NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS

[10023]

I didn't ride the subway at all in July and August when I lived in New York. Taxis everywhere, and ask if the AC is working before you get it. It's worth it.

[drumz0rz]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Queens and Brooklyn and Staten Island would be mostly affected. Unless glass breaks or utilities fall in Manhattan then danger would occur but the high-rises there are strong enough and the sway factor helps channel the energy safely. Upper Manhattan might get affected badly due to mostly brick buildings there that are smaller in nature. But lets hope that doesn't happen lol.

Curtain windows shouldn't fail in an earth quake. They're designed to flex. The older towers with traditional windows that open would more more susceptible to failure. I think the brownstones would fare the worst in the event of a major earthquake. Brick and mortar load bearing walls would collapse pretty quickly.

[chris08876]

This is moving very rapidly. I've grown to love it. The box is still in style!

[hunser]

Originally Posted by chris08876

This is moving very rapidly. I've grown to love it. The box is still in style!

And always will be. One thing's for sure: classy, elegant boxes age very well.

[Matt]

I have grown to love this building too.

Regarding the fears or concerns on how this building would weather a hypothetical earthquake, tornado, strong winds, what have you, I tell you this:

432 Park Avenue is the last building you need to worry about in a hypothetical natural disaster. The REAL concern for New York City in any of these hypothetical scenarios should be NOT for this building, but for the rest of the city's aging and crumbling building stock; the city's already worn-out infrastructure; bridges; tunnels; roads; subway tunnels; population density hampering evacuation; further beach erosion, etc. To express concern for a single skyscraper - while ignoring the other 99.9999999999999% of the city's buildings and infrastructure that are far more vulnerable to be damaged or outright destroyed by a major earthquake - is incredibly short-sighted and myopic.

Cheers!

[J_M_Tungsten]

Yea, most of the city would be screwed. Anyway this is a cool building. Happy to see it progressing at brisk pace.

[hunser]

With time, when today's glitzy, curvy and somehow tacky towers become outdated, 432 Park Avenue will remain elegant and classy. It's the essential skyscraper. Also, that's one of the reasons why the New York skyline ages so well (along with the Art Deco classics of course).

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by hunser

With time, when today's glitzy, curvy and somehow tacky towers become outdated, 432 Park Avenue will remain elegant and classy. It's the essential skyscraper. Also, that's one of the reasons why the New York skyline ages so well (along with the Art Deco classics of course).

How I do wish they would do a classic Art-deco with all of the 1920 and 30's art on it. Maybe some billionaire will get bored and decide to make one regardless of cost. Another modern day Woolworth only much taller would be amazing.

Nevertheless 432 will be a instant landmark. Location Location Location!

[Spud]

Originally Posted by Matt

I have grown to love this building too.

Regarding the fears or concerns on how this building would weather a hypothetical earthquake, tornado, strong winds, what have you, I tell you this:

432 Park Avenue is the last building you need to worry about in a hypothetical natural disaster. The REAL concern for New York City in any of these hypothetical scenarios should be NOT for this building, but for the rest of the city's aging and crumbling building stock; the city's already worn-out infrastructure; bridges; tunnels; roads; subway tunnels; population density hampering evacuation; further beach erosion, etc. To express concern for a single skyscraper - while ignoring the other 99.9999999999999% of the city's buildings and infrastructure that are far more vulnerable to be damaged or outright destroyed by a major earthquake - is incredibly short-sighted and myopic.

Cheers!

I guess this is getting a bit off topic but it's an interesting discussion in it's own right. In regards to this particular tower I would imagine it should resist a moderate earthquake pretty well. My understanding is that super-talls in New York are generally built on very solid ground (Granite) which is a large part of the battle. The wind loadings on a super-tall are massive and the strength required to resist these forces should also be enough to survive a moderate earthquake.

On a related note we just had a 6.5 in my city (Wellington NZ) and fortunately there was very little damage.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Spud

I guess this is getting a bit off topic but it's an interesting discussion in it's own right. In regards to this particular tower I would imagine it should resist a moderate earthquake pretty well. My understanding is that super-talls in New York are generally built on very solid ground (Granite) which is a large part of the battle. The wind loadings on a super-tall are massive and the strength required to resist these forces should also be enough to survive a moderate earthquake.

On a related note we just had a 6.5 in my city (Wellington NZ) and fortunately there was very little damage.

I remember reading somewhere that the construction on 432 Park Ave. required the tower to have a immense PSI on the ground for it to stand up given its height and think pencil like width and thickness. Similar to the WTC1 its a very reinforced structure. Most of the load or pressure on it is the wind which naturally skyscrapers would sway and distribute the Force equally. Similar to an earth quake the force would propagate along the tower. Never really concentrating on a central point which is where the real damage occurs. Now I'm not sure what the limit is to the ability to absorb the force is (like a 8.5 or greater earthquake) but if one of those hit its more the low rise structures build in the early 20th century that are in trouble.

[drumz0rz]

Originally Posted by Spud

My understanding is that super-talls in New York are generally built on very solid ground (Granite) which is a large part of the battle. The wind loadings on a super-tall are massive and the strength required to resist these forces should also be enough to survive a moderate earthquake.

Actually it's Manhattan Schist and it's extremely strong. It takes a drastic dip around washington square and rises again around chambers street which is why the skyline dips between midtown and downtown.

If you're curious to know more.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

Actually it's Manhattan Schist and it's extremely strong. It takes a drastic dip around washington square and rises again around chambers street which is why the skyline dips between midtown and downtown.

Variation in the Manhattan skyline has nothing to do with variation in Manhattan schist.

It's because of zoning, historic districts and where NIMBYs are located.

[WonderlandPark]

Its become an urban myth of an urban myth about that the schist has or has not to do with the skyline. Historically, yes, indeed, it really did have an impact on the skyline of NYC.

Engineering had improved to the point where these days, it does not matter where you want a tall building.

but we are getting OT.

[drumz0rz]

Yes, with modern technology we can build a metropolis of sky scrapers on a soft quartz sand desert (Dubai) but that's besides the point. Historically, towers were built where they could easily anchor into the bedrock. Zoning laws, residential communities, etc. have all formed AFTER the first sky scrapers laid claim to the schist bearing Midtown and Downtown areas.

Could a tower be build on Houston Street? Yes. Will it? No. Ultimately why is that? Because of the schist.

The myth I guess, if there even is one, is that the bedrock is keeping the skyline the way it is. The truth is that the skyline drops between midtown and downtown because the bedrock does as well.

Anyway...how 'bout that Drake Hotel?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

Yes, with modern technology we can build a metropolis of sky scrapers on a soft quartz sand desert (Dubai) but that's besides the point. Historically, towers were built where they could easily anchor into the bedrock. Zoning laws, residential communities, etc. have all formed AFTER the first sky scrapers laid claim to the schist bearing Midtown and Downtown areas.

On what basis do you make this assertion? There are plenty of historic skyscrapers in parts of Manhattan where there isn't extensive schist. And there are plenty of areas with extensive schist with no historic skyscrapers.

Again, there's no relationship between the two. This is an urban myth.

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

Could a tower be build on Houston Street? Yes. Will it? No. Ultimately why is that? Because of the schist.

No. Again, schist has nothing to do with why skyscrapers aren't being built on Houston Street, or anywhere in NYC.

It's because there are plenty of NIMBYs and historic districts (and in the parts of Houston Street with fewer NIMBYs, you do see highrises going up all over the place- see East Houston St., or Hudson Square area).

Houston Street would eventually be covered with 70-floor condo towers if you allowed developers to do so. They would absolutely go bonkers if you allowed them to build towers in Soho. Schist isn't a major factor now, and it wasn't back then.

Developers are worried about zoning and demand, not schist.

[JKL1234-]

Can't wait for this building to be finished. It's about time for the Central Park area to have a thousand footer.

[NYguy]

If you people want to discuss why or why not Manhattan's skyscrapers are where they are, there is a thread for it...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197150


This is the 432 Park Avenue thread.

[chris08876]

File this nugget under "The Rich Are Much Richer Than You and Me": According to real-estate website TheRealDeal.com, staff quarters at 432 Park Avenue, a Rafael Vinoly–designed tower rising between 56th and 57th Streets, are asking between $1.53 million to $2.825 million. That's for a studio.

Elsewhere in the neighborhood, that much cash could easily buy a two-bedroom, two-bath at 465 Park a block away; a two-bedroom, two-bath condo on 42nd Street; or a three-bedroom, four-and-a-half-bath on East 37th Street, per Streeteasy.com. Cross the Hudson and you're in a seven-bedroom estate on nearly three quarters of an acre in Short Hills.

These aren't the most expensive employee accommodations ever to hit the market, either, at least on a per-square-foot basis. (For the record, these types of places are only available to building tenants.) That trophy goes to 15 Central Park West, the swanky condo that's no stranger to eyebrow-raising price milestones. A $2.15 million 448-square-foot staff apartment sold there, hitting a record at $4,799 per square feet last December. (432 Park's most expensive offering on the staff floors is priced at $4,747 per square foot.
=========================================================
S. Jhoanna Robledo, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-quarters.html , 2013

[Yankee fan for life]

My video of 432 7/26/13 enjoy !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beRu2...ature=youtu.be

[Edmo]

Hey local New Yorkers - no pics for 2 weeks? C'mon, us outsiders are dying here!