NEW YORK | 262 Fifth Ave | 860 FT | 56 FLOORS

[Prezrezreturns]

Either height suits me okay (but I find myself leaning towards the 860’ fig); but it will take new renders with both height scenarios to make an educated decision.

Others here, I’m fairly confident, will be of the same POV.

[NYguy]

This tower doesn't move me one way or the other. It will still stand out at that height because of where it stands. I still would have liked a spire there at either height.



FAA has it at 863 ft
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/sea...displayOECase&oeCaseID=557754409&row=228


Crane reaching 1,004 ft
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/sea...displayOECase&oeCaseID=557754450&row=229

[Busy Bee]

My concern vis a vis height primarily has to do with view interference with the ESB.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

I’m surprised this tower is still happening at all given the sanctions against Russia—aren’t the architect and developer both Moscow-based?

Regardless, this may be the one time I’m thankful for a height cut. The design might actually work at 860ft.

And I agree, Busy Bee. The lack of consideration for landmarks in NYC’s zoning code is baffling. The city should adopt London’s model, with narrow historic view corridors like the view of the Flatiron from ESB, with unlimited height everywhere else. Despite the wishful thinking of some of us skyscraper nerds, buildings like the ESB will always define NYC in the public eye, no matter what other icons come along. Once a view like that is gone, though, it’s gone.

I’m surprised the ESB’s owners never made a peep about this building at its original height. With all the other observatories opening they need all the help they can get holding onto market share. Oh well, it may be a moot point anyway.

[TonyNYC]

Originally Posted by NYguy

This tower doesn't move me one way or the other. It will still stand out at that height because of where it stands. I still would have liked a spire there at either height.



FAA has it at 863 ft
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/sea...displayOECase&oeCaseID=557754409&row=228


Crane reaching 1,004 ft
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/sea...displayOECase&oeCaseID=557754450&row=229

I'm good with 863 Ft

50 feet taller then the Madison House a block or so away.. good height for the area.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by WhatTheHeck5205

I’m surprised this tower is still happening at all given the sanctions against Russia—aren’t the architect and developer both Moscow-based?

Regardless, this may be the one time I’m thankful for a height cut. The design might actually work at 860ft.

And I agree, Busy Bee. The lack of consideration for landmarks in NYC’s zoning code is baffling. The city should adopt London’s model, with narrow historic view corridors like the view of the Flatiron from ESB, with unlimited height everywhere else. Despite the wishful thinking of some of us skyscraper nerds, buildings like the ESB will always define NYC in the public eye, no matter what other icons come along. Once a view like that is gone, though, it’s gone.

NY is not London. NYC is known for it’s skyscraper culture. If they wouldn’t stop 15 Penn to save a particular view of the ESB, or 175 Park or 1 Vanderbilt to save a view of the Chrysler, I don’t see why they would stop this sliver of a building. I would have prefered a design more in line with those classics, but the city is also known for moving forward. The skyline is known worlwide, but it’s not as if the city has closed it and said “this is what you get”. No, the skyline will continue to evolve.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by WhatTheHeck5205

I’m surprised this tower is still happening at all given the sanctions against Russia—aren’t the architect and developer both Moscow-based?

Regardless, this may be the one time I’m thankful for a height cut. The design might actually work at 860ft.

And I agree, Busy Bee. The lack of consideration for landmarks in NYC’s zoning code is baffling. The city should adopt London’s model, with narrow historic view corridors like the view of the Flatiron from ESB, with unlimited height everywhere else. Despite the wishful thinking of some of us skyscraper nerds, buildings like the ESB will always define NYC in the public eye, no matter what other icons come along. Once a view like that is gone, though, it’s gone.

I’m surprised the ESB’s owners never made a peep about this building at its original height. With all the other observatories opening they need all the help they can get holding onto market share. Oh well, it may be a moot point anyway.

Absolutely not lmao

[chris08876]

Credit: bkhights

[NycPure99]

Is the height chop official? I live in Nomad and hated how tall it would be with the original height/killing the 5th ave view so this would be welcome news!

How can I see the new DOB alterations on their site?

[chris08876]

^^^^

Can check the DOB bin for this parcel.

[chris08876]

Reference following:

262 5 AVENUE
MANHATTAN 10001
BIN# 1015733

[tjr101]

Would love to see another height cut for this building.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by NYguy

NY is not London. NYC is known for it’s skyscraper culture. If they wouldn’t stop 15 Penn to save a particular view of the ESB, or 175 Park or 1 Vanderbilt to save a view of the Chrysler, I don’t see why they would stop this sliver of a building. I would have prefered a design more in line with those classics, but the city is also known for moving forward. The skyline is known worlwide, but it’s not as if the city has closed it and said “this is what you get”. No, the skyline will continue to evolve.

Alright, let me amend that statement—I happen to like the towers you listed quite a bit. NYC at least needs to implement some kind of design standards for facades, materials massing, etc.,—not height—for prominent sites. It’s incredibly naive and provincial to dismiss good planning policy just because it came from *gasp* other cities. That’s the reason that for every Extell or JDS masterpiece, there’s a half-dozen Gene Kaufman turds dotting the cityscape. Yes, NYC is the skyscraper capitol of the world, but to just say “this is NYC” and cross our fingers that second-tier overseas developers give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about design is foolish.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by WhatTheHeck5205

Alright, let me amend that statement—I happen to like the towers you listed quite a bit. NYC at least needs to implement some kind of design standards for facades, materials massing, etc.,—not height—for prominent sites. It’s incredibly naive and provincial to dismiss good planning policy just because it came from *gasp* other cities. That’s the reason that for every Extell or JDS masterpiece, there’s a half-dozen Gene Kaufman turds dotting the cityscape. Yes, NYC is the skyscraper capitol of the world, but to just say “this is NYC” and cross our fingers that second-tier overseas developers give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about design is foolish.

the last thing this city needs is more red tape and politicians butting into places that they don't belong (making design decisions) for better or worse lest we forget the atrocities of Amanda Burden

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BK1985

the last thing this city needs is more red tape and politicians butting into places that they don't belong (making design decisions) for better or worse lest we forget the atrocities of Amanda Burden

Right. New York’s skyline has evolved over the years due to natural forces. If one building rises higher, or eclipses another, then so be it. That is the way of the City. It’s not trying to pretend to be something else. Skyscrapers are built. Some better, and some a lot better than others. But it’s the right to build them and ability to change that makes the skyline so great. Let other places be preserved for eternity. Life is about change, and this skyline is full of that, NIMBYs be damned.

[NycPure99]

I don't know if this is new or old info but came across this document on the Zoning Portal (https://zap-api-production.herokuapp.com...52760/LR%203%20Project%20Description.pdf) also related to parking and it says "The Proposed Development would rise to a height of approximately 860’, have 56 stories, and contain 26 dwelling units".

Does this mean the height cut is official and that it's also down to 26 units from 41?

Source: https://zap.planning.nyc.gov/projects/2022M0352

[Busy Bee]

Now that's a handsome man.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Wow. He truly is the living embodiment of his buildings.

And to clarify, I’m not talking about creating more opportunities for politicians to meddle with new development. Amanda Burden can burn in hell for what she did to 53W53. What I’d do is eliminate most, if not all, of the current restrictions on the size of buildings and replace them with a set of design standards drawn up by independent consultants, specifically architects, hired based on merit instead of appointed by politicians. The standards would only apply on certain architecturally significant corridors, such as Fifth Avenue. In this scenario a building in a historic district would be exempt from the current approval rigamarole as long as the materials, setbacks, etc. fit with the neighborhood—no restrictions beyond that. You wanna build a supertall in Greenwich Village? Go for it, as long as the base looks like a brownstone. No ULURP, no LPC hearing. More relevant, a tower on this site would be required to hug the street wall at the base, be set back from the avenue higher up, and be clad in brick or stone—in other words, what we’d be getting if a reputable NYC-based developer was behind the project. “This is New York, this is how we’ve always done it” is simply not an excuse—I know we’d like to pretend this is still the Art Deco era and we can trust every developer to consistently deliver attractive buildings, but unfortunately we live in an age where there are some developers out there willing to take advantage of that trust. I don’t see how that constitutes NIMBYism—I’m not saying they shouldn’t build this tower, I’m just saying they can and should do better, especially for such a high-profile luxury project. It’s a moot point anyways. The current design will look decent at 860 feet. Still not what I’d build, but still decent. I’d still like to see the zoning code changed in the future to focus more on design.

[chris08876]

Credit: Reasonable

[chris08876]

Credit: Michael Young via NYY