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

[Alliance]

This building is such a joke. Architecturally, financially, visually...nothing about it is on solid ground.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by Alliance

This building is such a joke. Architecturally, financially, visually...nothing about it is on solid ground.

.....and yet it will still smash real estate records in this country when it's completed.

It's a joke to you because you can't afford it.

[Noll]

Originally Posted by oblivionlml

this building is a stupid and disproportional box that should not be built, enough said.

Come on. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I am inclined to agree with obliviolml - this building just does not go.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by Alliance

This building is such a joke. Architecturally, financially, visually...nothing about it is on solid ground.

This tower is a marvel of egineering. Moreover, as one of two global cities in the world with an insatiable demand for super-luxury property, this tower makes perfect sense.

As noted, this tower is much taller, thinner and will have a sleeker facade than Aon, one of the "icons" of your city's skyline.

[oblivionlml]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

Let the foundations settle & wait for the building to rise, and THEN let's judge. ]

So when it is done and everyone realizes that it looks stupid we can then say it shouldn't have gone up? Wonderful!

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by oblivionlml

So when it is done and everyone realizes that it looks stupid we can then say it shouldn't have gone up? Wonderful!

It's private development and you can't do anything about it anyways... we still don't even have renders.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by oblivionlml

This building is a stupid and disproportional box that should not be built, enough said.

Agree 1001%. Most embarrassing project for New York. We get such a tall building, and it's something straight out of the 70's.

[hunser]

I for one would take this tower over the tacky and gaudy towers going up in Dubai and China any day. Of course there are exceptions like the Shanghai Tower.

432 PA is pure class imo.

[599GTO]

This building will not look 1970s if the facade is sleek and modern. Hopefully it's glassy and metallic.

[Plokoon11]

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to live in such a skinny tall tower like this. Not saying its not going to be built safe. But what about a tornado, or a hurricane hits, with windspeeds up to 100+mph. It would snap like a tooth pick.

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to live in such a skinny tall tower like this. Not saying its not going to be built safe. But what about a tornado, or a hurricane hits, with wind speeds up to 100+mph. It would snap like a tooth pick.

There are such things as tuned mass dampers and hat trusses. This building will hold up against the wind just fine. The Twin Towers had the same equipment I mentioned during the time they were standing and it allowed them to hold up to a 150 MPH wind blowing consecutively on one side for 30 minutes without falling down. So this building with a similar design should fare well against a hurricane.

[Plokoon11]

Thats good to know at least.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

There are such things as tuned mass dampers and hat trusses. This building will hold up against the wind just fine. The Twin Towers had the same equipment I mentioned during the time they were standing and it allowed them to hold up to a 150 MPH wind blowing consecutively on one side for 30 minutes without falling down. So this building with a similar design should fare well against a hurricane.

Must you bring the old WTC into EVERY thread? This tower is nothing like them in use, structure, architecture, anything, except that it happens to be a rectangle and is tall.

For those that haven't read the thread and keep asking the same question over and over again, here's how the architects are dealing with the wind:


Image posted by nyguy

[marshall]

Again, I am sure the developers have more than accounted for and will compensate for any sway the building might receive. I wouldn't worry much about that...As far as design, again, to say that this is something out of the 1970s is inaccurate. The tower will be unique in its very tall and very slim profile, and it's cladding may give it a very modern look. It will be kind of a cool mix of 1960s/70s brutalist design with a modern twist. Yet it won't be so far out there that it won't mesh with the rest of the skyline..I agree many of the towers in China and the Middle East are obscenely tacky and ugly..I I guess it comes down to personal taste..

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to live in such a skinny tall tower like this. Not saying its not going to be built safe. But what about a tornado, or a hurricane hits, with windspeeds up to 100+mph. It would snap like a tooth pick.

So you think the engineers and architects are dumb enough to erect a building that would so easily snap in high wind speeds?

People, please shut the hell up with this. The building is safe. The developers and engineers would never throw up an unsafe 1,400 building in NYC. You aren't an engineer, you don't know what you're talking about. Let them do their job --- they know what they're doing.

[Dense_Electric]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

So you think the engineers and architects are dumb enough to erect a building that would so easily snap in high wind speeds?

People, please shut the hell up with this. The building is safe. The developers and engineers would never throw up an unsafe 1,400 building in NYC. You aren't an engineer, you don't know what you're talking about. Let them do their job --- they know what they're doing.

This.

For all the red tape and bullshit in this country, there is one thing we rarely (if ever) do, and that is design unsafe structures. Quantity may no longer be feasible here, but I'm proud to say that the things we do build are built with quality.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

Keep hearing different heights for this building this forum says 1,420 Wikipedia says 1,380 and the news says 1,398 so how tall is 432 going to be ?

It's 1,398 to the top of the parapet according to the latest documents filed with the DOB. We don't know what the exact height is because it hasn't been shown, but the latest revisions show it has inched upwards, as opposed to down. It could be that the final height is 1,398 ft. Given the name of the building, it's long been speculated that the fina height will be 432 meters. I'll adjust the height in the title to alleviate confusion.

Originally Posted by Alliance

This building is such a joke. Architecturally, financially, visually...nothing about it is on solid ground.

Frankly, the only people it matters to are the relatively few who will buy apartments there. I'm sure they welcome your opinion though.

Originally Posted by oblivionlml

So when it is done and everyone realizes that it looks stupid we can then say it shouldn't have gone up? Wonderful!

Some would say the same about that quote.

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to live in such a skinny tall tower like this. Not saying its not going to be built safe. But what about a tornado, or a hurricane hits, with windspeeds up to 100+mph. It would snap like a tooth pick.

I could see some people being scared to live there. Frankly, there are many people who would be scared to live that high up regardless of how thin or "sound" the building would appear to be. But again, there is a market for it. Because you may not like it doesn't mean the next man won't. There are people who want to be high or higher than everyone else. And they'll pay a lot - a whole lot - for the privilege.


Meanwhile, back on the ground, the work week begins...(May 21, 2012)


www.432park.com

[babybackribs2314]

This vs Torre Verre and a rundown on ULURP! Helpful for those who conflate air rights with height limits, etc.

http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/201...ode-major.html

Unfortunately, the zoning process is subject to arbitrary opinions and judgements. Amanda Burden is the head of New York's City Planning Department, and her say is what decides the fate of developments that have to go through ULURP. While her taste is normally impeccable, there has been one major injustice: the beheading of Jean Nouvel's Torre Verre.

Structures built as-of-right, like 432 Park Avenue, require no approvals because they stick to the zoning code in the neighborhood where they are being built. No land-use review is necessary, as long as structures conform to the code and the amount of space they are allowed to contain. Thus, 432 Park will be rising to approximately 1,400 feet with no public input.

[NYguy]

Latest filing for the top of the tower...

[babybackribs2314]

What I think would make this tower truly spectacular would be some kind of square/rectangular fins emerging from the top, inset slightly from the curtain walls & maybe 100' or so high. They wouldn't be expensive, and would give a sense of finality to the design--the lighting scheme could also make the tower a stand-out on the skyline (like it won't be already). It would be a subtle touch of flair for a building that's dramatic yet dull... every princess needs a tiara!