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

[Zapatan]

PS. what is the exact width of the building again?

[RobertWalpole]

The height-to-width ratio is 19:1.

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

yea but it wouldn't be shocking if the height was reduced...

although why would it be called 432 park ave when that's not the address, maybe it will be that high. It would be sad if 1WTC was highest by roof height for too long.

Sad for who all of New York. Would that still be said today if the twin towers were still there? Lets top them?

[NYguy]

^ Don't feed into nonsense.

As far as the 1,300 ft height goes, its just a reference to the article which put the tower at 1,350 ft.

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/309259972

By Theresa Agovino
September 25, 2011 5:59 a.m.

Nothing illustrates Mr. Macklowe's rebound better than his involvement at the Park Avenue plot that was once home to the Drake Hotel. Mr. Macklowe spent years assembling the site, only to default on its $510 million loan. The loan was purchased by the CIM Group, which went on to secure control of the site but joined forces with Mr. Macklowe, who is helping develop the project. Sources say it will include a 1,350-foot tower with condominiums and a small hotel, as well as a 60,000-square-foot glass-cube retail space on tony East 57th Street

Since then, it's been referenced as a "1,300 ft" tower, which it would be at 1,350 ft. But most likely we'll get the 1,420 ft version.

[sw5710]

I wont feed them! I will wait till they show a render with the heights on it.

[NYguy]

At either height, this tower will soar over Midtown and the Park Avenue skyscrapers...


RBudhu

[THE BIG APPLE]

I'd be fine if this building was less than a 1000 feet (even though not financially feasible), atleast it would FIT in.

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

I'd be fine if this building was less than a 1000 feet (even though not financially feasible), atleast it would FIT in.

Don't feel so bad. This building would be famous for being NYC's toothpick.

[Eidolon]

This building should be 1420F/432M because it would not only be an instant landmark that would bring back some resemblance of the skyline lost over a decade ago, but it would also prevent a stigma against buildings with roof heights above 1 WTC from ever forming.

That is the single most important function of this building in my mind, besides looking really cool.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Although in NYC (other than location) height IS everything. Guys height ISN'T everything. Look at the Burj Dubai, which is such AN instant landmark. I ask people once a week what the tallest building in the world is and they say stuff like (The building in China (101 something), or the Petranosa TOWER in Indonesia). If those buildings can't get famous then this building, won't even come close.

[jd3189]

Strange. Down in Florida, people I know seem to know that the Burj is the WTB right now. But,yea. This building won't be very well known.

[Zapatan]

A height ratio of 19 to 1 is insane, how will this thing stand up? Where will the elevators fit?

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

Although in NYC (other than location) height IS everything. Guys height ISN'T everything. Look at the Burj Dubai, which is such AN instant landmark. I ask people once a week what the tallest building in the world is and they say stuff like (The building in China (101 something), or the Petranosa TOWER in Indonesia). If those buildings can't get famous then this building, won't even come close.

Petronas Towers are in Malaysia, and Taipei 101 in Taiwan.

It will probably be fairly well known considering that all the people who go to central park will see this massive 1420 foot giant right next to it. But not by world standards at all.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

A height ratio of 19 to 1 is insane, how will this thing stand up?

Really smart guys with calculators and pocket protectors. Oh, and those things called building codes.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by sw5710

Would that still be said today if the twin towers were still there? Lets top them?

of course, what's wrong with taller and taller buildings coming along?

[Stained]

Originally Posted by sw5710

Sad for who all of New York. Would that still be said today if the twin towers were still there? Lets top them?

Uh, duh.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Although topping can usually concern height, topping ANOTHER building also means topping that building DESIGN wise, which I can't see this building doing to any other building. It will surely top EVERY building (minus 1WTC) in height, but never in design (that goes for any building).

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by Stained

Uh, duh.

Did people in New York feel sad from 1972 to 2001 because the twin towers were the tallest and a taller building never went up in NYC then?

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

of course, what's wrong with taller and taller buildings coming along?

Nothing is wrong with taller. Taller roof heights will happen in NYC. 432 is the 1st one that will do that if it is going to be 1,420' We will not see a roof height above the spires 1776' figure in the next 5 years from any building to take the title of tallest in the USA. I was just responding to the comment it's sad if 1 WTC is the tallest by roof for too long When it's still under construction. To change the subject back now. When do they think 432 Park Ave will be topped out.

[jackie60]

he webcam is back online and they got allot of stone removed while they were off line.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

Although topping can usually concern height, topping ANOTHER building also means topping that building DESIGN wise, which I can't see this building doing to any other building. It will surely top EVERY building (minus 1WTC) in height, but never in design (that goes for any building).

Didn't the ugly former WTC top ESB/Chrysler in height? Get over it.