful of that and we’re going to design a building that complements the landmark — very reminiscent of the skyscrapers built in the ’20s and ’30s.

I wonder who will ultimately design this one. One thing seems certain, it will be a "New York" tower. At its intended height, it will be in the realm of One57 and the Tower Verre. Together with 45 E. 60th, we are beginning to see more classic skyscraper designs mixed in with the newer takes on the classics (One57, Tower Verre). Who says you can't have it all?

scalziand · #**163** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 3:19 AM**

Sounds like Robert Stern would be a perfect fit for this tower.

Onn · #**164** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 4:00 AM**

Certainly Tower Verre is the best example of a classic tower gone modern as of late. But as to who would design this one I don't know.

Roadcruiser1 · #**165** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 7:38 AM**

The new design will probably end up looking a lot like 99 Church Street and have roughly the same height too!!!!!!!!!!

Perklol · #**166** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 8:05 AM**

Shame. The design from the rendering looked really good.

Onn · #**167** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 12:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

Shame. The design from the rendering looked really good.

I agree, that would be rather disappointing if they didn't build something along that line.

Hudson11 · #**168** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 2:18 PM**

Stern eh? well — he might end up being confused with Robert AM Stern with a design like that lol

NYguy · #**169** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

The new design will probably end up looking a lot like 99 Church Street and have roughly the same height too!!!!!!!!!!

I hope we get a classic spire or crown of some sort to go with this one. A classic but new take on the skylines of Central Park, maybe something even like the Sherry?

http://www.robertcaplin.com/2012/09/95000000-will-get-you-a-hell-of-a-view/

View more gorgeous photos of that one here, 3 pages...
http://rcaplin.photoshelter.com/gallery/Sherry-Netherland/G0000cRnZNwrff.M

And of course, this would be great...

http://www.sherrynetherland.com/

UTEPman · #**170** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 10:08 PM**

Let the past be the past. You can't duplicate buildings that were done in the 30's, and even if you could they wouldn't have the same character. Some can argue that TV does this, but TV is a different animal altogether. There is nothing like it....old or new.

The original rendering was very unique and upscale looking. NY has a ridiculous amount of buildings that represent the various stages in its evolution. I think it's time that ya'll build towers that represent cutting edge styles of today. This country needs more bold design in its towers, and NY is the only city with the economy to do that. So come on, let's see something that we haven't seen before. We need something new and refreshing.

JMO though....

NYguy · #**171** Posted **Aug 1, 2013, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UTEPman

Let the past be the past. You can't duplicate buildings that were done in the 30's, and even if you could they wouldn't have the same character. Some can argue that TV does this, but TV is a different animal altogether. There is nothing like it....old or new.

I agree that the past is the past, and you can't bring it back. However, that doesn't mean you can't have modern buildings with classic design elements. I think 15 Central Park West is an example of a building that looks like something from another era, but with all of the modern amenities and more you could ask for. But I bet if you asked someone if they preferred a more modern design element, like the spire of the BofA to the spire of the Chrysler, I think Chrysler wins hands down.

Manhattan has a number of buildings that proves you can have the best of both worlds, and these new additions such as 30 Park and 45 E. 60th will just continues that. We'll still have the glass towers like One57, the Tower Verre, all of the Hudson Yards and WTC giants. But there is also a distinctly New York element about buildings like the Sherry Netherland. And the bottom line is, whatever sells. Money talks, and there are people who flock to such buildings because they offer the best of both. And they are as modern as anything else going up, not just some old building being retrofitted as best it can to accommodate a new reality.

Crawford · #**172** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 12:43 AM**

In an article where they interview the developer of this tower, the NY Times reports this building (107 W.57) as "a 1,000 ft. condo".

So it looks like the thread title can be revised to 1,000 ft. I like where this is going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/realestate/high-rises-to-replace-an-east-side-eyesore.html

Also, this developer looks like he's going to give even Extell a run for their money. He plans twin towers on the East Side, and may eventually build seven big towers on the East Side. Holy —.

JayPro · #**173** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 1:10 AM**

How many 20's-30's era spired/crowned buildings are there in NYC under 350' and I wished to high heaven were twice as tall?
They ought to cull from the best examples in the city and combine the best elements of what they choose into this tower.***
Od course, there's no reason why you can't have a killer pinnacle with a dynamic LED scheme. As they'll inevitably choose to make setbacks, why not place lit beacons on the corners of each with LED's, too?
If enough attention is paid to how these revered gems of the 20's and 30's were thought out, the first prelim render alone will be a treat.
The design process will be worth kicking back and watching unfurl, albeit slowly.
***At the end of the day, if you will, the first official public release render should be different from anything else in the City. It shouldn't look like a busy hodgepodge of ideas somehow integrated with one another in a half-assed, yet good-enough sort of way.

NYguy · #**174** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 5:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

In an article where they interview the developer of this tower, the NY Times reports this building (107 W.57) as "a 1,000 ft. condo".

So it looks like the thread title can be revised to 1,000 ft. I like where this is going.

I just noticed that. But it could also be a reference to a tower of "about" 1,000 ft. We know it'll be above 900, but they've also said it wouldn't be taller than One57. But that's old news, it could well have surpassed One57 in height or equaled it. Either way, I don't want to go with that 1,000 ft just yet.

Stern is becoming another Gary Barnett...
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/beyond-walker-tower/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/reales...an-east-side-eyesore.html?pagewanted=all

Quote:

A Long Island native who did not graduate from college, Mr. Stern, 34, is often quoted in the press. He is a relative newcomer, having embarked on his New York City real estate career in 2004 after a stint with a developer in Florida.

It wasn’t until 2011, with the start of marketing of Walker Tower, a high-end condominium in Chelsea, that he broke into the mainstream. But he has become one of the city’s most prolific developers, racking up high-profile projects including the 1,000-foot-tall condominium he is building with Property Markets Group at the former Steinway Musical Instruments building on West 57th Street.

Swede · #**175** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 11:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UTEPman

Let the past be the past. You can't duplicate buildings that were done in the 30's, and even if you could they wouldn't have the same character

The elements in the pictures are just 20th century designs copying medieval design elements and styles. Works great IMO.

hunser · #**176** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 1:08 PM**

Presenting you the Skyscraper Wars:

Stern vs Barnett vs Macklowe vs Silverstein ... who will win?

Crawford · #**177** Posted **Aug 2, 2013, 1:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

Presenting you the Skyscraper Wars:

Stern vs Barnett vs Macklowe vs Silverstein ... who will win?

I hope Sheldon Solow enters the skyscraper wars too, and soon.

Solow owns that huge lot on 57th Street between 5th and 6th. That's probably the best development site in NYC.

NYguy · #**178** Posted **Aug 7, 2013, 11:52 PM**

Maybe I'm just tired, and not reading this correctly. But it looks like it could be 1,200 ft with 74 floors from this latest permit. Also looks like SHoP is involved...

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQu...passjobnumber=121332968&passdocnumber=01

Quote:

FILING FOR ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS FILED HEREWITH

Eidolon · #**179** Posted **Aug 8, 2013, 12:02 AM**

^^^
This is, what, the 24th or 25th supertall for New york?
57th Street! Go big or go extinct!

I wish Tower Verre could still get it's old height back though.

NYguy · #**180** Posted **Aug 8, 2013, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eidolon

^^^
This is, what, the 24th or 25th supertall for New york?
I wish Tower Verre could still get it's old height back though.

At this moment, I don't even know the exact number of supertall proposals (my head hurts).

But I wonder how they stretch this to 1,200 ft, how thin will it be. And is it really being designed by SHoP? I thought it would be something more traditional, but all questions to be answered.