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

[JACKinBeantown]

If this has already been discussed, I apologize and ask you to please direct me to it (I'm just starting to look at this project). But...

Will someone with engineering knowledge please give your informed opinion of the structural integrity of a 1400 foot tall building that is only about 100 feet wide?

[uaarkson]

Try this instead: in what world would a tower like this be underway if it was not structurally sound?

[DesignerVoodoo]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Try this instead: in what world would a tower like this be underway if it was not structurally sound?

I guess you never heard about this project.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

^Maybe if they put all the biggest and loudest equipment next to their building they'll want to leave. I'm surprised that someones holding on to any of those buildings since they don't look that amazing, and CIM would probably pay a ton to get them to leave.

Location is of most value in this case - for now and for years to come.

Originally Posted by J. Will

How much retail will there be? When it says 124,000 square feet commercial, is that all retail? Is that what they plan to build, or just how much they're allowed to build?

I believe that to be the retail and possibly hotel.

Originally Posted by NY Post

Retail sources told us CIM will first erect a two-story “jewel box” for a store tenant at the Park Avenue/56th Street corner with 2,700 square feet on each floor. Supposedly the structure would include a 12,000 square-foot concourse (basement) that would connect underground to the project’s 57th Street retail component. On 57th Street, we’re told, the first, double-height retail floor would have 7,600 square feet; the third floor, 8,000 square feet; and floors four-six, 9,500 square feet each.

Ongoing demo permit...
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Wo...83&requestid=4

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DesignerVoodoo

I guess you never heard about this project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center

That was 40 years ago, and the issue was resolved during construction.

If anything, that's an example of why it isn't an issue.

[Stained]

Originally Posted by DesignerVoodoo

I guess you never heard about this project.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center

That is not directly comparable to to his question. That was a construction flaw, not a design fault. A building of these dimensions would be quite interesting to design.

[Brian.]

Originally Posted by JACKinNYC

If this has already been discussed, I apologize and ask you to please direct me to it (I'm just starting to look at this project). But...

Will someone with engineering knowledge please give your informed opinion of the structural integrity of a 1400 foot tall building that is only about 100 feet wide?

Most people are seemingly making the same mistake about the engineering principles of structures. It is not necessarily the size of the building but the size of the members in the building that do the work. Buildings are designed like vertical cantilevered beams.

The wider the building the smaller the structural sections can be. In this case I can imagine the columns will be a healthy size to resist the wind load. I would also make a stab at the reason the “drum” sections were removed was due to the wind load. We see now in the design that the vertical columns extend through the “drum” sections. I am sure the load calculations failed without transferring the forces into the columns.

Simply, it is not the size of your foot print that counts but it is the size of your beams and columns.

[JACKinBeantown]

Thank you, Brian.

[gramsjdg]

12 Church street is somewhat similar in height to width ratio. I would really like to see a 1420 ft version of that design for 432 Park -something with stone and Art Deco style, with some subtle setbacks and inside corners.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Brian.

Simply, it is not the size of your foot print that counts but it is the size of your beams and columns.

That's what I always say...


Cam shot...(3/7/12)


www.432park.com

[colemonkee]

Looks like they're digging even deeper on the 56th St. side. It's pretty amazing how they do this with those other buildings sitting right there. Now, will they also be excavating the area at the top of the picture where the low rise buildings are now completely demolished?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Now, will they also be excavating the area at the top of the picture where the low rise buildings are now completely demolished?

It's likely.

[Zerton]

I wonder what this is going to be clad in. I'm hoping white granite.

[lakegz]

Travertine or white granite would give this building a timeless quality for sure. I read somewhere that they will use travertine in some capacity.

[QUEENSNYMAN]

This building will be a definite skyline changer in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NYBOY75

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by Zerton

I wonder what this is going to be clad in. I'm hoping white granite.

It's my understanding that the squares will be composed a a metal that looks like brushed nickel. The should contrast magnificently with shiny glass. Whatever one thinks of the shape, the facade will be quite sleek.

[THE BIG APPLE]

Tilt your head 90 degrees counterclockwise.

DarrylStrawberry

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

It's my understanding that the squares will be composed a a metal that looks like brushed nickel. The should contrast magnificently with shiny glass. Whatever one thinks of the shape, the facade will be quite sleek.

With a structure as visible as this one, let's hope this is true.

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That was 40 years ago, and the issue was resolved during construction.

If anything, that's an example of why it isn't an issue.

We always think we are so much smarter than the people who came before us, which is why we often make the same mistakes. I am not saying this building will or will not be sound. But just assuming everything has been taken into consideration just because it is 2012 is a little naive.

[uaarkson]

What logical reason do you have to believe that this tower will be structurally unsound? It's not impossible, but it is completely outlandish.