NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,581 FT | 92 FLOORS - Page 87

SkyHigher · #**1721** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 4:31 PM**

Good news it's more in proportion with the other newer towers. A design like this can afford to shrink further even.

Plus it also means it will top out quicker.

Zapatan · #**1722** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Again, a rendering is a rendering, you can’t draw a height from that. The common graphic is of a 1,565 ft tower. The graphic for 343 Madison is of a 932 ft tower (907 ft roof).

I think we did see a 1,566' building at point, should we assume that's probably the final height (or 1,486')?

Quote:

Yes, I would like to know this as well. I don't really see how the Council could arbitrarily reduce the height without a valid or logical reason. That would make no sense and would expose developers to vagaries of the Council. I could see a (crazy) decision to say reducing it 1 foot below a NYC signature building like the ESB or 1 WTC, but the 1575 is no special number than say, 1001 or 2001. Seems kind of stupid to me.

Right, it makes no difference whatsoever really, I feel like they just wanted to feel special or like they did something as others have mentioned.

Funny enough, the real heights of ESB and 1WTC are pretty subjective (due to antenna / spire debates) so that would also be pretty stupid IMO.

NYguy · #**1723** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

Good news it's more in proportion with the other newer towers. A design like this can afford to shrink further even.

You know what’s in “good proportion” to other towers, pretty much everything going up in the Hudson Yards. That’s not good at all for this or any other skyline. We need buildings, especially of this scale, to stand out from one another. It’s what makes each more distinctive, and what makes for a more dynamic skyline. No one wants to see a skyline plateau of like sized towers. A skyline needs its peaks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think we did see a 1,566' building at point, should we assume that's probably the final height (or 1,486')?

The diagram of 1,486 ft wasn’t the proposal, but a basic stacking diagram. The graphic most are familiar with is of a 1,565 ft tower. I’m sure there are multiple versions of the tower as being designed. That’s why a height limit of 1,575 ft for the tower isn’t exactly the same as Tower Verre’s 200 ft height chop.

The 1,565 ft drawing had “roof” heights of 1,500 ft / 1,486 ft / 1,461 ft, the lowest being the main roof below the mechanical space.

MAC123 · #**1724** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

Good news it's more in proportion with the other newer towers. A design like this can afford to shrink further even.

Plus it also means it will top out quicker.

Yes, because that's what new towers need. To be in proportion with other towers. Imagine if the developers building ESB wanted it to be in proportion with other towers of the time. Yeah, I don't think so.

Sky88 · #**1725** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 8:07 PM**

So the final height of the Tower will be 1,575ft to the crown?

NYguy · #**1726** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky88

So the final height of the Tower will be 1,575ft to the crown?

Maybe that’s just the base height.

Busy Bee · #**1727** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 9:52 PM**

What we know is nobody knows.

Zapatan · #**1728** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

The 1,565 ft drawing had “roof” heights of 1,500 ft / 1,486 ft / 1,461 ft, the lowest being the main roof below the mechanical space.

That makes sense, there was a drawing a ways back that showed the highest occupied floor at 1,390 something which would probably put the top of the roof around there (1460+ ish). The crown would likely go into the 1500s in that case.

Although in the rendering pianowizard posted it looks 1486 to the top of the crown, but as you said maybe it's just the rendering / outdated, much like 343 Madison.

Quote:

What we know is nobody knows.

Yea, I'm still excited for this building regardless, this is a huge and beautiful tower anywhere in the world. We'll find out the details soon enough and hopefully see some updated renderings.

DCReid · #**1729** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That makes sense, there was a drawing a ways back that showed the highest occupied floor at 1,390 something which would probably put the top of the roof around there (1460+ ish). The crown would likely go into the 1500s in that case.

Although in the rendering pianowizard posted it looks 1486 to the top of the crown, but as you said maybe it's just the rendering / outdated, much like 343 Madison.

Yea, I'm still excited for this building regardless, this is a huge and beautiful tower anywhere in the world. We'll find out the details soon enough and hopefully see some updated renderings.

And let's hope that the developer does not decide that the capricious height cut does not work and then goes with their previous shorter 1486 version. I really can't believe they could get away with that height cut and am kind of mad at that stupid decision. My last post on this blog for a while - I got to cool down.

NYguy · #**1730** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 10:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCReid

And let's hope that the developer does not decide that the capricious height cut does not work and then goes with their previous shorter 1486 version. I really can't believe they could get away with that height cut and am kind of mad at that stupid decision. My last post on this blog for a while - I got to cool down.

The 1486 ft version wasn’t really a version, unless it’s the 1565 ft version with the 1486 ft main roof.

Anyway, th revised height may have to do with some other technical detail (such as floor space), but not having seen the revisions as written yet, who knows. Just cutting the height to 1,575 ft makes no sense.

SkyHigher · #**1731** Posted **Dec 16, 2021, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC123

Yes, because that's what new towers need. To be in proportion with other towers. Imagine if the developers building ESB wanted it to be in proportion with other towers of the time. Yeah, I don't think so.

They wouldn't have though would they?

JMKeynes · #**1732** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 1:03 AM**

Mr. Rogers asks: "Can you say Greatest City in the World, boys and girls?"

chris08876 · #**1733** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 4:14 AM**

I'm content with these specs. Just for reference, anybody who's seen CPT in person or from a far will tell you its damn dominating so imagine a grandiose, stellar design, with the bulk/width bigger than Vandy... and taller than CPT... this will be a skyline changer.

Were not losing much at all with the slight reduction. It's still a win-win overall. A hell of a win! No tears need to be shed for this one, unless they are for happiness.

MAC123 · #**1734** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 4:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm content with these specs. Just for reference, anybody who's seen CPT in person or from a far will tell you its damn dominating so imagine a grandiose, stellar design, with the bulk/width bigger than Vandy... and taller than CPT... this will be a skyline changer.

Were not losing much at all with the slight reduction. It's still a win-win overall. A hell of a win! No tears need to be shed for this one, unless they are for happiness.

I realize that, and I'm still very happy this got through, it's just very frustrating with the arbitraryness and uselessness of this change.
But yeah, gonna be imposing. I wonder if 200 park will ever come down? While other buildings have been losing office space, 1 Vandy has almost completely sold out and the developer wishes they had more to sell. That's largely due to being right on top of Grand Central and being part of Neo Terminal City. If 200 Park was demolished I could see a tower even bigger (wider and taller) than 175 rising. I would hope that it blends well with the back of Grand Central, the raised base of 175 and the base of 1 Vandy. Plus you'd be getting amazing views (and pics) of it from all the way down Park Ave.

NYguy · #**1735** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 4:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC123

While other buildings have been losing office space, 1 Vandy has almost completely sold out and the developer wishes they had more to sell. That's largely due to being right on top of Grand Central and being part of Neo Terminal City. If 200 Park was demolished I could see a tower even bigger (wider and taller) than 175 rising. I would hope that it blends well with the back of Grand Central, the raised base of 175 and the base of 1 Vandy. Plus you'd be getting amazing views (and pics) of it from all the way down Park Ave.

It's not just that other buildings have lost tenants, it's that the newer office buildings are grabbing them. Just look at the Hudson Yards. Midtown East can now fight back, though it's going to take a while with no new construction coming online for a few more years at least. But when it comes to new office buildings, the market has been great. Even Downtown at the WTC.

Zapatan · #**1736** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 5:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

The 1486 ft version wasn’t really a version, unless it’s the 1565 ft version with the 1486 ft main roof.
.

Yea looks like it, that's good but my fear though is that now that they've lowered the limit they might lower the building too for whatever reason. I don't understand why the limit was lowered if it was always going to be 1,566' anyway.

I'm happy with 1,566' though, this building is not skinny and will be pretty similar to the ICC building in HK or SWFC in Shanghai which are two of the most massive structures ever built. Central Park Tower is close in height but a lot thinner / less interesting looking.

I think of how imposing 1V is and how Chase, 175 and 343 will join it in one of the most spectacular supertall clusters on the planet

NYguy · #**1737** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 6:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea looks like it, that's good but my fear though is that now that they've lowered the limit they might lower the building too for whatever reason. I don't understand why the limit was lowered if it was always going to be 1,566' anyway.

Nobody said it was always going to be that. I said that’s what the building in that drawing was.

MAC123 · #**1738** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Yea looks like it, that's good but my fear though is that now that they've lowered the limit they might lower the building too for whatever reason.

The developers will not make this tower any smaller than they are legally required to. If 1 Vandy is anything to go by, this tower will sell every floor they have and the developers will wish they had more floors to sell.

JMKeynes · #**1739** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC123

The developers will not make this tower any smaller than they are legally required to. If 1 Vandy is anything to go by, this tower will sell every floor they have and the developers will wish they had more floors to sell.

Marc Holliday of SLG said PRECISELY that in a recent FT interview about the success of NY's new trophy towers.

DCReid · #**1740** Posted **Dec 17, 2021, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Marc Holliday of SLG said PRECISELY that in a recent FT interview about the success of NY's new trophy towers.

I bet 1 Vandy's developer wish they did not lop off the 100 feet!