NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS - Page 45

NYC4Life · #**881** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

In terms of residential, the taller the better. The higher the more valuable the upper floors become, and the pricier the housing becomes. Taller is ALWAYS more profitable for any developer, especially if the tower is in the middle of prime Manhattan real estate and views.

All comes down to location, demand and price. Manhattan for example is perhaps the hottest location for real estate and with demand growing. No matter the price, there will be willing investors. For other locations like Dubai, it hasn't worked out well so far. Their tall towers like the Burj Khalifa are built on desert and stand mostly empty and were probably built mostly for show. Back to Manhattan, I wouldn't see why any developer wouldn't utilize their proposals to their tallest approved heights.

Duck From NY · #**882** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 9:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC4Life

For other locations like Dubai, it hasn't worked out well so far. Their tall towers like the Burj Khalifa are built on desert and stand mostly empty and were probably built mostly for show.

Showing off a world-class skyline was certainly one of their reasons for their wild construction. I have to believe, though, that they actually believed they'd have better occupancy rates by now than they actually do.

There are a lot of problems with central planing, especially in an autocracy like the UAE. At one point they had wild plans of building replicas of all the wonders of the world, as well as the largest sports complex, and a third and larger palm islands. They should been less bold.

In any event, we have a new, fantastic skyline to look at. The biggest single-city skyscraper boom ever. Yeah, much of it looks tacky up front, but man does it look fantastic when viewed in full.

Manhattan's boom of the 1920's-30's was more natural. From what I understand, it's occupancy rates aren't thaaat fantastic, but the demand is still high because of a need for fiber-optics, etc.

NYguy · #**883** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 2:23 PM**

^ That discussion of what's going on with other cities is not for this thread. We know where that leads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stained

That is what I was thinking and why I asked if we could potentially see 120 feet of air rights "wasted." It would not make any sense to me: maybe for an office tower, but not for a residential one.

You misunderstand. "Air rights" doesn't mean height, it means amound of development potential. In other words, it's the amount of floor space. That same amount of space can be put into a lower building, even on this site which is only partially being used for the main shaft. Or the floor sizes can be increased slightly, consuming more space. It's all a matter of design and what they are trying to sell. A similar example of this, on a smaller scale, was Norman Foster's planned residential tower on Lexington Avenue. He could have designed a little taller, but said the design didn't work as well. That could also be at play here. We just don't know because they haven't given us any insight into the planning.

Zapatan · #**884** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 3:21 PM**

^True, but if they CAN go to 1420 feet, there really is no reason not too, This design can be worked to whatever height it looks like, plus they can charge bank for the ridiculously high floors and show off the highest roof height in the city. It really can't cost that much more to add a few feet.

But alas, since we don't have the final height, i'll keep my mouth shut.

Stained · #**885** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 7:18 PM**

As mentioned by NYguy, repeated mention of other cities is not for this thread.

I have been checking the webcam site daily and progress is still being made, albeit slow.

Eidolon · #**886** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

This building is going to leave a scar on this city that won't be fixed.

The facade will make or break this building, so let's save the despair for the moment that we get a final design. In the (unlikely) event that this building really does end up looking like it does on the renders, then you are indeed correct and it would truly be an abject monument to the cost-cutting practices employed by the industry.

RobertWalpole · #**887** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 2:19 AM**

This might not be Torre Verre, but this will still be a great tower. Everyone loves One Madison Park. Why wouln't anyone like it at twice the height?

mistermetAJ · #**888** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 4:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

This might not be Torre Verre, but this will still be a great tower. Everyone loves One Madison Park. Why wouln't anyone like it at twice the height?

Honestly Madison Square Park could definitely do without One Madison Park. The "cubes" and skinniness are interesting, but really, its glassy in the wrong area. It's an OK building, but certainly nothing lovable.

432 Park Ave doesn't even look like it's going to have cubes. All renderings look to have the faced covering the entire building, with just gaps behind the facade.

Not to pull an Amanda Burden out of my hat, but this building doesn't deserve to share the Empire State Building's height on the skyline. I know it's far away from the ESB, but this really has no business being so prominent. It's just a poorly shaped, planned, and unappealing tower.

Why on earth did the developer even need a "starchitect" to design it? I could have drawn it for them in 5 minutes, taking the facade of a 1970s bank tower.

BrBTowers · #**889** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 4:48 AM**

I think if the use some very high end glass, like WTC4, that it would make this building quite amazing. Yet this is unlikely.

Inv3rted · #**890** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 4:57 AM**

You guys keep behaving like some basic placeholder renderings and models are the final design...

Do you even bother to read?

Crawford · #**891** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 5:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inv3rted

You guys keep behaving like some basic placeholder renderings and models are the final design...

Do you even bother to read?

Thank you!

Again, folks, there is no released design. There are only basic massings and renderings, and it's foolish to make architectural comments based on a massing.

mistermetAJ · #**892** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 6:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Thank you!

Again, folks, there is no released design. There are only basic massings and renderings, and it's foolish to make architectural comments based on a massing.

wrong, a design was released to the Wall St. Journal. It is listed in this thread. What you see is what you get...uninspired architecture form an overrated "starchitect"

THE BIG APPLE · #**893** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 6:30 AM**

^ Wrong, go to page 38 of this thread and see all his works. The guy Rafael Vinoly is amazing, but incredibly stupid for giving us this. What we all need to do is go to 50 Vandam Street, NY or call (212) 924-5060, and tell them what the hell were you thinking or slap them and run.

mistermetAJ · #**894** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 6:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

^ Wrong, go to page 38 of this thread and see all his works. The guy Rafael Vinoly is amazing, but incredibly stupid for giving us this. What we all need to do is go to 50 Vandam Street, NY or call (212) 924-5060, and tell them what the hell were you thinking or slap them and run.

Ironically, the Vdara, and "Talkie" Building, the only two buildings you posted of any significant height are trash...

Maybe Vinoly should stick to lowrise convention centers, because he certainly doesn't seem to be able to grace skylines with anything of style and grace.

OVERRATED...

RobertWalpole · #**895** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 2:08 PM**

This is the design.

Crawford · #**896** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

wrong, a design was released to the Wall St. Journal. It is listed in this thread. What you see is what you get...uninspired architecture form an overrated "starchitect"

No, you're wrong.

There's an enormous difference between a rendering and a detailed architectural design.

Again, no design was released. There are only basic renderings, for the purpose of potential tenancies.

Crawford · #**897** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

This is the design.

Again, this is the rendering, not the design.

People can feel free to make comments trashing the design, and that's fine, but I'll continue to point out that they aren't trashing the architectural design, but only a basic rendering.

Renderings are created to highlight the attributes of a proposed design, but don't show the details. So, for example, we have no way of knowing the qualility of the glass, or the attributes of the frit.

RobertWalpole · #**898** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 6:59 PM**

The rendering does not show the structural facade, but that's the shape of what will be built. Write to Vinoly. His e-mail address is on the website. He is very cordial and will reply.

mistermetAJ · #**899** Posted **Jan 8, 2012, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, this is the rendering, not the design.

People can feel free to make comments trashing the design, and that's fine, but I'll continue to point out that they aren't trashing the architectural design, but only a basic rendering.

Renderings are created to highlight the attributes of a proposed design, but don't show the details. So, for example, we have no way of knowing the qualility of the glass, or the attributes of the frit.

We won't know the "quality" of the glass or "attributes" of the frit until the actual building is being built. No rendering show either of those, I agree.

These images are renderings, BUT...The design is bad. The architecture is bad. The architect did a bad job, and from the skyscrapers posted on page 38, the architect is bad.

Dac150 · #**900** Posted **Jan 8, 2012, 5:35 PM**

^^^Pure opinion, not fact. Regardless of the design, something tells me that the height (whatever it ends up being) will quiet down the critics once this project starts taking off. People on this forum are too caught up in height to care that much about appearance . . . at least that's how I perceive it.

Anyway, I've always been a box fan, so this design sits fairly well with me. Any fan of TWT should be fond of this design. If you're not a box fan, then hell, you'e out of luck.

There's still a lot to be finalized . . . so I wouldn't take everything you see here at face value, though I'm confident financing will be attained . . . from what I've read CIM has a goooood relationship with their financiers.