NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,581 FT | 92 FLOORS

[Xing Lin]

Originally Posted by NYguy

A few more grabs...

The people lamenting Grand Central getting more 'boxed in' ought to see these comparisons in particular. Thank you for compiling the visuals, such a spectacular entrance!

[Visionist]

YIMBY comments is full of mouthbreathers making such laughable accusations. There's even one weirdo talking about how the tower doesn't homage 9/11, as if 9/11 has anything to do with this site (I knew that morons would complain about this building overshadowing the spantenna on 1 World Trade).

In the massing diagram with Vanderbilt are we sure Vanderbilt isn't depicted at its original 1500'? That would explain 175 Park looking stunted.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by citybooster

Finishing essentially in 2028, and officially opening in 2030 ... what a way to NYC 2030, having this masterpiece fully operational at that point!

I'm thinking that 2028 figure is more accurate for the building being done basically. That would put it in the timeframe of 350 Park Avenue, and 1 or 2 of the Empire Station towers. But it won't be as if we'll have nothing to keep us busy. 270 Park has already started its vertical rise, 343 Madison Ave will have joined in a couple of years, and maybe a few more towers, and that's just in the immediate area of east midtown.

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Given that the scale of the renders is off by a solid 150' in height, what does that mean for the scale of the street level renders?

Originally Posted by Visionist

In the massing diagram with Vanderbilt are we sure Vanderbilt isn't depicted at its original 1500'? That would explain 175 Park looking stunted.

That could be as well, but the 175 Park drawing that was depicted is stated as being a little less, but that isn't the final design. I think what is in flux are the floor heights, they haven't settled on that yet (they also mentioned that earlier). So the scale at street level and the crown would remain in either case. For now they are sticking with that 1646 ft height. It potentially could be a little less, but likely won't be more than that.

Originally Posted by Xing Lin

The people lamenting Grand Central getting more 'boxed in' ought to see these comparisons in particular. Thank you for compiling the visuals, such a spectacular entrance!

Yeah, I don't understand or know what planet these people are on. But these are people that would comment negatively on whatever is proposed there. The Hyatt could sit there for another 50 years as is, and they'd have no problem with that. But anybody in their right minds would see the obvious improvement here (at an extent to which we don't have to get). I saw somebody on twitter saying there was too much glass at the base, which would kill a lot of birds.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by Dylan Dude

I often think haters are just jealous but how could someone be jealous of a building?

You would be surprised at the maturity level of some posters. My account may be new but I’ve followed this forum long enough to remember the city “wars” posters who just have negative reactions to make them feel better about their home city.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Given that the scale of the renders is off by a solid 150' in height, what does that mean for the scale of the street level renders?

(I made some measurements and going by the PanAm building comparison, this is clocking in at or just below 1500')

I would think they would just add the height to the shaft and maybe finesse the crown a little since most of the current public review is focused on the base and how it relates to GC.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Visionist

In the massing diagram with Vanderbilt are we sure Vanderbilt isn't depicted at its original 1500'? That would explain 175 Park looking stunted.

If you use the MetLife building it's the current 1V height, 1401 to tip and ~1050 occupied.


If it's not finalized though I wouldn't worry about it, per the article it'll still be around 1600 or so. I guess my one complaint is that since the top will likely be open air it won't be a real 1600+ roof and the top floor slab may be slightly below that of CPT. I'm obviously just speculating and will wait for real stats . I'm really just happy the building is good looking and not skinny.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BK1985

I would think they would just add the height to the shaft and maybe finesse the crown a little since most of the current public review is focused on the base and how it relates to GC.

The height is never on the table for these towers. They could build to 2,000 ft if that suited them. There really are no solid debateable issues except for what happens at ground level with the terminal. It comes down to, no matter how nice something is, people always think they have a better idea. But these people have no understanding of the site or engineering that goes into why the design is as it is. Which is why their input is only advisory. Even iur own input (through proper means) is advisory. The LPC itself cannot make a final judgement on the design.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I guess my one complaint is that since the top will likely be open air it won't be a real 1600+ roof and the top floor slab may be slightly below that of CPT. I'm obviously just speculating and will wait for real stats .

Good to know, because you don’t know.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Good to know, because you don’t know.

Looks pretty open air to me... not sure what else that would be.

[gramsjdg]

Originally Posted by Visionist

YIMBY comments is full of mouthbreathers making such laughable accusations. There's even one weirdo talking about how the tower doesn't homage 9/11, as if 9/11 has anything to do with this site (I knew that morons would complain about this building overshadowing the spantenna on 1 World Trade).

In the massing diagram with Vanderbilt are we sure Vanderbilt isn't depicted at its original 1500'? That would explain 175 Park looking stunted.

Oh man, don't even get me started on CTBUH's ridiculous decision to count an architecturally incomplete spire for WTC-1's official height. As far as I am concerned, that building is 1373 feet and that's all there is to it. 175 Park Avenue is going to be the next tallest building in the US.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Oh man, don't even get me started on CTBUH's ridiculous decision to count an architecturally incomplete spire for WTC-1's official height. As far as I am concerned, that building is 1373 feet and that's all there is to it. 175 Park Avenue is going to be the next tallest building in the US.

Especially after they determined the original radome just was not accomplishable for the country that put men on the moon.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Especially after they determined the original radome just was not accomplishable for the country that put men on the moon.

I will never forgive Durst for scrapping the spire casing.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by BK1985

I will never forgive Durst for scrapping the spire casing.

Agreed, it looks like nothing more than an antenna, I wonder if it can finally be clad someday. Anyone up for a gofundme?

Especially after they determined the original radome just was not accomplishable for the country that put men on the moon.

Also agreed, it's mind boggling.

Oh man, don't even get me started on CTBUH's ridiculous decision to count an architecturally incomplete spire for WTC-1's official height. As far as I am concerned, that building is 1373 feet and that's all there is to it. 175 Park Avenue is going to be the next tallest building in the US.

As ridiculous as that is, it's the Petronas vs. Sears that truly made me lose every ounce of respect for the CTBUH.



Sorry to divert, this tower is amazing no matter if it's 15 or 1600+. The base will probably be the best part, I absolutely love it

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Looks pretty open air to me... not sure what else that would be.

Lol


Credit: Springboss123_456

[Zapatan]

Ha! A bit tacky, no?

[PhillyDreamsReturns]

Jealous? I complimented One Vandy in my post. I love NYC, I just think this tower looks boring and drab. I’m disappointed.

[Busy Bee]

Well, that's insane.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Looks pretty open air to me... not sure what else that would be.

You miss the point as usual, no need going on any further about it.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

As ridiculous as that is, it's the Petronas vs. Sears that truly made me lose every ounce of respect for the CTBUH.

Sorry to divert, this tower is amazing no matter if it's 15 or 1600+. The base will probably be the best part, I absolutely love it

Yes, thank you. This isn't a rehash of CTBUH rules.



I was in the area earlier, so decided to check in on the situation. I don't recall when they took the flags down, but it's another sign to me that the hotel is done.

That leads me to believe that demo will begin next year.


FEBRUARY 5, 2021


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.







7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.









13. The low ceilings of the Lexington passage will be doubled in height.







14. There will also be an entrance into the building from this area of the passage...





15.





16. Some stores on the left will be removed to connect the 42nd St passage with the new transit hall, which will open the area up...

[chris08876]

^^^^^

I believe that was the target as well, 2022 Demo. I'm hoping their anticipated completion of 2030 comes true. Also if they could cut down on the 47 months. Seems like a good target and if they are good with project management, maybe it will move at 1 Vandy speed. Shave a few months off the time.

I just hope the environmental studies and approval don't take long. I remain positive but always cautiously optimistic given that this is a skyline altering project. I just hope they don't throw a lot of bs at this project when it comes time for approval.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^

I believe that was the target as well, 2022 Demo. I'm hoping their anticipated completion of 2030 comes true.

I just hope the environmental studies and approval don't take long. I remain positive but always cautiously optimistic given that this is a skyline altering project. I just hope they don't throw a lot of bs at this project when it comes time for approval.

I think 2030 just gives time for everything to be completed. This project along with 343 Madison is also undergoing state environmental review. The environmental review will be pretty standard, all approvals require it. We're at the stage now of covering all of the bases that should be included in the study, the cut off period for that was January 12th I believe. But once we do start the approvals process, that will be the time for the CB to vent about anything and everything. But this is an as of right project that needs to be certified by City Planning. Everything has already been spelled out in the midtown east rezoning. The NIMBYs can complain all they want, but that's all it will be.

The special permits are below:

https://zr.planning.nyc.gov/search?search_term=81-685


Like 270 Park Avenue, this is a unique situation in the midtown east rezoning, so they are tweaking the language a little. They are combining this site with Grand Central, but not by lot merger. So even though they already own the remaining GC air rights, they still have to pay the city to use them.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by PhillyDreamsReturns

Jealous? I complimented One Vandy in my post. I love NYC, I just think this tower looks boring and drab. I’m disappointed.

i didnt know there was such a thing as an objectively wrong opinion

now i do