NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,389 FT | 57 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

The facade? The crown? The plaza? Anything that isn't just the massing?

Yes, exactly that. Also the layout and configuration of what's inside, or outside as amenity space goes. But the facade would be among the most important of the details we don't have.

[JMKeynes]

But I'm talking about the shape of the tower (including the number of setbacks, etc.). I think that these "massing models" depict almost precisely what it will look like from the outside.

There is no reason to believe that the shape of the towers will be anything different from what has been revealed thus far. I think that they're both decent towers.



https://newyorkyimby.com/2018/11/270...manhattan.html

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

But I'm talking about the shape of the tower (including the number of setbacks, etc.). I think that these "massing models" depict almost precisely what it will look like from the outside.

There is no reason to believe that the shape of the towers will be anything different from what has been revealed thus far. I think that they're both decent towers.

Nobody is saying that the massing will change, although it certainly can. We're still almost two years away from this thing being under construction, and there are still options with more development rights. The massing that was depicted is where it stands now. But it gives us none of the design details of the tower.

[JMKeynes]

I’m quite pleased with this tower. All I’m saying is that this is very likely the shape that it will have. We’ve seen the design. I also suspect that the facade shown in the rendering of the plaza for the taller version is what we’ll get since Foster is intent on making it “respect” its neighbors.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I’m quite pleased with this tower. All I’m saying is that this is very likely the shape that it will have. We’ve seen the design. I also suspect that the facade shown in the rendering of the plaza for the taller version is what we’ll get since Foster is intent on making it “respect” its neighbors.

That was basically a rehash of the tower as it stands. We've only seen the massing (shape) as far as what the design entails, but the details will offer far more.

[chris08876]

Happens all the time. A general idea to give to the city planning, and the details follow later on. As we've all be seen, proposals are submitted to city planning, but once further revisions are added, and a project continues to develop in the design change, alterations are made. Sometimes, even the massing change.

I think we are all just very excited and impatient. I know I am (the suspense hurts).

[JMKeynes]

I’m pleased with the design and the height. If Norm delivered a black 1,000’ version of 50 HY, I would have been disappointed.

It’s a shame that we likely won’t get the 1,566’ height, but I’ll gladly take 1,400’.

[chris08876]

CTBUH has this listed at:

Height: Architectural 426.7 m / 1,400 ft
Height: To Tip 426.7 m / 1,400 ft
Floors Above Ground 70
Tower GFA 224,882 m² / 2,420,610 ft²

I think the consensus is the "action with condition".

Shame too because I tell ya, from a design perspective, assuming massing design but with facade changes, the "no action" base looks better.

On a side note, this might be an incredibly quick "demo" job.

Proposed 2018
Construction Start 2020
Completion 2024

Pretty much a year for demo, which with a 700 ft tower, is quite quick and historical in that respect!

[Zapatan]

^^^ Sometimes CTBUH info is outdated. They know what we know much of the time. Figures could be likely to change a bit (hopefully higher )

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I’m pleased with the design and the height. If Norm delivered a black 1,000’ version of 50 HY, I would have been disappointed.

It’s a shame that we likely won’t get the 1,566’ height, but I’ll gladly take 1,400’.

I think the 1,400 figure is without a crown/architectural element etc. It could be a bit higher...

I like it too, I don't mind simplicity (I loved the original Twin Towers).

I'm not sure how I feel about the setbacks though. It would be nice to have at least one side where you can look ~450 meters straight up on such a massive building.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by chris08876

CTBUH has this listed at:



I think the consensus is the "action with condition".

Shame too because I tell ya, from a design perspective, assuming massing design but with facade changes, the "no action" base looks better.

On a side note, this might be an incredibly quick "demo" job.



Pretty much a year for demo, which with a 700 ft tower, is quite quick and historical in that respect!

Chris,

Have you ever seen the Japanese machine that demolishes skyscrapers? I wonder if it will be used here.

https://www.fastcompany.com/1681268/...the-inside-out

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

^^^ Sometimes CTBUH info is outdated. They know what we know much of the time. Figures could be likely to change a bit (hopefully higher )




I think the 1,400 figure is without a crown/architectural element etc. It could be a bit higher...

I like it too, I don't mind simplicity (I loved the original Twin Towers).

I'm not sure how I feel about the setbacks though. It would be nice to have at least one side where you can look ~450 meters straight up on such a massive building.

That’s true. The Madison side has less setbacks though.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

CTBUH has this listed at:



I think the consensus is the "action with condition".

Shame too because I tell ya, from a design perspective, assuming massing design but with facade changes, the "no action" base looks better.

They only use what information is available, and that's what the massing diagram says (although it does say + 1,400 ft, they're not going to use that). And that 1,400 ft figure itself was to the top of the bulkhead, not exactly the architectural tip. But that's the type of design information that hasn't been released.

Anyway, there was a negative determination, meaning they find no cause to go against the "with action" or enclosed plaza scenario.





It's currently at the community board and borough president level for input, both advisory.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Chris,

Have you ever seen the Japanese machine that demolishes skyscrapers? I wonder if it will be used here.

https://www.fastcompany.com/1681268/...the-inside-out

That's pretty cool. First time hearing it.

I wonder how they will demo it because its a very quick time table especially as they can't implode it.

[NYguy]

It's pretty much glass and steel. I predict we will be amazed at the speed of which this will come down.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by chris08876

That's pretty cool. First time hearing it.

I wonder how they will demo it because its a very quick time table especially as they can't implode it.

It is a cool machine, and if it diminishes the need for union labor, so much the better.

[Skyguy_7]

^Let me elaborate on your anti-union sentiment. Public sector unions are the enemy of taxpayers, not private sector unions. Private sector unions (think construction workers) are comprised of hard-working people whose high labor rates are usually worth the cost for quality workmanship. Their costs are passed onto consumers. Consumers aren't forced to pay for any product, unlike taxpayers who must pay for public sector unions. Hope this made some sense.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^Let me elaborate on your anti-union sentiment. Public sector unions are the enemy of taxpayers, not private sector unions. Private sector unions (think construction workers) are comprised of hard-working people whose high labor rates are usually worth the cost for quality workmanship. Their costs are passed onto consumers. Consumers aren't forced to pay for any product, unlike taxpayers who must pay for public sector unions. Hope this made some sense.

I respect your opinion, but I oppose all unions. They're essential in developing economies, but they're an anathema in developed economies. As they say, "We can agree to disagree."

[NYguy]

Take this union discussion elsewhere. Everyone knows New York is a union town, and the vast majority of the projects here get built with union labor. The discussion of whether you are for or against unions has nothing to do with the discussion here.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/marke...building/25461

Jesus, is it really gonna be this fat? It's like MetLife on steroids.

[Prezrezc]

Oh, yes indeedy it will.

Don'r forget that this and 277 have the huge bases set apart from the main "shaft". 245's sits atop the podium, which isn't much wider.

And all three's ft^2'age are justabout equal.