NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS - Page 145

gttx · #**2881** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, people are getting confused on the pit for 225 W. 57. It isn't at all typical for NYC, as most NYC towers do not have deep foundations. The pit is deep in this case in part because much of Nordstrom will be below-grade. But if you look at, say, 432 Park, the pit wasn't that deep, at all, probably because the below-grade uses will be more limited.

Right - another use that hasn't been brought up for underground areas is commercial space. If you have a big tenant like a department store, this makes a lot of sense. It's "free" floor space that doesn't reduce your allowable zoning floor area.

gttx · #**2882** Posted **Feb 27, 2015, 11:09 PM**

Also, I checked the zoning code for my own sanity:

13-10
PERMITTED OFF-STREET PARKING IN THE MANHATTAN CORE
No parking shall be required within the #Manhattan Core#. As-of-right off-street parking spaces located within #accessory# offstreet parking facilities, automobile rental establishments and #public parking lots# in the #Manhattan Core# shall be permitted
only as set forth in this Section, inclusive.

13-11
Permitted Parking for Residences
#Accessory# off-street parking spaces are permitted for #residences# in developments# or #enlargements#, as follows:
(a) for Community Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, #accessory# off-street parking spaces may be provided for not more than 20 percent of the total number of new #dwelling units# contained in the #development# or #enlargement#, or 200 spaces, whichever is less;
(b) for Community Districts 7 and 8, #accessory# off-street parking spaces may be provided for not more than 35 percent of the total number of new #dwelling units# contained in the #development# or #enlargement#, or 200 spaces, whichever is less.

NYguy · #**2883** Posted **Feb 28, 2015, 4:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gttx

Right - another use that hasn't been brought up for underground areas is commercial space. If you have a big tenant like a department store, this makes a lot of sense. It's "free" floor space that doesn't reduce your allowable zoning floor area.

The store space (including the lower levels) contributes to the allowable commercial space on site. It's mechanical space that doesn't contribute, that's why you sometimes see two different figures for the size of buildings in the city.

As for the parking, that's not an issue here. It can be taken up in the appropriate forum.

ILNY · #**2884** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 3:45 AM**

2.28.15

Work is slowly progressing. Iron beam platform in SE coroner has already reached street level. Also South and West walls has been built for what looks like beginning of a core. Concrete support walls are almost done except half of North side wall.

Ploppalopp · #**2885** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 4:58 AM**

Thanks for the great pictures ILNY. It's good to see this building moving along so quickly, but I wish we could get some renderings so we know what it will look like.

babybackribs2314 · #**2886** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 5:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ploppalopp

Thanks for the great pictures ILNY. It's good to see this building moving along so quickly, but I wish we could get some renderings so we know what it will look like.

It is unchanged.

mistermetAJ · #**2887** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

It is unchanged.

Very disappointing.

baseball1992 · #**2888** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 6:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

It is unchanged.

I thought the height is different to the top of parapet than the initial renders?

BrownTown · #**2889** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 6:43 AM**

So, is that going to be the core in the middle? I thought it had to be on one side so it didn't get in the way of the store?

pico44 · #**2890** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 2:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

Very disappointing.

Yes that is awful news. I wish very much that the people buying space in these buildings take the exterior design into consideration when deciding where to park their investment. If only they thought about the ethical accountability they assume with their purchase. The Hines and Sterns would be rewarded with hundreds of millions in profits and Barnett would go broke. Oh what a wonderful world that would be. Instead we're stuck with a Barnetified skyline with this towering pile from the great Adrian Smith. Ugh...

vandelay · #**2891** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 3:04 PM**

If the design isn't significantly changed from what was leaked before, then this skyscraper has a chance at being the most despised new building in all of New York City.

hunser · #**2892** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 3:11 PM**

^ Absolutely, because it will be visible from almost anywhere in the city (1,855' EL to the spire).

It really makes me wonder though. Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill are famous for designing great skyscrapers abroad (China, Middle East) yet fail in NYC. The same could be said about KPF: great towers overseas but mediocre designs in New York (see Hudson Yards).

Skyguy_7 · #**2893** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 4:54 PM**

^Remember; AS+GG designed what looked to be a beauty, to ultimately win them the contract, at which point it was then apparently VE'ed to hell by Barnett.

JustSomeGuyWho · #**2894** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

^ Absolutely, because it will be visible from almost anywhere in the city (1,855' EL to the spire).

It really makes me wonder though. Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill are famous for designing great skyscrapers abroad (China, Middle East) yet fail in NYC. The same could be said about KPF: great towers overseas but mediocre designs in New York (see Hudson Yards).

Define fail. What buildings in New York did they architect? Can't think of any.

JR Ewing · #**2895** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 8:13 PM**

Let's not be dramatic. This tower -- with the tallest roof in the US -- is still amazing. It might not be Verre or Steinway, but few buildings in the world are that good.

photoLith · #**2896** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 9:45 PM**

What are you people complaining about? The tower looks fine to me.

baseball1992 · #**2897** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandelay

If the design isn't significantly changed from what was leaked before, then this skyscraper has a chance at being the most despised new building in all of New York City.

Why would this tower be the most despised? This is definitely not an ugly building.

At worst it is a mediocre design, but there are plenty of ugly towers in this city. More people are going to dislike 432 park that this tower.

chris08876 · #**2898** Posted **Mar 2, 2015, 11:18 PM**

Guys, its disappointing in the sense of the final renderings because its not any different from the original. So when we see the renderings, we will notice it looks the same. Only difference in the renderings being some graphical enhancements. Similar to that recent rendering of Verre for example.

In terms of the design on the tower, it is still the same. So no need to worry or be pessimistic.

chris08876 · #**2899** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 12:42 AM**

^^^

Its getting build as the same design. Insider info saids it is.

What we should expect with renderings are ones with graphical enhancements, different angles, lighting, etc, but design is the same. On a positive note, tallest to the roof and we should be happy because of that not to mention close to 10 supertalls that will rise soon or in the next year or two.

hunser · #**2900** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 12:59 AM**

At least 432 PA has a clear line, a symmetry. As a mathematician I appreciate its simple, yet elegant form. Love the geometry.

Nordstrom on the other hand is just below mediocrity. The building is asymmetrical and not easy on the eyes. I see no flow in the design, it looks very "stacked". And as mistermetAJ mentioned, the base doesn't help either.

All in all it won't be a handsome building. A mediocre one at best, if we are lucky.