NEW YORK | 220 Central Park So.| 952 FT | 70 FLOORS

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Not sure how anyone missed this but it says right here 1031 is the' elevation... "Building Height" is still 950'

Yeah, if that is up-to-date, then you're probably right.

Weird that they submitted that updated doc, then. I guess they just used the wrong number.

I'm also surprised at the elevation, as Central Park South isn't officially 81 ft. above sea level.

[Hypothalamus]

Here's New York YIMBY's article:

220 Central Park South Goes Supertall
BY: NIKOLAI FEDAK ON MARCH 21ST 2014 AT 4:00 PM


220 Central Park South as of 3/21 -- photo by Andrew McKeon

EDIT: YIMBY received word that the latest filings have a clerical error, and that 220 Central Park South’s pinnacle will remain 950′.

The never-ending slew of permits from 220 Central Park South may finally be abetting as partial approvals are in place, but the latest plan exam confirms the tower’s height increase well beyond the initial figure of 920 feet; Vornado’s tower will actually stand 1,031 feet tall, placing the tower amongst the tallest in New York City, and officially giving the building ‘supertall’ status.

While the increase from the previous documents is a relatively minor 81 feet, the bump means that 220 Central Park South will stand slightly taller than the almost-complete One57, which measures 1,005 feet to its pinnacle.
...

Accompanying the latest permits is a new on-site drawing, which offers a zoomed-out look of the project; despite the lack of detail, it seems to indicate that the design has undergone some changes since the initial renderings leaked in January, via Curbed. A minor cut-out on the building’s eastern side will help enhance the views from Extell’s 217 West 57th Street, which is already cantilevering to avoid the visual impact of 220 Central Park South; the additional height of the Stern-designed skyscraper could have come from the re-configuration of that ‘missing’ square footage.

The new permits also indicate that 220 Central Park South will stand 65 floors, with 100 units in total, and completion is expected in 2016.

[Zapatan]

^I think whoever wrote that article just misread the diagram.

Wouldn't get my hopes up yet but we'll see

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

^I think whoever wrote that article just misread the diagram.

Wouldn't get my hopes up yet but we'll see

I wrote it, and if that's the case, well f*ck me! But it does appear that the height has been altered to 1,031', as the # of units was also changed... we shall see!

I do think this is now 1,031', though -- the doc explicitly says so...



Also, the diagram looks like it may have lobbed off the crown, which may not have been included in the 950' figure. The latest filings are dated 3/19, whereas the previous -- below -- are from 2/3.

[chris08876]

The list of New York Super talls needs to be updated. Hunser will like this news.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I wrote it, and if that's the case, well f*ck me! But it does appear that the height has been altered to 1,031', as the # of units was also changed... we shall see!

Well it looks like you are right and I am (very happily) wrong.

1031 would be a great height for this building.

[Onn]

Well its good to see the height upgrade. I still feel like this is a bonkers place for the tower though, an older style skyscraper in the midst of all the steel and glass very modern supertalls. Although a beautiful design, I feel like it's going to be out of place.

[scalziand]

Not at all. The southern edge of Central Park is full of landmark masonry towers.

[Onn]

Well not at 1,031 feet. There 5 super modern towers going up compared to 1 classical...seems a little strange.


http://s802.photobucket.com/user/DKNY619/media/skyline1_zpsbb5c81ba.jpg.html

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Not sure how anyone missed this but it says right here 1031 is the' elevation... "Building Height" is still 950'

You can fault me for that, I did see it when I posted it, but I dont keep those elevation numbers in my head.

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I wrote it, and if that's the case, well f*ck me! But it does appear that the height has been altered to 1,031', as the # of units was also changed... we shall see!

I do think this is now 1,031', though -- the doc explicitly says so...

Also, the diagram looks like it may have lobbed off the crown, which may not have been included in the 950' figure. The latest filings are dated 3/19, whereas the previous -- below -- are from 2/3

Its what I suspect, so we'll leave it as is until further clarification.

[antinimby]

Please tell me they didn't get rid of the crown.

[wilfredo267]

The crown is still a part of the design. They just cropped it off the image in the illustration posted on the site.

[babybackribs2314]

This is 950', the DOB filings had incorrect data.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

This is 950', the DOB filings had incorrect data.

Is the crown still definitively part of the design?

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Is the crown still definitively part of the design?

Did not ask but I presume it is.

[Hudson11]

why wouldn't there be a crown nothing has changed.

[SD_Phil]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

This is 950', the DOB filings had incorrect data.

Evidence?

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

Evidence?

I asked the people who would know.

[Hypothalamus]

As of March 23rd, 2014...


Untitled by 600West218, on Flickr



Untitled by 600West218, on Flickr

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I asked the people who would know.

Did they the crown is still part of the plan?